Buddha vs. Jesus

[seer]

In considering the differences between Christianity and Buddhism from the Baha'i perspective, one must first consider the nature of the differences between all the religions of the world through history. There are certain questions and assumptions one needs to consider, and first i will give a general over view of the the Baha'i view of progressive revelation and what it means to believe in the unity and oneness of the spiritual heritage of the religions and cultures of the world.

Baha'is believe in the universality of Revelation from God to humanity in a spiritual personal relationship. The belief is that the spiritual nature of humanity evolves and is progressive over time as the physical nature evolves along with all life. The individual religions we experience today represent the fallible human view of Revelation from God and the nature of God influenced by the culture, and not absolute true doctrines and dogma concerning the nature of God, which the Baha'is believe is unknowable.

This makes no sense. If God is truly unknowable then there is no such thing as revelation - progressive or not.

As i will present in later posts, the differences between Jewish and Christian beliefs are as great as those between Christian and Buddhist beliefs,

So what Shuny? That was not the point of this thread - your claim that Christianity and Buddhism were compatible. Deal with your claim.

[Adrift]

So what Shuny? That was not the point of this thread - your claim that Christianity and Buddhism were compatible. Deal with your claim.

He can't. That's why he's writing all this gobbledygook to save face. Its just really really bad misdirection. I mean... he does this sort of thing all of the time, so its not really a big surprise or anything.

[shunyadragon]

He can't. That's why he's writing all this gobbledygook to save face. Its just really really bad misdirection. I mean... he does this sort of thing all of the time, so its not really a big surprise or anything.

Airballs, no intelligible response received. Did not respond to the questions.

Why the great divergence of belief between Christianity and Judaism?

Please answer the questions provided.

[shunyadragon]

This makes no sense. If God is truly unknowable then there is no such thing as revelation - progressive or not.

Assertions here strictly from a Christian perspective. Is revelation in OT personal? Why is there such a great divergence between Jewish and Christian beliefs?

A personal relationship does not necessarily translate into accurate absolute truths in the communication. Jews actually do agree with the Baha'i view based on their understanding of the scripture that God is unknowable in any absolute way in the manner Christians claim. Communication with God still takes place through revelation in Judaism.

So what Shuny? That was not the point of this thread - your claim that Christianity and Buddhism were compatible. Deal with your claim.

Airball. No response so far to my first post concerning this issue.

[seer]

Assertions here strictly from a Christian perspective. Is revelation in OT personal? Why is there such a great divergence between Jewish and Christian beliefs?

A personal relationship does not necessarily translate into accurate absolute truths in the communication. Jews actually do agree with the Baha'i view based on their understanding of the scripture that God is unknowable in any absolute way in the manner Christians claim. Communication with God still takes place through revelation in Judaism.

This is just nonsense Shuny. Have you ever read the OT? They have a well defined picture of God. He is righteous, merciful, almighty, personal, all knowing, moral, etc... - He hates sin and loves obedience.

Airball. No response so far to my first post concerning this issue.

What planet do you live on! Back up your claim that Christianity and Buddhism are compatible.

[pancreasman]

In considering the differences between Christianity and Buddhism from the Baha'i perspective, one must first consider the nature of the differences between all the religions of the world through history. There are certain questions and assumptions one needs to consider, and first i will give a general over view of the the Baha'i view of progressive revelation and what it means to believe in the unity and oneness of the spiritual heritage of the religions and cultures of the world.

Baha'is believe in the universality of Revelation from God to humanity in a spiritual personal relationship. The belief is that the spiritual nature of humanity evolves and is progressive over time as the physical nature evolves along with all life. The individual religions we experience today represent the fallible human view of Revelation from God and the nature of God influenced by the culture, and not absolute true doctrines and dogma concerning the nature of God, which the Baha'is believe is unknowable.

The problem with considering one religion, church, belief or sect as the 'truth' as many do is that in history there are so many claims of religions, doctrines, dogma, churches and other belief systems that all in some way claim to be the absolute truth in one way or another. From the less biased perspective there are a number of legitimate questions concerning the nature of the claims, Revelation, and which could one possibly judge as the only truth. The following are just some of the questions.

If God has a personal relationship with humanity from the Christian perspective, why has not this message been given to all people through history?

related question . . .

If one believes in a 'Source' some call God(s) is Revelation universal or selective about the personal relationship with humanity giving one group the truth and leaving the rest in the dark concerning the most important issue, ones salvation either collectively or individually?

From the perspective of each individual ancient religion, church, sect, and belief, this relationship is rather selective, and the Calvinists are spot on down to the selectivity of individual persons chosen to be told the truth,

The atheists and agnostics are well justified in their objections concerning the great variety of the claims truth, doctrines, dogma, and belief, that in reality it is more likely that they are all wrong, than the possibility that one out of tens of thousands is absolutely right as each claims to be the one truth, noting differences as part of the justification for their claims that one belief must be right, thus their belief is the only truth.

The first problem I want to present is the problem of differences in religions before considering the problems between Christianity and Buddhism, the differences between Christianity and Judaism taking into consideration that both have the same scripture that forms the foundation the Old Testament or as the Jews call it the Torah. This not from the perspective of what Christianity asserts that Jews should believe because of what they say the proper interpretation is and visa versa, but what the religions actually believe, which would be a comperable problem when comparing any two religions as they believe today. I am comparing the predominant beliefs and not minority views.

Nature of God - Christianity Triune God with a God that is both human and Divine as the incarnate Word of God. Judaism - Absolute Monotheism. Belief in an incarnate God that is both human and Divine would be heresy in Jewish beliefs.

Salvation - Christians obtain individual salvation from original sin through repentance of sin and receiving Jesus Christ as their God and Savior through faith, rituals and sacraments, that express their New Covenant with God.

Judaism - Absolutely no concept of Original Sin or the Fall. Salvation is through observing tradition, rituals, observances, obedience to the laws and good conduct by Jewish moral and ethical standards.

As i will present in later posts, the differences between Jewish and Christian beliefs are as great as those between Christian and Buddhist beliefs,

So now, we're examining the differences between religions. This is the beginning of your tortured response to justifying the statement you made SO long ago.

Interesting, I have been a student of Buddhism for more than 40 years. and a Baha'i. I really do not consider Buddha vs. Jesus to reflect my view, because I do not consider it a conflict. I consider the universality of spirituality to be more the issue where the differences between religions reflect the culture and the fallible human view, and the time in which the religion began.

Let's look at your questions:

If God has a personal relationship with humanity from the Christian perspective, why has not this message been given to all people through history?

I don't share the Christian perspective so I am not obliged to find an answer to this question. If I WAS a Christian, I might say that this message has been given to all people through history but that it might not be understood in explicitly Christian terms. Or I might say that Christianity has a view of history being an unfolding of God's revelation through time until it found its most definitive form in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

If one believes in a 'Source' some call God(s) is Revelation universal or selective about the personal relationship with humanity giving one group the truth and leaving the rest in the dark concerning the most important issue, ones salvation either collectively or individually?

This question presupposes three things. The first is that there is a God or vague nondescript 'Source'. The second is that it might be considered a person in some way. The third is that this person is interested in human affairs either collectively or individually. I personally don't share any of those presuppositions. Therefore, once again, I have no need to answer the question.

I'm interested in this view:

Baha'is believe in the universality of Revelation from God to humanity in a spiritual personal relationship.

We're back to our essential issue: Is it meaningful to talk about a 'universality of revelation'', when there is no universal content to that revelation? If the phrase boils down to 'all religions are an expression of God trying to say something but they've all got it wrong so we have no idea what God's trying to say, but we're pretty sure He is trying to tell us something', then it's a phrase without content. I'd also like to know what you mean by 'spiritual' and 'spirituality'.

I personally think that religions and their differences and commonalities can be explained by quite natural sociological and cultural forces. You're talking about the differences between Judaism and Christianity. ( I have no idea why since we were talking about the commonalities between Buddhism and Christianity). I see a common thread running through a number of religions. Founder 1 founds a religion. Founder 1 gains followers. Religion 1 becomes embedded in culture. Like all cultural institutions, religion 1 gains layers of interpretations and extras, often as a result of individuals or groups seeking to gain power over other individuals or groups. Time goes by. Reformer 2 comes along with an appealing message which is a reaction to the perceived inertia and corruption of religion 1. Reformer 1 gains a following. Either religion 1 will be flexible and absorb the Reformer's ideas or Reformer 1 and his followers will start a 'new' religion. Rinse and repeat over time. Judaism gives rise to Christianity. Hinduism gives rise to Buddhism. Both Judaism and Christianity give rise to Islam. All successor faiths have enormous differences compared to their precursor faiths BECAUSE they are initially defined as a reaction to those precursor faiths. No divine revelation is necessary.

[shunyadragon]

So now, we're examining the differences between religions. This is the beginning of your tortured response to justifying the statement you made SO long ago.

Yes, that is the only way to understand the Baha'i view of the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity and the Baha'i beliefs. To understand my view of the nature of the relationship, differences, and similarities between religions like Christianity and Buddhism, you have to come at it from the perspective of the Baha'i view of the relationship between religions. If you do not have the patience for it, well that's your problem.



Let's look at your questions:

I don't share the Christian perspective so I am not obliged to find an answer to this question. If I WAS a Christian, I might say that this message has been given to all people through history but that it might not be understood in explicitly Christian terms.

You need not answer the question regardless of what you believe, but the answers you give do not address the immediacy and the absolute nature Christianity teaches as for the necessity of salvation. This message could be taught in one generation to all the known world of the time, but unfortunately their knowledge of the world was rather small and limited in time and space.

Or I might say that Christianity has a view of history being an unfolding of God's revelation through time until it found its most definitive form in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

you could say this too, and some Christians do, but this not answer the question why large percentages of the world are left in the dark, and revelation is selective in history and time, considering the immediacy and importance of the message of salvation that is believed by Christians. By and large Christians side step this and do not even give the answer you provided. Through time Biblically does not include anything more than the Middle East and a maybe six to ten thousand years.

This question presupposes three things. The first is that there is a God or vague nondescript 'Source'. The second is that it might be considered a person in some way. The third is that this person is interested in human affairs either collectively or individually. I personally don't share any of those presuppositions. Therefore, once again, I have no need to answer the question.

No, once again you need not answer the question, and no it does not assume that it must be a person in some way. In Taoism it is the undefinable Tao, In Vedic traditions it is the Brahman (not a person), In Islam and the Baha'i Faith it is not a person, In Buddhism the most primal eternal Adi-Buddha from which all Buddhas eminate may be considered a person, In Christianity and Judaism a God or God(s) may be considered persons.

I'm interested in this view:

We're back to our essential issue: Is it meaningful to talk about a 'universality of revelation'', when there is no universal content to that revelation? If the phrase boils down to 'all religions are an expression of God trying to say something but they've all got it wrong so we have no idea what God's trying to say, but we're pretty sure He is trying to tell us something', then it's a phrase without content. I'd also like to know what you mean by 'spiritual' and 'spirituality'.

Your jumping all over the place here, and making statements and assumptions that do not reflect anything i have said so far.

I personally think that religions and their differences and commonalities can be explained by quite natural sociological and cultural forces.

. . . and that is perfectly logical conclusion base don the evidence.

You're talking about the differences between Judaism and Christianity. ( I have no idea why since we were talking about the commonalities between Buddhism and Christianity).

We're talking about the Baha'i view, which as I said deals with the evolving progressive relationship between religions and the spiritual evolution of humanity. You cannot address just two religions in this context. you do not have to answer questions, but please respond to post more coherently and clearly as I stated in the previous post.

I see a common thread running through a number of religions. Founder 1 founds a religion. Founder 1 gains followers. Religion 1 becomes embedded in culture. Like all cultural institutions, religion 1 gains layers of interpretations and extras, often as a result of individuals or groups seeking to gain power over other individuals or groups. Time goes by. Reformer 2 comes along with an appealing message which is a reaction to the perceived inertia and corruption of religion 1. Reformer 1 gains a following. Either religion 1 will be flexible and absorb the Reformer's ideas or Reformer 1 and his followers will start a 'new' religion. Rinse and repeat over time. Judaism gives rise to Christianity. Hinduism gives rise to Buddhism. Both Judaism and Christianity give rise to Islam. All successor faiths have enormous differences compared to their precursor faiths BECAUSE they are initially defined as a reaction to those precursor faiths. No divine revelation is necessary.

. . . and again this is a perfectly logical conclusion based on the evidence you have. I do not consider the difference enormous, but of course those that want to frame their beliefs in their own sense of exclusiveness do see the differences as enormous,

[pancreasman]

Yes, that is the only way to understand the Baha'i view of the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity and the Baha'i beliefs. To understand my view of the nature of the relationship, differences, and similarities between religions like Christianity and Buddhism, you have to come at it from the perspective of the Baha'i view of the relationship between religions. If you do not have the patience for it, well that's your problem.



Let's look at your questions:



You need not answer the question regardless of what you believe, but the answers you give do not address the immediacy and the absolute nature Christianity teaches as for the necessity of salvation. This message could be taught in one generation to all the known world of the time, but unfortunately their knowledge of the world was rather small and limited in time and space.



you could say this too, and some Christians do, but this not answer the question why large percentages of the world are left in the dark, and revelation is selective in history and time, considering the immediacy and importance of the message of salvation that is believed by Christians. By and large Christians side step this and do not even give the answer you provided. Through time Biblically does not include anything more than the Middle East and a maybe six to ten thousand years.





No, once again you need not answer the question, and no it does not assume that it must be a person in some way. In Taoism it is the undefinable Tao, In Vedic traditions it is the Brahman (not a person), In Islam and the Baha'i Faith it is not a person, In Buddhism the most primal eternal Adi-Buddha from which all Buddhas eminate may be considered a person, In Christianity and Judaism a God or God(s) may be considered persons.

I'm interested in this view:





Your jumping all over the place here, and making statements and assumptions that do not reflect anything i have said so far.



. . . and that is perfectly logical conclusion base don the evidence.



We're talking about the Baha'i view, which as I said deals with the evolving progressive relationship between religions and the spiritual evolution of humanity. You cannot address just two religions in this context. you do not have to answer questions, but please respond to post more coherently and clearly as I stated in the previous post.




. . . and again this is a perfectly logical conclusion based on the evidence you have. I do not consider the difference enormous, but of course those that want to frame their beliefs in their own sense of exclusiveness do see the differences as enormous,

Ok. So earlier you said:

Baha'is believe in the universality of Revelation from God to humanity in a spiritual personal relationship.

But you don't mean personal in the sense God is a person, you mean that each person (human) gets a revelation from God. The other words you use still baffle me. What exactly is a 'spiritual' relationship? If God is impersonal, how can you have any kind of 'relationship' with 'it'. If God is 'revealing' something, what exactly is it if supposed 'revelations' differ in such fundamental aspects as whether God is a person or not? So if I asked a Baha'i to tell me something true about God, would they be able to reply? Could they tell me they think God exists ... or not? I'm still struggling to find any actual content to your beliefs. What is God revealing?

[Adrift]

But you don't mean personal in the sense God is a person, you mean that each person (human) gets a revelation from God. The other words you use still baffle me. What exactly is a 'spiritual' relationship? If God is impersonal, how can you have any kind of 'relationship' with 'it'. If God is 'revealing' something, what exactly is it if supposed 'revelations' differ in such fundamental aspects as whether God is a person or not? So if I asked a Baha'i to tell me something true about God, would they be able to reply? Could they tell me they think God exists ... or not? I'm still struggling to find any actual content to your beliefs. What is God revealing?

I kind of went over some of these things with shunyadragon in this thread a few months ago and found that he simply won't answer any of these sorts of questions straight. Bahaism seems to teach quite a bit about what one can know with some certainty about God (He's one, eternal, praiseworthy, intelligent, exalted, personal. etc. See post #8 in that thread), but for whatever reason shunya couldn't or wouldn't really commit to accepting these traits except in the most vaguest of ways. You don't really find the same level of uncertainty or wishy-washyness with other practitioners of Baha'i in their writings; Granted I haven't read volumes on the subject, but reading Bahaist websites, blogs, essays, and the like you get a feeling that they hold to something a lot more concrete than shunya likes to admit to. And I don't really have a problem with someone who's still feeling-out their beliefs and whatnot, but what bugs me about shunya is that he likes to act like an authority on every subject he encounters. Someone who doesn't appear to know exactly what they believe, or who won't be straight with others about what they believe, shouldn't be going around telling others that they're wrong about what they believe. I don't know. Maybe that's just me.

[shunyadragon]

But you don't mean personal in the sense God is a person, you mean that each person (human) gets a revelation from God. The other words you use still baffle me. What exactly is a 'spiritual' relationship? If God is impersonal, how can you have any kind of 'relationship' with 'it'. If God is 'revealing' something, what exactly is it if supposed 'revelations' differ in such fundamental aspects as whether God is a person or not? So if I asked a Baha'i to tell me something true about God, would they be able to reply? Could they tell me they think God exists ... or not? I'm still struggling to find any actual content to your beliefs. What is God revealing?

The example of a personal relationship in this context what we have is with our physical existence, with which we have a deep intertwined personal relationship.

The Baha'i faith does believe in a spiritual world that exists parallel and in relationship to the physical world. There is an intimate relationship between the physical world and the spiritual world. In essence Creation and Revelation are aspects of the same evolving process of our physical and spiritual existence.

Baha'is will tell you they believe God exists, and he reveals knowledge progressively through the Avatar (Messiah,- anointed one, Buddha - enlightened one) from age to age in human existence, and through the mind of humans collectively or as individuals. As far as what is the nature of Revelation and what is revealed I would have to give you specific examples from the Baha'i perspective of what was revealed in this age, First principles and laws were revealed that are standards for a new age. Examples of these are,

(1) the social and legal equality men and women.
(2) The forbidding of all forms of slavery and indentured servitude.
(3) The harmony of science and religion, giving science the status of revelation concerning the knowledge of the physical world realizing this knowledge is progressive evolving and changes with time. The interpretation of of religious writings of all religions concerning the physical nature of our existence must conform to the progressive nature of the knowledge of science including the writings of the Baha'i Faith. The purpose of the spiritual teachings is to provide moral and ethical guidance for the use of science.
(4) The establishment of universal systems such as standards for communication, all forms of travel, trade agreements, a universal language, standards of science and, at a future date an international confederation of nations.
(5) Forbidding the waging of war for religious reasons.

(5) the belief in the relative nature of knowledge and truth from the human perspective, that changes and evolves over time.

Other examples are the release of actual knowledge that becomes the standards of the new age, such as the following written in the mid 19th century . . .

Split the atom's heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.

Seven Valleys and Four Valleys by Baha'u'llah

Also the revealing that humans must be concerned with our environment, because we had the potential to both make the world a better place on the one hand and potentially make it unlivable on the other.

this type of knowledge is also revealed also through the minds of humans, as well as through the writings of the Baha'i faith..

[shunyadragon]

I kind of went over some of these things with shunyadragon in this thread a few months ago and found that he simply won't answer any of these sorts of questions straight. Bahaism seems to teach quite a bit about what one can know with some certainty about God (He's one, eternal, praiseworthy, intelligent, exalted, personal. etc. See post #8 in that thread), but for whatever reason shunya couldn't or wouldn't really commit to accepting these traits except in the most vaguest of ways. You don't really find the same level of uncertainty or wishy-washyness with other practitioners of Baha'i in their writings; Granted I haven't read volumes on the subject, but reading Bahaist websites, blogs, essays, and the like you get a feeling that they hold to something a lot more concrete than shunya likes to admit to. And I don't really have a problem with someone who's still feeling-out their beliefs and whatnot, but what bugs me about shunya is that he likes to act like an authority on every subject he encounters. Someone who doesn't appear to know exactly what they believe, or who won't be straight with others about what they believe, shouldn't be going around telling others that they're wrong about what they believe. I don't know. Maybe that's just me.

Yep, it's just you, and you have to deal with it.

Telling other people they are totally wrong with what they believe and there is only one true belief of salvation or else is the Christian modus operandi not mine nor the Baha'i Faith.

No, you are misrepresenting me big time, when I express my views and opinions I cite source, and i never claimed to be the authority about everything.

This post resembles your previous post in this thread and others i have encountered from you before, a lot of airballs and gobblygook, but nothing of substance in response to the points in the thread.

[seer]

Yep, it's just you, and you have to deal with it.

Telling other people they are totally wrong with what they believe and there is only one true belief of salvation or else is the Christian modus operandi not mine nor the Baha'i Faith.

Well actually Shuny, it is the modus operandi of Jesus Christ and the NT writers. So was Christ wrong? Are we wrong in what we believe?

This post resembles your previous post in this thread and others i have encountered from you before, a lot of airballs and gobblygook, but nothing of substance in response to the points in the thread.

How about dealing with your claim that Christianity and Buddhism were compatible. After all, all the other nonsense you posted has nothing to do with this thread - the name of which is "Buddha vs. Jesus."

[shunyadragon]

Well actually Shuny, it is the modus operandi of Jesus Christ and the NT writers. So was Christ wrong? Are we wrong in what we believe?



How about dealing with your claim that Christianity and Buddhism were compatible. After all, all the other nonsense you posted has nothing to do with this thread - the name of which is "Buddha vs. Jesus."

you have failed to respond to the posts so far on the subjects as I present it, either respond in order or continue making making obstreperous posts and end up being ignored.

[seer]

you have failed to respond to the posts so far on the subjects as I present it, either respond in order or continue making making obstreperous posts and end up being ignored.

Really Shuny, are you this blind and irrational? YOU made the CLAIM that Christianity and Buddhism were compatible - we are all waiting for your evidence that this is so.

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny, are you this blind and irrational? YOU made the CLAIM that Christianity and Buddhism were compatible - we are all waiting for your evidence that this is so.

follow the thread and answer the questions.