Buddhism / Christianity ; are they compatible ?

[Mike]

Whether one approaches Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy
is a personal choice. (perhaps unless one in born /raised buddhist)
Some atheists and agnostics take Christianity as a philosophy ,
a set of guidelines and find value in its moral tenets.
There is nothing wrong with that to me.

What you choose to believe is, of course, your own decision. You can be cautioned to not mix other philosophies into your belief system, but you can't find support for this in scripture. All knowledge and Truth is in Christ. Seeking and accepting truth elsewhere is a compromise of His Truth that He placed in your heart.

Colossians 2
"2 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments."

Romans 11:36 "For from him and through him and to him are all things."

The Buddhist beliefs that everything is an illusion, there is no god, and being one with the universe is the ultimate goal, are in conflict with scripture over and over. Believers need to take this seriously.

I am not affraid of being deceived by entertaining concepts and ideas that are not my own per se.

In Christ we needn't be "afraid", but we also need to be cautious so that we aren't deceived. We need to use our God-Given discernment of Truth to be aware when false beliefs are creeping into our faith.

Matthew 10:16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

I'm not sure you are on guard. Is there one Truth? Is it in Christ? Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I am not affraid of being deceived by entertaining concepts and ideas that are not my own per se.

As a Christian I find this comment worrying and I think Mike has addressed it. Why not entertain satanism, Islam, hinduism etc (The list is LONG).............. I feel we must understand other religions only so we can be aware where satan can decieve.

To argue a point where you are clear that you see no wrong in the beliefs of a Buddhist makes no sense to me. I suggest you read a book by Michael Graham called a"The experience of the Ultimate truth" and another called "Death of a Guru" by Rabindranath Maharaj.
These authors have involved in eastern religions as gurus and staunch believers and might open your eyes to the dangers of "entertaining" these beliefs. I hope you take the chance to read them.

 

[mcgyver]

I've got to speak in generalities here, as I don't know what "flavor" of Buddhism we're talking about...

However whether it be Nichiren, Zen, Tibetan, Tantric, or any of the others; any similarity or apparent compatibility with Christianity is superficial at best. As a philosophy the common core teachings of Buddhism are in fact irreconcilable with the Christian faith IMO.

What follows is a partial list of core teachings common to Buddhism. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I think it will illustrate the incompatibility between Buddhism and Christianity:

Buddhism:

1. Seeks a release from suffering
2. "Unreal" world. All around us is only temporarily "real" to us, but is in fact illusion.
3. No God or Savior exists
4. Apologetic centered in subjective experience
5. Morality is self-derived
6. Devalues Man (man is a bundle of flux, the body is evil, the mind is deceptive)
7. Impersonal ultimate reality
8. Enlightened by works.
9. The Afterlife constitutes an impersonal, uncertain Nirvana
10. Spiritual truth is discovered by disciplined effort

So how do these 10 items line up with the teachings of Christianity? A point-by point comparison follows:

Christianity:

1. Seeks knowledge of God and His glory
2. Real world
3. One God and Savior exists
4. Apologetic centered in objective history
5. Morality based on the infinite Holiness and character of God
6. Dignifies man (man is created in God's image, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, the believer's mind can glorify God)
7. Personal ultimate reality
8. Salvation by Grace
9. The afterlife is clearly delineated and involves personal immortality
10. Spiritual truth is revealed by God.

My question would be: Why would any Christian who (as it is written):

3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (1 Peter 1:3-4)

Ever seek to try and mix Christianity with any other philosophy?

Someone earlier asserted that Buddhism was evil, and the response was "why?"

I submit that any religion, philosophy, cultural more, or any other thing that draws people away from the true and living God and Jesus Christ is by definition evil. Buddhism does exactly that and offers to exchange the truth for a lie.

A final thought.

If I were to take a tablespoon of cyanide and mix it with a gallon of water, who in their right mind would drink it?

So then why would we attempt to justify blending a non-Christian philosophy with the living water that flows from Jesus Christ?

 

[SpagLard]

to try and mix Christianity with any other philosophy?

I am not mixing the two,
nor placing my religion on the level with what i view to be a philosophy.
i'm perfectly capable of telling which is which.

Someone earlier asserted that Buddhism was evil, and the response was "why?"

I submit that any religion, philosophy, cultural more, or any other thing that draws people away from the true and living God and Jesus Christ is by definition evil. Buddhism does exactly that and offers to exchange the truth for a lie.

I submit that that is a ridiculous position to take.. let me explain :
I won't be "drawn away from Christ" by reading up on all sorts of alternative
"truths" .

Only a very black-white thinking person would label everything that differs
from their (very personal idea of) Christianity as "evil "

Do you also call every woman that is not your wife evil ?
(they might be capable of seducing you "away from your wife " ? )

Do you call every idea that does not coincide with your own chosen variant of "truth" EVIL ?

...to me that just shows a scared little person who is not stable in his/her Faith.

A final thought.

If I were to take a tablespoon of cyanide and mix it with a gallon of water, who in their right mind would drink it?

right. and being so affraid of cyanide poisoning , ..
the man never tried the lovely flavour of water with some added lemon and lime ?

So then why would we attempt to justify blending a non-Christian philosophy with the living water that flows from Jesus Christ?

Hey , if "blending" scares everyone here so much...
do everyone and yourself a favour and stay far far away from anything that may challenge your stubborn idea of penultimate truth.
I personally enjoy being challenged , yes in Faith also , i have nothing to fear.

 

[Free]

I am not mixing the two,
nor placing my religion on the level with what i view to be a philosophy.
i'm perfectly capable of telling which is which.

I think his point is that you cannot hold both to be true, certainly not the core beliefs. There might be a few points of convergence about certain truths but they just are not compatible as worldviews.

I submit that that is a ridiculous position to take.. let me explain :
I won't be "drawn away from Christ" by reading up on all sorts of alternative
"truths" .

Reading up on, maybe not, but that does not seem to be what you were asking in your opening post.

Hey , if "blending" scares everyone here so much...
do everyone and yourself a favour and stay far far away from anything that may challenge your stubborn idea of penultimate truth.
I personally enjoy being challenged , yes in Faith also , i have nothing to fear.

It is one thing to read about another worldview, it is another to accept it and blend it with Christian belief and practice. Buddhism and Christianity are fundamentally different and there is no room for syncretism. There is simply no way one could ever be a "Christian Buddhist," for example.

 

[SpagLard]

I think his point is that you cannot hold both to be true, certainly not the core beliefs. There might be a few points of convergence about certain truths but they just are not compatible as worldviews.

One can not hold both as the one ultimate "truth", agreed.
but then again , one does not have to. at least , not according to buddha.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Jesus on the other hand says ;

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

John 4:24

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

What does Jesus mean by "I AM the truth"
does he refer to himself as a person in the flesh or the body of his teachings ?

Personally, I treat "truth" as something holy, Godly,
Something that needs to be tested and searched out , lived by and upheld.

To me that is compatible with buddha's cautioning "to seek truth",
and take nothing as truth (believe nothing) that goed against one's reason.
(Christ's teachings agree with my reason)

Reading up on, maybe not, but that does not seem to be what you were asking in your opening post.

I'm asking if people can spot any COMPATIBILLITY between the two,
reading up on both is a logical prerequisite to be able to do so.

There is simply no way one could ever be a "Christian Buddhist," for example.

Buddhism is a teaching/faith in the practice of here and now.
Christianity is a practice for the afterlife. (to most Christians / not to me)

For some quite essential compatibillities :

1. 
   [*]Be humble
   [*]Be compassionate (a possible translation of sympathy through mourning)
   [*]Live simply (a possible translation of meek)
   [*]Be ethical (a possible translation of righteous)
   [*]Be merciful
   [*]Be pure of heart
   [*]Be a peacemaker
   [*]Do not live in fear to do what is right
   [*]Be an example to others (“the light of the worldâ€)
   [*]Do not murder (the Buddhist First Precept)
   [*]Do not commit adultery (The Buddhist Third Precept)
   [*]Sin is not only found in action but in intention (the Buddhist concept of volitional action creating karma)
   [*]Keep your promises (The Buddhist Fourth Precept)
   [*]Turn the other cheek (The Buddhist concept of compassion or karuna)
   [*]Do charity because it is in your heart to do so (the concept of dana)
   [*]Do not judge ( The Buddhist concept of the three poisons: hatred, greed and delusion)
   [*]Always be seeking and questioning ( “seek and you will find .. “)
   [*]Beware of false prophets and judge them by the fruit they bare (the sutta of the Kalamas)​

 

[Gordon]

Do you not see the danger in relying in your own reason rather than accepting Christianity as ultimate truth on faith? Visit a board of Spiritual seekers, every one believes something different and most have abandoned Jesus. After all why would God make people gay then "hate them" for it? Why would God endorse slavery? All kinds of stuff. Though the weird thing is most of them will quote the Bible as half truths and Jesus is still popular there. One guy told me he developed non dualistic vision from meditation. If you had gotten farther in meditation perhaps your reason might have led you to different conclusions. I mean if we can shed all these layers of our egos shouldn't Jesus have talked about it?

Jesus also says we should hate everyone else by comparison. I don't think elevating the words of a man as though they are near as valid as Jesus is a good idea. Faith is different than using your reason to come to a conclusion. When Peter sank into the ocean I don't think it was because he couldn't reason Jesus had the power to keep him above the water.

 

[SpagLard]

Do you not see the danger in relying in your own reason rather than accepting Christianity as ultimate truth on faith?

No , of course i don't.
My abillity to reason and free will is what brought me to Christ in the first place.

Visit a board of Spiritual seekers, every one believes something different and most have abandoned Jesus.

That is what God gave us free will for, to choose for ourselves...

After all why would God make people gay then "hate them" for it?
Why would God endorse slavery? All kinds of stuff.

Are you asking me or are you voicing questions which you can't answer for yourself ?

Though the weird thing is most of them will quote the Bible as half truths and Jesus is still popular there.

I don't find that "weird" at all.

One guy told me he developed non dualistic vision from meditation.
If you had gotten farther in meditation perhaps your reason might have led you to different conclusions. I mean if we can shed all these layers of our egos shouldn't Jesus have talked about it?

Jesus did speak about it , but he was more of an example-setter still.
(becoming a spiritual person instead of a "worldly person" )
but not in the same terms as buddha did.
here is some examples :
Christ's sacrifice (= abandoning or sacrificing flesh / ego / worldly existence )
the -selflessness- that Paul teaches

2 Peter 1:5-7 ESV /
<H3>For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.

you say faith is all one needs.? while i agree with Peter (and thus Christ )

Jesus also says we should hate everyone else by comparison. I don't think elevating the words of a man as though they are near as valid as Jesus is a good idea.

You don't think it is a "good" idea ?
well... that tells me you used your reason and common sense, not your faith.
i don't elevate the words of buddha, i question them like i do with everything.

Faith is different than using your reason to come to a conclusion.

agreed.

 

[Gordon]

I'd just say be careful. If you don't see Christianity as ultimate truth you're still open to a different truth that your reason may agree with more. I don't think those with less ability to reason are at a spiritual disadvantage at all. I told you some of the things the spiritual seekers said to me as examples. You seem very smart. There are smarter people who aren't Christians because it doesn't agree with their reason. If you had a conversation with these people and could not refute their logic would you adopt their position? Jesus says more blessed are those who haven't seen him and believed. If you haven't seen him you're basing your decision less on reason and more on faith.

 

[SpagLard]

I'd just say be careful.

I usually am. thanks. ;)

If you don't see Christianity as ultimate truth you're still open to a different truth that your reason may agree with more.

Yes , that option was left open to us all by God.
I have to say though that "reason" to me is not a mere matter of the mind,
it is very much also guided by the heart.

I don't think those with less ability to reason are at a spiritual disadvantage at all.

me neither, but i do think they question "reality" a lot less in general.

I told you some of the things the spiritual seekers said to me as examples. You seem very smart. There are smarter people who aren't Christians because it doesn't agree with their reason.

Yes, and those people too were given the means to reason by God.
I personally believe that "being a Christian" should agree with ones own reasoning, so i can't hold those people to fault. God may, but i don't judge them.

If you had a conversation with these people and could not refute their logic would you adopt their position?

I have not yet found any logic/reasoning i could not contrast/complement with my own,.. i feel no need to adopt the reasoning of someone else, i listen to my own. I'll just agree to disagree. or agree in part. or agree.

Jesus says more blessed are those who haven't seen him and believed. If you haven't seen him you're basing your decision less on reason and more on faith.

Jesus makes himself known to us, but not everyone has eyes to see/witness.
I think what Jesus says is ; "those who do right by God instinctivly , but know not of God from/through me : are those "more blessed" than those who need be reminded and confronted by me. "

 

[Free]

One can not hold both as the one ultimate "truth", agreed.
but then again , one does not have to. at least , not according to buddha.

It matters not whether one considers one thing "ultimate" truth and another a "lesser" truth. Truth is truth and a claim to truth is the same as any other claim to truth--it is either true or it is not. There are no degrees of truth.

Jesus on the other hand says ;



What does Jesus mean by "I AM the truth"
does he refer to himself as a person in the flesh or the body of his teachings ?

Personally, I treat "truth" as something holy, Godly,
Something that needs to be tested and searched out , lived by and upheld.

To me that is compatible with buddha's cautioning "to seek truth",
and take nothing as truth (believe nothing) that goed against one's reason.
(Christ's teachings agree with my reason)

This is a dangerous thought because truth very much can, and often does, go against one's reason. This is very much the justification used by atheists and by Muslims who reject a crucified and risen Christ. That is not to say we can't use reason but we must be very careful in how we use it and how much importance we place on it.

Nothing should be taken as truth that clearly goes against what Scripture states and this is the problem we ultimately run into with Buddhism.

I'm asking if people can spot any COMPATIBILLITY between the two,
reading up on both is a logical prerequisite to be able to do so.

I am aware of that. My point is that it is possible to be drawn away from Christ through reading but even more so by believing and accepting certain beliefs that are not compatible with Christianity.

Perhaps you should have used "similarities" as that is a mere comparison between the two worldviews but "compatibility" implies an acceptance and practice of both.

Buddhism is a teaching/faith in the practice of here and now.
Christianity is a practice for the afterlife. (to most Christians / not to me)

For some quite essential compatibillities :

1. Be humble
2. Be compassionate (a possible translation of sympathy through mourning)
3. Live simply (a possible translation of meek)
4. Be ethical (a possible translation of righteous)
5. Be merciful
6. Be pure of heart
7. Be a peacemaker
8. Do not live in fear to do what is right
9. Be an example to others (“the light of the worldâ€)
10. Do not murder (the Buddhist First Precept)
11. Do not commit adultery (The Buddhist Third Precept)
12. Sin is not only found in action but in intention (the Buddhist concept of volitional action creating karma)
13. Keep your promises (The Buddhist Fourth Precept)
14. Turn the other cheek (The Buddhist concept of compassion or karuna)
15. Do charity because it is in your heart to do so (the concept of dana)
16. Do not judge ( The Buddhist concept of the three poisons: hatred, greed and delusion)
17. Always be seeking and questioning ( “seek and you will find .. “)
18. Beware of false prophets and judge them by the fruit they bare (the sutta of the Kalamas)

Those are superficial similarities, although I do not think that all are as similar as they appear. When one gets to the core of Buddhism and Christianity, the differences are irreconcilable and there is no ultimate compatibility. If there is no ultimate compatibility then there is nothing in Buddhism for the Christian, especially in light of the similarities you have given. That is to say that since some of the teachings in Buddhism can also be found in Christianity, there is no reason to believe in both, and indeed, ultimately one cannot believe in both.

 

[SpagLard]

It matters not whether one considers one thing "ultimate" truth and another a "lesser" truth. Truth is truth and a claim to truth is the same as any other claim to truth--it is either true or it is not. There are no degrees of truth..

Truth is completely subjective.
There exists no "truth" unless it is truth to someone.
which means TRUTH (reality for that matter) is relative to its observer.
That is why some people accept God as self evident and others couldn't be convinced for the life of them.

This is a dangerous thought because truth very much can, and often does, go against one's reason. This is very much the justification used by atheists and by Muslims who reject a crucified and risen Christ. That is not to say we can't use reason but we must be very careful in how we use it and how much importance we place on it.

Faith (blind trust) is much more dangerous. for it requires NO critical discernment,
all it requires is somenone to become convinced of assumed untested correctness.

Nothing should be taken as truth that clearly goes against what Scripture states and this is the problem we ultimately run into with Buddhism.

Is it your problem ? please don't make it mine.
I'm capable of comparing two proclaimed truths while sticking with the one i hold.

I am aware of that. My point is that it is possible to be drawn away from Christ through reading but even more so by believing and accepting certain beliefs that are not compatible with Christianity.

And how do you respond to that assertion of yours ?
by cautioning people and telling them to shy away from finding out what they view to be compatible or not ?

Perhaps you should have used "similarities" as that is a mere comparison between the two worldviews but "compatibility" implies an acceptance and practice of both.

perhaps,. i'll give my opinion as i see fit, using words i find applicable.
I am inquiring about people's views on compatibility,
i'm already quite sure for myself that similarities exist.

Those are superficial similarities, although I do not think that all are as similar as they appear. When one gets to the core of Buddhism and Christianity, the differences are irreconcilable and there is no ultimate compatibility.

thanks for your opinion.
I don't see how you can call those "superficial" similarities,
if not for your fear of something else than Christianity holding some truth.

If there is no ultimate compatibility then there is nothing in Buddhism for the Christian, especially in light of the similarities you have given. That is to say that since some of the teachings in Buddhism can also be found in Christianity, there is no reason to believe in both, and indeed, ultimately one cannot believe in both

If they are the same moral precepts in essence,
by believing in one, you also believe the other.
but that is besides the point, for buddhism is not for "believers"
buddha does not say "follow me"
instead he would ask of everyone to doubt and think critically about everything.
I oft get the feeling that most my fellow Christians become affraid at that very thought.

 

[seekandlisten]

.
Nothing should be taken as truth that clearly goes against what Scripture states and this is the problem we ultimately run into with Buddhism.

This thread intrigued me a bit and I've been reading through it and wondering what drives people's points of view on this. Sorry for picking your quote free, I'm not singling you out as this idea has come up a few times in this thread. The whole assertion that buddhism goes against what Jesus taught, where does this come from? The assertion is made numerous times, yet not one instance of how they contradict each other?

Clearly there are contradictions on certain aspects of each religion depending on what branch of Christianity or Buddhism you are looking at, but in my studies I found little difference in Jesus and Buddha's teachings. One also has to remember that Buddha was 500 years before Jesus so his failure to mention him is irrelevant. A 'Holy One' that was to come was spoke of in Buddhist scriptures on the other hand. Many buddhists consider Jesus that most enlightened man that ever walked the earth.

I do realize that while I personally came to the position of being an atheist in regards to the question of gods in my studies, I still find the teachings of Jesus and Buddha beneficial. Buddha's teaching that 'no one can save you but yourself, you alone must walk the path' is still one of my favorites. I personally have always found it a little presumptuous to take the "Jesus is the way" to mean Christianity is the way as Jesus clearly lived and died a Jew so how does this teaching relate to a religion?

What I would like to see from those that think the teachings of Buddha should not even be looked at, is why? What teaching of his, and I'm not talking those that came after him, contradicts Jesus' message?

Spaglard, if you are interested I can pm you a site that has a lot of information on Buddhism and Christianity and the compatibility of different religions. I won't post it here as that may be a violation of the site rules, I'm not sure. I also read a book by Stephen Batchelor, a monk who had questions on the supernatural aspect of buddhism, who came to a understanding of the teachings of buddhism as simply a philosophy without the belief of reincarnation and such called Confessions of and Atheist Buddhist. It's a pretty good book although you may have an issue with the atheist aspect of it.

Another point for consideration, early christians believed in reincarnation until the 5th century when it was made punishable by death by the Church. Look at John 9:1, Matt. 11:13-14, Matt. 17:10-13, and Malachi 4:5 for instance.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

Cheers

 

[Free]

Truth is completely subjective.

If that is the case then so is your statement and it self-destructs, as does the rest of your post and this conversation is meaningless.

There exists no "truth" unless it is truth to someone.
which means TRUTH (reality for that matter) is relative to its observer.
That is why some people accept God as self evident and others couldn't be convinced for the life of them.

Truth is objective. 2+2=4 no matter who believes it. There are truths which are in fact self-evident.

Faith (blind trust) is much more dangerous. for it requires NO critical discernment,
all it requires is somenone to become convinced of assumed untested correctness.

Faith is not "blind trust." Faith is very much based on evidence and reason, not the absence of them. Blind trust would be dangerous.

Nothing should be taken as truth that clearly goes against what Scripture states and this is the problem we ultimately run into with Buddhism.

Is it your problem ? please don't make it mine.
I'm capable of comparing two proclaimed truths while sticking with the one i hold.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you are "capable of comparing two proclaimed truths while sticking with the one [you] hold." If a truth claim clearly goes against Scripture, then it is wrong for any Christian to believe.

I am aware of that. My point is that it is possible to be drawn away from Christ through reading but even more so by believing and accepting certain beliefs that are not compatible with Christianity.

And how do you respond to that assertion of yours ?
by cautioning people and telling them to shy away from finding out what they view to be compatible or not ?

It depends on just what belief is being looked into and what the spiritual maturity of the person is going the looking. There should always be caution but I never said anything about shying away.

perhaps,. i'll give my opinion as i see fit, using words i find applicable.
I am inquiring about people's views on compatibility,
i'm already quite sure for myself that similarities exist.

Similarities do not necessarily equate into compatibility, especially in this case.

thanks for your opinion.
I don't see how you can call those "superficial" similarities,
if not for your fear of something else than Christianity holding some truth.

All these moral similarities do is point to the idea that morality is objective. That there is some agreement with Christianity is irrelevant. This does not make the system of Buddhism true as a whole. Morality is just one component of a worldview.

They are superficial because they are surface similarities. When you actually look at the core beliefs of both worldviews, they are incompatible.

If there is no ultimate compatibility then there is nothing in Buddhism for the Christian, especially in light of the similarities you have given. That is to say that since some of the teachings in Buddhism can also be found in Christianity, there is no reason to believe in both, and indeed, ultimately one cannot believe in both

If they are the same moral precepts in essence,
by believing in one, you also believe the other.
but that is besides the point, for buddhism is not for "believers"
buddha does not say "follow me"
instead he would ask of everyone to doubt and think critically about everything.
I oft get the feeling that most my fellow Christians become affraid at that very thought.

I do not think you are following what any of us are saying. Of course if there are certain truths and moral precepts that are common to both, you believe in one if you believe in the other. But that is agreement on those points alone and in no way whatsoever means that there is therefore compatibility between the two as a whole.

You simply cannot pick and choose what to believe between the two systems. They must be evaluated as a whole.

And this is thinking critically. Just because we disagree does not mean there is no critical thinking on my part.

 

[seekandlisten]

FYI on the basic core beliefs of Buddhism.

The Four Noble Truths:

-suffering exists
-there is a cause for suffering
-there is an end to suffering
-in order to end suffering, one must follow the eightfold path

The Eightfold Path

Panna - discernment, wisdom

1. Right understanding of the four noble truths
2. Right thinking, following the right path in life

Sila - virtue, morality

3. Right speech: no lying, criticism, condemning, gossip, harsh language
4. Right conduct following the Five Precepts
5. Right livelihood: support yourself without harming others

Samadhi - concentration, meditiation

6. Right effort: promote good thoughts; conquer evil thoughts
7. Right mindfulness: become aware of your body, mind and feelings
8. Right concentration: meditate to achieve a higher state of consciousness

The Five Precepts

1. Do not kill.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not lie.
4. Do not misuse sex.
5. Do not consume alcohol or other drugs

 

[Mike]

Seekandlisten, why am I not surprised to see you re-emerge on CFnet to weigh in on this topic? It's been about a year since you posted here. Did you find the thread on a search? You were always so uncomfortable with the Christian response to other world religions. I hope you're doing well.

You were always respectful and cordial in your misgivings with our position on Christianity's exclusivity to the Truth.

The whole assertion that buddhism goes against what Jesus taught, where does this come from? The assertion is made numerous times, yet not one instance of how they contradict each other?

Jesus said He was the Way, Truth & Life for one thing. I can find a few contradictions right there with Buddhism. Can't you? How can that be true if everything is an illusion?

I'm not as surprised to see non-Christians claim there is no absolute Truth, but I am taken aback when I see professed Christians make this statement.

Truth is completely subjective.
There exists no "truth" unless it is truth to someone.

This will make both of you cringe when I say this, but I don't believe a Christian can possibly hold this position. Are you implying that what Jesus said isn't true if we don't believe it. You said truth is completely subjective. Was anything that Jesus said true if we don't believe it? Is evolution true if we believe it or not true if we don't believe it?

How did Jesus respond when Pilate questioned Him about Truth? Did He whatever Pilate believed was true was in fact true?

SpagLard, you say you're not being influenced by this interest in Buddhism, but this statement alone tells me you are. Or you never believed in absolute Truth, in which case I would loop right back to my previous paragraph. No one is going to convince you that you are wrong about the compatibility of Christianity and Buddhism if your pride continues to stand in the way of an honest discussion. It is with humility that one yields to Truth when it goes against his/her beliefs.

 

[Free]

This thread intrigued me a bit and I've been reading through it and wondering what drives people's points of view on this. Sorry for picking your quote free, I'm not singling you out as this idea has come up a few times in this thread. The whole assertion that buddhism goes against what Jesus taught, where does this come from? The assertion is made numerous times, yet not one instance of how they contradict each other?

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44349&p=678599&viewfull=1#post678599

 

[SpagLard]

If that is the case then so is your statement and it self-destructs, as does the rest of your post and this conversation is meaningless.

now now, that's a bit drastic,..
nothing becomes meaningless suddenly because truth is subjective to it's observer.

"Truth" means "in accord with facts /reality "
since discerning "truth" always requires human observers :it's SUBJECTIVE
(to the human observers)

Truth is objective. 2+2=4 no matter who believes it. There are truths which are in fact self-evident.

No , for even those truths are only self-evident to an observer
Without someone there to call it "truth" , it isn't.

2+2=4 is a mathematical arbitrary construct. It is only "a Truth" because we
(the observers) both go by the same designated numerical values
that is required for us to agree on the
"truth" of that formula.
the formula is "true" only because of us agreeing. IT'S NO TRUTH IN ITSELF.
the statement 2+2=4 IS NOT OBJECTIVE "TRUTH" .

Faith is not "blind trust." Faith is very much based on evidence and reason, not the absence of them. Blind trust would be dangerous.

Faith can be built upon evidence and reason,
but Faith itself does not require either.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you are "capable of comparing two proclaimed truths while sticking with the one [you] hold." If a truth claim clearly goes against Scripture, then it is wrong for any Christian to believe.

Now where did i say i "believe" a truth claim that contradicts scripture ?

I think the idea of truth being objective and self-evident cripples the mind,
it has one assume that there is "truth" out there without taking into
account that any truth one may derive at, is truth only because you (the observer) decides it is for yourself.

It depends on just what belief is being looked into and what the spiritual maturity of the person is going the looking. There should always be caution but I never said anything about shying away.

I'm sorry , that remark was not so much directed at you personally,..
a few people in this thread cautioned me to "not be misled"
"be careful" "BE ON GUARD " etc.
I don't understand where their fear comes from .

Similarities do not necessarily equate into compatibility, especially in this case.

I'm not at all out to merge the two into one ,
i can see the differences just as i can see the similarities.
The idea behind starting this thread is getting people to think about
compatible core beliefs shared by buddhism and Christianity.

That there is some agreement with Christianity is irrelevant. This does not make the system of Buddhism true as a whole. Morality is just one component of a worldview.

Nothing is "true as a whole "
unless you decide for yourself that that is what you maKe it out to be.

They are superficial because they are surface similarities. When you actually look at the core beliefs of both worldviews, they are incompatible.

well, since that is the topic of the thread,
i'm happy to hear from you about what you perceive as incompatible.

I do not think you are following what any of us are saying. Of course if there are certain truths and moral precepts that are common to both, you believe in one if you believe in the other. But that is agreement on those points alone and in no way whatsoever means that there is therefore compatibility between the two as a whole.

What do you think, that i'm here to advocate that both are fully integratable ?
I'm looking for points of agreement and disagreement,..
knowing that there are plenty of both, why do you keep addressing
me as if i'm out to prove compatibility entire?

You simply cannot pick and choose what to believe between the two systems. They must be evaluated as a whole.
And this is thinking critically. Just because we disagree does not mean there is no critical thinking on my part.

Everyone picks and chooses (has a personal interpretation FOR EVERYTHING.)

I am a Christian , but i interpret many Biblical "truth" very different from
many other Christians. not one of us has the sole correct -Truth-
we al have a different truth : truth is relative to its observer.

The question is not "which system is best" ?
Or "which system is mutually dismissive of all other systems" ?

We can evaluate both systems on a whole,
in order to be able to better compare them to oneanother.. and i do,
but i do not need to label mine (Christianity) "more valuable" or "more true"
just because it is the one i prefer.
I do not stop seeing compatibility when i encounter differences between the two..
i expected to find differences and am not out to make an amalgamous
new religion out of both, so i don't view them to be fully compatible whatsoever .

cheers~

 

[Atothetheist]

In theory, yes, In practice, no.

The reason why it could work in theory, is because you can shange either tennets of buddhism to fit christianity, or vice versa.

In practice, no because Christianity claims a monopoly on spirtuality, and truth.

Because their is the monopoly factor, one will take precedence over the other, and one will not be a honest buddhist, nor will you be a honest christian practising buddhist philoshopy.

Just my opinion.

 

[Free]

In theory, yes, In practice, no.

The reason why it could work in theory, is because you can shange either tennets of buddhism to fit christianity, or vice versa.

In practice, no because Christianity claims a monopoly on spirtuality, and truth.

Because their is the monopoly factor, one will take precedence over the other, and one will not be a honest buddhist, nor will you be a honest christian practising buddhist philoshopy.

Just my opinion.

It cannot work even in theory. To think so means one hasn't thoroughly studied both religions. And every religion and worldview is exclusive at some point. That is not something unique to Christianity.