Jesus was Buddhist?

[Jillyn'Toast]

My Philosophy professor gave a lecture today on Jesus being Buddhist originally and living with some group of people (I won't attempt to remember their name but it started with an A). I had never heard this idea before, ever. It seemed absolutely ridiculous, but I wondered if anyone here has heard of this and could perhaps help me out with it. He also claimed Jesus wrote the Stigmata... Again, I'd love help and more information if anyone's heard of these theories before.

[Xavier]

My Philosophy professor gave a lecture today on Jesus being Buddhist originally and living with some group of people (I won't attempt to remember their name but it started with an A).

The Essenes perhaps?

I had never heard this idea before, ever. It seemed absolutely ridiculous, but I wondered if anyone here has heard of this and could perhaps help me out with it.

It sounds absolutely ridiculous, because it IS absolutely ridiculous. Eastern religion simply hadn't reached the ANE at the time of Christ.

Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank has an article here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat2.html

Most of these claims stem from the copycat Christ theories.

He also claimed Jesus wrote the Stigmata... Again, I'd love help and more information if anyone's heard of these theories before.

What is the Stigmata?

Yours,
Xavier

[Jillyn'Toast]

yes! Essenes! That sounds like what he said. A, E, all the same anyway, lol....
And thank you for the link, that's exactly what I needed!

As for the Stigmata, I just thought it was some weird event/ritual that Catholics thought up... I don't know what he meant by Jesus wrote the Stigmata, I assumed there was a book I missed hearing about.

Another thing I forgot, Is there any basis to the claims of Jesus being involved with Mary Magdalene? (Other than ficticious Dan Brown books)

This class definately gives me things to think about... although not what I had expected.

[Xavier]

yes! Essenes! That sounds like what he said. A, E, all the same anyway, lol....
And thank you for the link, that's exactly what I needed!

:thumb: FYI, Christ couldn't have been an Essene either, but he would have been sympethic to their eschalogical views... :smile:

As for the Stigmata, I just thought it was some weird event/ritual that Catholics thought up... I don't know what he meant by Jesus wrote the Stigmata, I assumed there was a book I missed hearing about.

Beats me... Stigmata are the wounds of Christ. They occur a miracles in largely Catholic tradition.

Another thing I forgot, Is there any basis to the claims of Jesus being involved with Mary Magdalene? (Other than ficticious Dan Brown books)

A couple... The most famous being Holy Blood, Holy Grail. There are refutations everywhere. Holding has one I believe.

This class definately gives me things to think about... although not what I had expected.

:smile: That's what a good PHIL course will do for you.

Yours,
Xavier

[BlackOpal12]

It sounds absolutely ridiculous, because it IS absolutely ridiculous. Eastern religion simply hadn't reached the ANE at the time of Christ.

While I agree completely that Jesus was not a Buddhist, I have to challenge your assumption that there is no way that Eatern religions had reached the ANE. Hinduism was more than 2000 years old when Jesus was born, and Buddhism was approaching its 7th century in existence. It is quite possible that a travelling monastic or two from either tradition arrived in the ANE; however, it is right to assume that there was no major Buddhist settlements. There aren't evidence of those until at least the 4th century.

[Xavier]

While I agree completely that Jesus was not a Buddhist, I have to challenge your assumption that there is no way that Eatern religions had reached the ANE. Hinduism was more than 2000 years old when Jesus was born, and Buddhism was approaching its 7th century in existence. It is quite possible that a travelling monastic or two from either tradition arrived in the ANE; however, it is right to assume that there was no major Buddhist settlements. There aren't evidence of those until at least the 4th century.

I should have been more precise in saying that no significant prescence was noted. Miller notes the decided lack of any mention of the Eastern Religions in the extant text from the period. He also notes that scholars note a lack of any major influence until after the time of Christ.

While certainly possible, it seems unlikely that a carpenter in a small Jewish town would have met a nomadic monk AND proceeded to convert... :smile:

Sorry for no being precise.

Yours,
Xavier

[Zeluvia]

Hasn't recent archelogical evidence disputed the claim that Nazareth was a small Jewish town?

[Zeluvia]

okay found it, wasnt Nazareth, but a major town only 4 miles from Nazareth

From:
Washington Post, via Atlanta Journal-Constitution (USA), Dec. 27, 2003
http://www.ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/print/content/epaper/editions/saturday/faith_values_f3cead5e526c30c10006.html)
By Bill Broadway


Some of the most notable discoveries have been in the northern part of Israel known as the Galilee, an agriculturally rich area where Jesus grew up and spent most of his three-year ministry.

That evidence shows, among other things, that Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew --- a perspective at odds with beliefs that Jesus rejected Judaism (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j00.html#judaism) to form a new religion or taught a pagan-influenced humanist philosophy, Shanks and other scholars said. It also indicates that Jesus was a cultured sophisticate, not a peasant naif, as he is often portrayed.

Foremost have been excavations at Sepphoris, a magnificent first-century city four miles from Nazareth; at Capernaum, a fishing village on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee where Jesus' ministry was based; and at what may have been Bethsaida, home of three apostles and the third most-mentioned town in the Gospels.

Part of the excitement at Sepphoris has come from the ruins of a Greco-Roman amphitheater that Sepphoris archaeologist James Strange believes existed in Jesus' time. Textual scholars have wondered where Jesus picked up the word ''hypocrite,'' a Greek word that means ''actor'' and that Jesus uses 24 times in the Gospels to refer to someone's insincere religiosity, Strange says in the documentary.

The presence of the theater in a metropolis within view of Nazareth, possibly the source of the ''city on the hill that can't be hidden'' metaphor in the Sermon on the Mount, suggests that Jesus might have learned ''hypocrite'' from seeing Greek-language performances there.

''Life isn't like in the tiny village of Nazareth, with its fruit and nut trees,'' Strange said in an interview. In Sepphoris, ''Jesus would have gotten a glimpse of Roman culture.''

Jonathan Reed, a religion professor at the University of La Verne in California and director of more than a dozen student digs at Sepphoris, is unconvinced that Jesus commuted to Sepphoris to work. But he has no doubt Jesus would have visited on holidays and market days, ''nudging elbow to elbow'' with thousands of shoppers on jampacked streets paved in Roman style.

Jesus, whose primary language was Aramaic, would have improved on his Greek or been exposed to exotic clothing, ceramics, jewelry and food and heard new ideas expounded on street corners, Reed said in an interview.

Mostly, Jesus would have noted the contrast between the affluent, power-driven life of Sepphoris and the simpler values of the residents of such smaller towns as Nazareth and Capernaum, said Reed, co-author with John Dominic Crossan of the 2001 book ''Excavating Jesus.''

Those observations would have been the seed of Jesus' ministry to people of the ''lower socioeconomic rung,'' Reed said.

And what a contrast Capernaum was --- a fishing village of about 1,000 with houses made of mud, thatch and unhewn fieldstone. In the documentary, Strange and Shanks visit the town, which is about 22 miles from Nazareth, and the octagonal church built over the foundation of Peter's house.

A more elusive biblical site has been Bethsaida, the seaside town that was home to at least three apostles, Peter, Andrew and Philip. It also was the setting for several miracles, including the healing of a blind man, the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus' walking on water.

The location of Bethsaida remained a mystery for nearly 2,000 years because a series of earthquakes early in the first millennium changed the topography, causing the water to recede and leaving the town about two miles from the Sea of Galilee, Richard Freund, co-director of the Bethsaida Excavations, explains in ''An Archaeological Search for Jesus.''

Some scholars argue that the mound known as et-Tel cannot be Bethsaida because of its distance from shore. But 50 trenches dug from the mound to the shoreline in 1987 proved that the water once came to the base of the hill, and digs on the 22-acre site uncovered lead weights and other fishing gear along with first-century coins and pottery.

A further argument that the mound is Bethsaida is based on the Gospel texts, especially the story of Jesus walking from shore to his disciples' boat, Freund said. In Jesus' time, the area below the mound had not filled in and was a marshy area with water at varying depths --- perhaps 2 feet in some places. It would have been possible for a person to walk in the water but appear to be walking on the water, he said.

[Drashi]

The Essenes were a wacky sect who justified a few Torah violation, abstained from sex, bathed in a mikveh several times a day (they had this severe view of a corrupt body), lived in a commune, relied on the outside communities to support them, and eventually disintigrated. Some of their writings were very "we are right!" philosophy, "tweaking" writings of the navi'im, andseeing themselves as the children/lords ofthe light, and those who were against them (some believe the Pharisees) as the children/lorrds of darkness.

As wacky sects go, the eventually go "poof!" or the members get fed up and return home or go someplace else (many are believed to have assimilated into Christianity, and some oftheir views of the body and sex found their ways in).

But Bhuddist? Not unless they shaved their heads and word saffron robes. ;)

[kiwimac]

Actually it is kind of likely that a wandering Buddhist monk might have passed through Northern Israel on his way perhaps to the cities of the Decapolis. Certainly the Buddhists knew of Greece.

Kiwimac

[Bib Lit Major]

The Essenes were a wacky sect who justified a few Torah violation, abstained from sex, bathed in a mikveh several times a day (they had this severe view of a corrupt body), lived in a commune, relied on the outside communities to support them, and eventually disintigrated. Some of their writings were very "we are right!" philosophy, "tweaking" writings of the navi'im, andseeing themselves as the children/lords ofthe light, and those who were against them (some believe the Pharisees) as the children/lorrds of darkness.

As wacky sects go, the eventually go "poof!" or the members get fed up and return home or go someplace else (many are believed to have assimilated into Christianity, and some oftheir views of the body and sex found their ways in).

But Bhuddist? Not unless they shaved their heads and word saffron robes. ;)

Of course, most of the evidence we have on the Essenes comes from Josephus, a former Pharisee... so I don't know if we can completely trust his depictions. The Qumran group, if they are Essenes, are a major obstacles to Josephus' statements, since some in the group did engage in marriage. They also didn't disintegrate as much as they were annhilated by the invading Romans.

But, coming back off this rabbit trail, to anwer the opening post, I think your professor is merely making assertions for which he has not sufficiently researched. There are Buddhist traditions that say Jesus was Buddhist, but these are late. They try to say that while Jesus was a child (which is not covered very much in the Gospels, Jesus traveled to India and taught Buddhism. Of course, one has to explain why there was such a huge difference between Buddhism and the teachings of Jesus' adulthood.

There is no substance to any of the claims that you reported that your professor said. He probably read this info somewhere and uncritically believed it.

[Jezz]

There is no need to postulate Buddhist influence on the life of Jesus. One only needs to read Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to see that Buddhist ideas were present in ancient Judaism (and there is no chance of borrowing there, as the Jewish traditions predate the Buddhist ones).

When you read Proverbs or Ecclesiastes, try replacing the word "wisdom" with "enlightenment" and "the Teacher" with "the Buddha". For example:

Everything Is Fleeting
1 The words of the Buddha, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:

2 "Fleeting! Fleeting!" says the Buddha. "Utterly fleeting! Everything is fleeting."

3 What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

Enlightenment Is Fleeting
12 I, the Buddha, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by enlightenment all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are fleeting, a chasing after the wind.
15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in enlightenment more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of enlightenment and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of enlightenment, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much enlightenment comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.

It could have come straight out of a Buddhist holy book. :smile: Clearly, Guatarna (sp?) spent some in Israel when he went on his big journies, and that's where Buddhism came from! (Gee, these copycat games are fun!)

[Magdalenbrother]

1. Analogy doesn't imply genealogy.

2. There are so many differences between the teachings attributed to Jesus and those of the Buddha that the analogies recede into insignificance. Buddhism is a tolerant, rational, non-theistic philosophy based on the principle on non-duality, Christianity is a sectarian religious faith based on a stark dualism.

[Xavier]

I could be mistaken, but I think Jezz meant that partly in jest... :smile:

[Jin-Roh]

My Philosophy professor gave a lecture today on Jesus being Buddhist originally and living with some group of people (I won't attempt to remember their name but it started with an A).

You sure this guy holds a PhD? Did he support this in any way?

I recently read that some Buddhist Monks in Thailand practice an ideal that forbids them from moving their arms or feet when not needed and keeping their eyes lowered when going through a villages. It has to do with an ideal of detachment. If Jesus was a Buddhist, then he must've been a liberal one when it came to this kind of thing.

for more adventures in absurdity visit JesusIsBuddha.com (http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/)!

[Twilly Spree]

I have actually heard that Jesus could have been influenced by Buddha's teachings. We talked about it in my Japanese Religions class. At the time Buddhism would have spread to the area, Jesus was probably familair with it. The theory is that he may have been influenced by Buddha's teachings, not that Jesus was a Buddhist. There are just congruencies in their teachings. I find it very heartwarming and uplifting actually, the possibility that we are all more connected than we think.

[Jin-Roh]

I have actually heard that Jesus could have been influenced by Buddha's teachings. We talked about it in my Japanese Religions class. At the time Buddhism would have spread to the area, Jesus was probably familair with it. The theory is that he may have been influenced by Buddha's teachings, not that Jesus was a Buddhist.

That's a lot of could's, would's, may have's and probably's

There are just congruencies in their teachings. I find it very heartwarming and uplifting actually, the possibility that we are all more connected than we think.

I don't doubt that there are some congruencies, but what about the stark difference? Did Jesus teach about the Three Marks of Existence for instance, or did he believe things not-self?

Or did the Buddha think that people needed to be reconciled to an all-powerful God or Resurrections of the body?

[Twilly Spree]

Regardless of differences there are similarities. Is it so unbelievable or wrong that Jesus may have borrowed a thing or two? If I remember correctly, there is one specific parable.....hmm I'll have to dig out my Buddhism notes.

[Jin-Roh]

Regardless of differences there are similarities. Is it so unbelievable or wrong that Jesus may have borrowed a thing or two?

The differences are actually part of what makes it a little unbelievable, if we allege that similarites imply influence, why the stark differences? Furthermore, we have examples of Jesus reading the Torah, but we don't have any examples of him appealling to anything from Buddhism tradition. Isn't it more likely that Jesus was a Jew (I am of course ignoring issues of him being the Messiah and such for sake of argument) and was influenced by his own culture's religion?

If I remember correctly, there is one specific parable.....hmm I'll have to dig out my Buddhism notes.

But even if we did find something strikingly similiar, it wouldn't prove much (as Jezz wryly pointed out). Besides Buddhism in 1st Century Palestine is still in the realm of the "maybe's" and the "could's."

[shunyadragon]

The differences are actually part of what makes it a little unbelievable, if we allege that similarites imply influence, why the stark differences? Furthermore, we have examples of Jesus reading the Torah, but we don't have any examples of him appealling to anything from Buddhism tradition. Isn't it more likely that Jesus was a Jew (I am of course ignoring issues of him being the Messiah and such for sake of argument) and was influenced by his own culture's religion?
Why the stark differences between Judaism and traditional Christianity? There is a large cultural and linguistic gap between Buddhaism and Christianity, but this is supposedly not so between Judaism and Christianity. It would be more difficult to explain these stark diferences.

For insight into the relationship between Judaism and Buddhaism, the 'Jew and Lotus' is interesting.

[Jezz]

Hi Magdalenbrother,

I am working under the assumption that your post was directed at me, seeing as how there are no markers to the contrary. If it was not directed it me, then you can probably disregard my first comment.

1. Analogy doesn't imply genealogy.
Correct. I wasn't seriously claiming that Buddhism came from Solomonic Judaism - I was merely using the similarities to point out the fallacy of the argument "some of what Jesus said is similar to what some of Buddha said, therefore Jesus was influenced by Buddha." As you said, analogy doesn't imply genealogy.

2. There are so many differences between the teachings attributed to Jesus and those of the Buddha that the analogies recede into insignificance. Buddhism is a tolerant, rational, non-theistic philosophy based on the principle on non-duality, Christianity is a sectarian religious faith based on a stark dualism.
How much do you actually know about Christianity or about Buddhism? There are differences, but the similarities are substantial and hardly insignificant.

What do you mean by "dualism", anyway? The word can be used in many different contexts, and depending on which meaning you attribute to the word "dualism", Christianity could be considered dualistic or non-dualistic. The same is true of Buddhism (which has both heavens and hells and can be considered dualist in that sense).

[Jezz]

I could be mistaken, but I think Jezz meant that partly in jest... :smile:
Partly. I do not think that Buddhism was directly influenced by Ecclesiastes. However, I do believe that the similarities between Buddhism and Ecclesiastes are more than just a coincidence. See my response to Twilly (to come) for a more in-depth explanation of what I mean here.

[Jezz]

Hey Twilly,

I have actually heard that Jesus could have been influenced by Buddha's teachings. We talked about it in my Japanese Religions class. At the time Buddhism would have spread to the area, Jesus was probably familair with it. The theory is that he may have been influenced by Buddha's teachings, not that Jesus was a Buddhist. There are just congruencies in their teachings.
I do not put much stock in the argument that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism. The whole argument for this case is based on a single observation - namely, that some of Christ's teachings are similar to Buddhism. I do not find this argument convincing, for the following reasons:

Firstly: There is not, to my knowledge, any evidence from the 1st Century Near East to claim that Buddhism had even reached there. I've certainly never seen any. Thus, those who claim that Buddhism "would have spread to the area" are conjecturing without evidence. Though I stand willing to be corrected on this if someone could show me a document the ANE that explicitly mentions Buddhism.

Secondly, and most importantly: As I pointed out in my semi-parody post about Ecclesiastes, there is much in the Jewish Wisdom tradition that is also very similar to Buddhist teaching. And much of this Wisdom literature (noteably Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) actually predates Buddhism. There is as much evidence to suggest that Buddhism was influenced by Jewish Wisdom literature as there is to suggest that Buddhism influenced Christ.

There are, without doubt, significant areas where Jesus' teachings are similar to Buddhism. But these areas of similarity between Jesus and Buddhism are the same areas where Buddhism and the Jewish wisdom tradition overlap. Thus, the hypothesis that Christ borrowed from Buddhism is superfluous - what need is there to postulate that He borrowed these concepts from some foreign religion, when they were all present in His own, native religion? Wouldn't Occam's Razor lead us to conclude that Christ got these ideas, not from Buddhism, but from Judaism?

For this reason, I am not convinced by arguments that Christ was influenced by Buddhism. Any such influence is much better explained as having come from His native Judaism.

That being said, I am also of the belief that the similarities between Buddhism and Judeo-Christianity are too great to be merely a coincidence (if anyone is interested in hearing what these similarities are, I will make another post on it). There are only three possibilities:

1. Judeo-Christianity was influenced by Buddhism (which I have already discounted).
2. Buddhism was influenced by Judeo-Christianity. While I think that Ecclesiastes predates Buddhism, I do not think that Buddhism was influenced by it. Buddhism was too geographically remote to have been influenced by it.

So if the similarity is not due to coincidence, not due to Judeo-Christian influence on Buddhism, and not due to Buddhist influence on Judeo-Christianity, then there is only one remaining option - that the similarities come from a common source. What could that common source be? Or, perhaps it is better to ask, who could that common source be? And I think that the answer is obvious: The common source is God - the One in Whom everything good and true finds its source.

To be sure, I do not believe that everything in Buddhism comes from God. I believe that Buddhism is partly incomplete, and partly a distortion of the pure Truth of God. I believe that the pure Truth of God is to be found only in Christianity (and specifically Orthodox Christianity). But I think that Buddhism has a greater share of the truth than many pagan religions.

I find it very heartwarming and uplifting actually, the possibility that we are all more connected than we think.
Well, I think that my explanation for the similarity between Buddhism and Judeo-Christianity is even more heartwarming and uplifting. We still have that connectedness. But in addition, we can also see that, while God has His chosen people for His chosen purpose (which is, to be His light and witness to the Truth in the world), He did not abandon the rest of creation. As Barnabas and Paul said (Acts 14:17): "...he has not left himself without testimony." I consider the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity (especially Orthodox Christianity) to be empirical validation of this statement by Barnabas and Paul.

[Magdalenbrother]

Hi Magdalenbrother,

I am working under the assumption that your post was directed at me, seeing as how there are no markers to the contrary. If it was not directed it me, then you can probably disregard my first comment.

How much do you actually know about Christianity or about Buddhism? There are differences, but the similarities are substantial and hardly insignificant.

It's not for me to boast about my knowledge of Buddhism or Christianity. Let me say that I'm not wholly ignorant about them, so that I feel I can assert with relative confidence that the two are indeed very different, despite some more or less superficial resemblances due mainly to the very nature of religion (any religion must preach love of others, mustn't it? every religion must advocate a more or less radical detachment from the world of the senses).

The problem here is: what does one mean by terms like "Christianity" or "Buddhism"? There are dozens of different sects in both religions and the differences are sometimes quite substantial. The main difference for me is that Buddhism has no God, no divine creating agent independent of the rest of the universe. For Buddhists everything is interdependent, if there is a God, he must be interdependent too, an interacting part of the universe.

When I say that Christianity and Buddhism are very different I'm thinking of official Roman Catholic Christianity and so-called Mahayana Buddhism.

It is of course possible to re-interpret Christianity in Buddhist terms. One could for example say that if God is Father, he cannot be thought as being totally independent from his creation. There is no father without a son (the son here being the universe considered as a unitary organism).


What do you mean by "dualism", anyway? The word can be used in many different contexts, and depending on which meaning you attribute to the word "dualism", Christianity could be considered dualistic or non-dualistic. The same is true of Buddhism (which has both heavens and hells and can be considered dualist in that sense).

Joseph Campbell described Western religious attitudes very accurately when in the Power of Myth he quoted Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, the author of the "Essays in Zen Buddhism" as saying (approximate quote): "What is this religion (i.e Christianity) in which there is constant strife between God and man, between man and nature and between man and man?" Dualism is a philosophic attitude which sees everything as irreconcilable opposites. A male is a male, there is nothing feminine in him. God is up there and man, here on earth, is cut off from him because of an infinite difference in nature. Man is superior to nature by nature and has therefore to "control" it. The world is ruled by conflicting powers of total evil and total goodness. Etc., etc.

I'm aware that some esoteric currents in Judaism (Kabbala) and Christianity (Jacob Boehme, Angelus Silesius, Meister Eckhardt) are non-dualistic but they do not represent their respective religions.

[Jezz]

It's not for me to boast about my knowledge of Buddhism or Christianity. Let me say that I'm not wholly ignorant about them, so that I feel I can assert with relative confidence that the two are indeed very different, despite some more or less superficial resemblances due mainly to the very nature of religion
I'm not denying that there are differences - and significant differences at that. But the similarities are hardly superficial, and are features that are not found in every religion.

(any religion must preach love of others, mustn't it?
No, not at all. You have the benefit of having been brought up in a society that had its roots in Christian belief, so you take this ideal for granted. But many religions in history did not have this ideal. Pagan religions did not - they preached that you should love those in your own circle, and disregard everyone else. Many religions in history have preached that bad things (eg, being born blind) happen to people because of their sins (eg, 1st century Judaism). Hinduism is similar - people in the lower castes (poor beggars, cripples, etc) are in their situations because of sins they have committed in a past life, and for which their bad karma is being revisted in this life. Not all religions preach love of others - not by a long shot.

every religion must advocate a more or less radical detachment from the world of the senses).
Not at all. Many religions propose that we should indulge the world of the senses - not detach ourselves from it. "Eat, drink and be merry - for tomorrow we die." This was especially the case in the Roman empire at the time of Christ.

So it seems two of the big "universal religious truths" that you have highlighted aren't nearly as universal as you thought. :wink:

The problem here is: what does one mean by terms like "Christianity" or "Buddhism"? There are dozens of different sects in both religions and the differences are sometimes quite substantial.
Indeed, that is a problem. When I say "Christianity", I mean "Orthodox Christianity". The Christianity of the first millenium. Similarly, I mean Buddhism as it was in ancient times.

The main difference for me is that Buddhism has no God, no divine creating agent independent of the rest of the universe. For Buddhists everything is interdependent, if there is a God, he must be interdependent too, an interacting part of the universe.
Actually, it's not that Buddhism has no Creator, but rather that belief in a Creator or otherwise is optional in their belief system. Yes, this a difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

When I say that Christianity and Buddhism are very different I'm thinking of official Roman Catholic Christianity and so-called Mahayana Buddhism.
When I say that Christianity and Buddhism are similar, I'm speaking of Orthodox Christianity. When I speak of Buddhism, again, I'm speaking of old Buddhism. Probably closer to Therevada (which I believe is the oldest form).

It is of course possible to re-interpret Christianity in Buddhist terms. One could for example say that if God is Father, he cannot be thought as being totally independent from his creation. There is no father without a son (the son here being the universe considered as a unitary organism).
I've already acknowledged that God is a difference between the two religions. But that doesn't mean that there aren't significant similarities. The similarities I see between Buddhism and (Orthodox) Christianity are:

1. The idea that "existence is suffering", and that the goal is to escape suffering ("this world groans under sin", as Paul says to the Corinthians).
2. The idea that desire is the cause of suffering. The same concept is present in Christianity, where it is called "temptation".
3. There are parallels between Buddhist meditation and Christian prayer. The main difference is that meditation is a complete emptying of the mind, whereas the goal of prayer is to fill one's mind with God and empty it of distractions. But aside from that, they serve similar purpose (though prayer obviously has additional meaning in Christianity which finds no parallel in Buddhism).
4. The biggest parallel that I see is in Ecclesiastes. As I pointed out in my post on Ecclesiastes, the story of the Buddha and his quest for Enlightenment has strong parallels to the Teacher's quest for Wisdom in Ecclesiastes. Both spend a lifetime seeking enlightenment/wisdom. They are struck by "temporariness" of everything in life. They witness extremes - workaholics versus lazy people, gluttons versus people starving themselves, etc.
5. The idea that life should be a balance ("the middle way", in Buddhist thought) between over-indulgence and extreme ascetism.
6. The idea that we can learn to resist desires/temptations by practicing acesticism - fasting, meditation/prayer, etc - and that this in turn leads one on the path of enlightenment/wisdom.
7. An emphasis on monasticism. Buddhism, like Orthodox Christianity, places a heavy emphasis on monasticism and holds monks in high regard. I do not know of too many other religions that have monastaries. Indeed, apart from Roman Catholics and Orthodox, there aren't too many Christian monasteries in the world (though there are some).

These are just a few of the similarities I have noticed. The big one is the similarity between "enlightenment" and "wisdom". I believe that to seek wisdom/enlightenment is the same thing as seeking Christ. Christ is the Wisdom of God incarnate - from Whom true wisdom comes. He is also the Light of the World - by whom we are enlightened.

Joseph Campbell described Western religious attitudes...
Ahh, well there's your first mistake. Are you not aware that Christianity is an Eastern religion? It started in the East, not in the West. Moreover, there are some 250 million Christians today who are Eastern Orthodox. It is primarily them that I have in mind when I say that Christianity and Buddhism have a lot in common. I believe that Orthodox Christianity is Christianity in its purest form.

...very accurately when in the Power of Myth he quoted Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, the author of the "Essays in Zen Buddhism" as saying (approximate quote): "What is this religion (i.e Christianity) in which there is constant strife between God and man, between man and nature and between man and man?"
How is Buddhism any different on this issue of "strife"? Buddhism acknowledges that there is strife in the world, doesn't it? "Existence is suffering" and "bad karma" and all that? Indeed, it was when he first started to learn about strife in the world that Siddartha decided to abandon his privileged life to go on his quest for enlightenment. Buddhism thus acknowledges that between man and nature and between man and man (though obviously not between man and God, because he was agnostic) - that's what the whole "existence is suffering" motif is all about.

Dualism is a philosophic attitude which sees everything as irreconcilable opposites.
Correct. An attitude which is most emphatically not Christian. The Gospel of Christianity can be summarised as the Good News that God is reconciling all of creation to Him through Christ. Thus, the centre of Christianity is about God reconciling creation - the very opposite of your assertion that Christianity teaches that everything is irreconcilable.

A male is a male, there is nothing feminine in him.
This is only an issue because we see some attributes as "feminine" (love, kindness) and others as "masculine" (courage, strength). In reality, no attributes are either feminine or masculine - individual males and females have of all of them in different measure. To be a well balanced human being, one must cultivate all virtues.

God is up there and man, here on earth, is cut off from him because of an infinite difference in nature.
??? I thought you said you knew something about Christianity? Judeo-Christianity teaches that God is not only transcendent ("up there") but also immanent (down here). In Christianity, this is emphasised even more - the whole point of the incarnation is to bridge the infinite difference between God and man. God became man so that man might become god.

Man is superior to nature by nature and has therefore to "control" it.
No, humanity is not superior to nature - humanity is part of nature and we have a special role within nature to take care of it (including our own self and our fellow humans). A role that we frequently neglect and/or abuse.

The world is ruled by conflicting powers of total evil and total goodness. Etc., etc.
No, the world is ruled by Christ. Evil has no power over good. In Christianity, there is no such thing as "total evil" - an evil power that is God's equal and opposite. God is always in control.

I'm aware that some esoteric currents in Judaism (Kabbala) and Christianity (Jacob Boehme, Angelus Silesius, Meister Eckhardt) are non-dualistic but they do not represent their respective religions.
If your above paraphrase is what you mean by "dualistic", then one does not have to go to an "esoteric" version of Christianity to find a non-dualistic Christianity. Christianity has never been dualist in the senses that you described. It is no more or less dualistic than Buddhism in those senses.

[Jin-Roh]

Why the stark differences between Judaism and traditional Christianity?

Why the irrelevant distraction technique?

There is a large cultural and linguistic gap between Buddhaism and Christianity, but this is supposedly not so between Judaism and Christianity. It would be more difficult to explain these stark diferences.

Since you're not naming any specifics, and this wouldn't change anything for the Buddhism/Jesus problem, I don't see why I'm obligated to answer. I will just say that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think I'll stop there.

For insight into the relationship between Judaism and Buddhaism, the 'Jew and Lotus' is interesting.

And I recommend that you read through the book of Matthew and Hebrews.

[Cynic Sage]

??? I thought you said you knew something about Christianity? Judeo-Christianity teaches that God is not only transcendent ("up there") but also immanent (down here). In Christianity, this is emphasised even more - the whole point of the incarnation is to bridge the infinite difference between God and man. God became man so that man might become god.

Man becoming god?
Have you crossed the Heresy-line?

[Jezz]

Man becoming god?
Have you crossed the Heresy-line?
If I have, then I'm in good company - St Athanasius, St Basil, St Gregory (x2), etc.

I can understand you having this concern, because Westerners generally aren't that well versed in Christian history and tradition. "God became man so that man might become god" was a common phrase in early Church literature, and still is today in Orthodox Christianity. It is a teaching called "theosis" or "divinisation". It is a thoroughly Biblical teaching. It basically describes the process of coming closer to God - instead of further away.

6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' 7 But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler."

The Psalmist here (Asaph) is putting words into the mouth of God. God is calling the rules of the world "gods". Either God lied when He said "You are gods", or the inspired Psalmist made an error, or the word "god" can be applied to humans in a certain sense.

Note that Jesus quotes this Psalm to get Himself out of trouble when the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy (see John 10).

To be sure, Orthodoxy does not teach that we become god in the same way that Christ is God. "We become by grace that which God is by nature". But our nature remains human.

For more info on theosis, check out here (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7114.asp).

[Magdalenbrother]

I'm not denying that there are differences - and significant differences at that. But the similarities are hardly superficial, and are features that are not found in every religion.


No, not at all. You have the benefit of having been brought up in a society that had its roots in Christian belief, so you take this ideal for granted. But many religions in history did not have this ideal. Pagan religions did not - they preached that you should love those in your own circle, and disregard everyone else. Many religions in history have preached that bad things (eg, being born blind) happen to people because of their sins (eg, 1st century Judaism). Hinduism is similar - people in the lower castes (poor beggars, cripples, etc) are in their situations because of sins they have committed in a past life, and for which their bad karma is being revisted in this life. Not all religions preach love of others - not by a long shot.


Not at all. Many religions propose that we should indulge the world of the senses - not detach ourselves from it. "Eat, drink and be merry - for tomorrow we die." This was especially the case in the Roman empire at the time of Christ.

So it seems two of the big "universal religious truths" that you have highlighted aren't nearly as universal as you thought. :wink:


Indeed, that is a problem. When I say "Christianity", I mean "Orthodox Christianity". The Christianity of the first millenium. Similarly, I mean Buddhism as it was in ancient times.


Actually, it's not that Buddhism has no Creator, but rather that belief in a Creator or otherwise is optional in their belief system. Yes, this a difference between Buddhism and Christianity.


When I say that Christianity and Buddhism are similar, I'm speaking of Orthodox Christianity. When I speak of Buddhism, again, I'm speaking of old Buddhism. Probably closer to Therevada (which I believe is the oldest form).


I've already acknowledged that God is a difference between the two religions. But that doesn't mean that there aren't significant similarities. The similarities I see between Buddhism and (Orthodox) Christianity are:

1. The idea that "existence is suffering", and that the goal is to escape suffering ("this world groans under sin", as Paul says to the Corinthians).
2. The idea that desire is the cause of suffering. The same concept is present in Christianity, where it is called "temptation".
3. There are parallels between Buddhist meditation and Christian prayer. The main difference is that meditation is a complete emptying of the mind, whereas the goal of prayer is to fill one's mind with God and empty it of distractions. But aside from that, they serve similar purpose (though prayer obviously has additional meaning in Christianity which finds no parallel in Buddhism).
4. The biggest parallel that I see is in Ecclesiastes. As I pointed out in my post on Ecclesiastes, the story of the Buddha and his quest for Enlightenment has strong parallels to the Teacher's quest for Wisdom in Ecclesiastes. Both spend a lifetime seeking enlightenment/wisdom. They are struck by "temporariness" of everything in life. They witness extremes - workaholics versus lazy people, gluttons versus people starving themselves, etc.
5. The idea that life should be a balance ("the middle way", in Buddhist thought) between over-indulgence and extreme ascetism.
6. The idea that we can learn to resist desires/temptations by practicing acesticism - fasting, meditation/prayer, etc - and that this in turn leads one on the path of enlightenment/wisdom.
7. An emphasis on monasticism. Buddhism, like Orthodox Christianity, places a heavy emphasis on monasticism and holds monks in high regard. I do not know of too many other religions that have monastaries. Indeed, apart from Roman Catholics and Orthodox, there aren't too many Christian monasteries in the world (though there are some).

These are just a few of the similarities I have noticed. The big one is the similarity between "enlightenment" and "wisdom". I believe that to seek wisdom/enlightenment is the same thing as seeking Christ. Christ is the Wisdom of God incarnate - from Whom true wisdom comes. He is also the Light of the World - by whom we are enlightened.


Ahh, well there's your first mistake. Are you not aware that Christianity is an Eastern religion? It started in the East, not in the West. Moreover, there are some 250 million Christians today who are Eastern Orthodox. It is primarily them that I have in mind when I say that Christianity and Buddhism have a lot in common. I believe that Orthodox Christianity is Christianity in its purest form.


How is Buddhism any different on this issue of "strife"? Buddhism acknowledges that there is strife in the world, doesn't it? "Existence is suffering" and "bad karma" and all that? Indeed, it was when he first started to learn about strife in the world that Siddartha decided to abandon his privileged life to go on his quest for enlightenment. Buddhism thus acknowledges that between man and nature and between man and man (though obviously not between man and God, because he was agnostic) - that's what the whole "existence is suffering" motif is all about.


Correct. An attitude which is most emphatically not Christian. The Gospel of Christianity can be summarised as the Good News that God is reconciling all of creation to Him through Christ. Thus, the centre of Christianity is about God reconciling creation - the very opposite of your assertion that Christianity teaches that everything is irreconcilable.


This is only an issue because we see some attributes as "feminine" (love, kindness) and others as "masculine" (courage, strength). In reality, no attributes are either feminine or masculine - individual males and females have of all of them in different measure. To be a well balanced human being, one must cultivate all virtues.


??? I thought you said you knew something about Christianity? Judeo-Christianity teaches that God is not only transcendent ("up there") but also immanent (down here). In Christianity, this is emphasised even more - the whole point of the incarnation is to bridge the infinite difference between God and man. God became man so that man might become god.


No, humanity is not superior to nature - humanity is part of nature and we have a special role within nature to take care of it (including our own self and our fellow humans). A role that we frequently neglect and/or abuse.


No, the world is ruled by Christ. Evil has no power over good. In Christianity, there is no such thing as "total evil" - an evil power that is God's equal and opposite. God is always in control.


If your above paraphrase is what you mean by "dualistic", then one does not have to go to an "esoteric" version of Christianity to find a non-dualistic Christianity. Christianity has never been dualist in the senses that you described. It is no more or less dualistic than Buddhism in those senses.
Jezz, the Christianity you are describing does exist in the minds of some very enlightened and progressive Christians like you, Angelus Silesius and Alan Watts (in his short-lived Christian phase) to cite a few names, but it is not the Christianity that has been taught by the clergies of the main churches and that has fashioned the mind of the West and its masses.

True, orthodox theologians agree that God is immanent (Thomas Aquinas is one of the most articulate and subtle exponents of this doctrine, there is no need to always look East for truth !), but the transcendent God has played a much, much bigger role in the minds of Christians, both ordinary Christians and Church leaders and luminaries. Think about it: if they had truly believed that God is present in everything, they wouldn't have deforested the West, thinking that they were thereby driving away the devil and his hosts and giving glory to the Almighty. If the immanent God had been the living core of the Christian teaching, we wouldn't be facing a planetary ecological catastrophe today, would we?

This is a painful reality and we could wish that things were different and more in harmony with the loftiest parts of the theory. We could wish that the horrendous persecutions of heretics and thoughtless destruction of entire "pagan" civilizations starting in the time of Constantine and Theodosius, and carried out in the name of "sola ecclesia", hadn't happened because Jesus said: "Love your enemies" (did he really mean that the oppressed first century Jews should love the hateful Romans, I doubt it!!!), but the fact is that the hands of Christianity are full of blood and this is no accident. The cruelty and intolerance, the hate of any difference is biblically inbuilt.

Augustine said it is merciful to show no mercy towards heretics because heretics kill people's souls, instead of their bodies. His idea, shared by all Christians, is that one is saved by accepting and repeating a set of rigid formulas. Any departure from the official credo means hell ! Now that has never been the attitude of any truly Oriental religion in India, China or Japan. (Following Joseph Campbell, I make a distinction between Asian religions and Semitic religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They are all Eastern, yes, but nevertheless they are worlds apart in doctrine and practice). For Buddhist there are countless doors to truth, not just one, just as one has countless lives both in human and non human form, not just one and exclusively human.

Now the interesting point is: why should Buddhists say such things? Why should Christians on the other hand think otherwise, namely that there is only one door, only one life, only one pope, only one saviour, only one this, only one that? If you are interested, we can go into this more deeply, for this this is the core, the root of the problem.

Even the Church Fathers you love to quote could be brutal and intolerant. I'm thinking of all the horrors committed by Athanasius against the Arians. Again this is not the result of personal wickedness or error: brutality is Biblical.

I strongly disagree that the aim of the two religions is to escape suffering. Christians (at least in the Middle Ages and up until the late 19th century) love suffering, they are not trying to escape suffering at all ! Besides, Christianity is not interested in the intricacies of the human mind/body at all. Christians are not, like the Buddhists, refined scientists trying to unravel the mysteries of the human mind to liberate it from its illusions and pathologies (except for a few ascetes and hermits in the solitudes of the Theban desert or the mountains of the Grande Chartreuse, people who simply couldn't afford not to deal with these crucial issues). They don't have any anthropology to speak of. What they have instead is a cumbersome, awfully complicated Christology. They know everything about God, and almost nothing about themselves !This is why I say that Christianity has led humanity to an extreme form of alienation and estrangement from the body/mind and from the natural world (of which man is not even a part!!!), tying it to a (false and worthless) world of Christological and Trinitarian abstractions.

Finally, let me ask you one important question: what's the point of saying that Jesus and Buddha are very close? I'm not asking this agressively at all. I'm just wondering...

Many people now are trying to make Christianity more appealing by drawing more or less plausible parallels between it and fashionable Oriental creeds like Zen Buddhism or Taoism.

Maybe you want to foster tolerance. Maybe... I don't know, you tell us if that is not asking too much.

PS: I will examine each of your replies in more detail in another post.

[Pilgrim]

My Philosophy professor gave a lecture today on Jesus being Buddhist originally and living with some group of people (I won't attempt to remember their name but it started with an A). I had never heard this idea before, ever. It seemed absolutely ridiculous, but I wondered if anyone here has heard of this and could perhaps help me out with it. He also claimed Jesus wrote the Stigmata... Again, I'd love help and more information if anyone's heard of these theories before.
That idea is straigh from the Novel, "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Jesus' Chldhood pal." (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380813815/qid=1103318090/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2487579-5746536?v=glance&s=books)

It's a pretty funny story but is fiction. Sounds like your prof. need s to go back and figure out that it was just a story.

[Magdalenbrother]

I'm not denying that there are differences - and significant differences at that. But the similarities are hardly superficial, and are features that are not found in every religion.

I maintain that the differences outnumber and outmatter the similarities. If you want to find a religion that is closer to Christianity, I suggest you try the Hindu bhakti schools with their personal creator God.


No, not at all. You have the benefit (????????????) of having been brought up in a society that had its roots in Christian belief, so you take this ideal for granted. But many religions in history did not have this ideal. Pagan religions did not - they preached that you should love those in your own circle, and disregard everyone else. Many religions in history have preached that bad things (eg, being born blind) happen to people because of their sins (eg, 1st century Judaism). Hinduism is similar - people in the lower castes (poor beggars, cripples, etc) are in their situations because of sins they have committed in a past life, and for which their bad karma is being revisted in this life. Not all religions preach love of others - not by a long shot.

Prove to me that Jesus taught that one has to love the Goyim as oneself and that the "enemies" that his Galilean audience was supposed to love included their Roman oppressors. Jesus called Pagans "dogs", derided them for their gross materialism and superstitious religious practices and refused to convert them. The practice of the churches certainly belies your claim that Christianity is a religion of universal compassion.

The Bible tells us that God punishes the sins of the fathers on their offspring down to the third (or is it the seventh?) generation. Paul says that because of their debauchery during the Lord's meal, the Corinthians were afflicted by illness and other misfortunes.

All modern religions teach people to love the members of their group (otherwise they would self-destroy!!!). That some magic cults have indulged in gruesome human sacrifices and sexual orgies, I won't deny but:

-these people were not being cruel, they thought that by propiating the gods the group as a whole would benefit from the sacrifices
-communal sex in temples has nothing to do with self-indulgence.

Not at all. Many religions (which ones???) propose that we should indulge the world of the senses - not detach ourselves from it. "Eat, drink and be merry - for tomorrow we die." This was especially the case in the Roman empire at the time of Christ.

See my remark above about the sexual orgies of Babylon and Greece.
Eat, drink and be merry is something that a well-known Biblical author advocates as a wise way of living. In fact, not even the Epicureans encouraged their disciples to indulge their sensual nature. The original Roman religion was very austere.

According to the stories told by their orthodox enemies, some Gnostics carried out prolonged sexual rituals which were apparently very base. But the aim was not self-indulgence but the complete extinction of the sexual passion through disgust and exhaustion. See the difference?

So it seems two of the big "universal religious truths" that you have highlighted aren't nearly as universal as you thought. :wink:

They are.


Indeed, that is a problem. When I say "Christianity", I mean "Orthodox Christianity". The Christianity of the first millenium. Similarly, I mean Buddhism as it was in ancient times.

Why is Eastern Christianity of the first millenium used as a standard here? Has it something to do with the modern Greek Orthodox Church ?(Somehow the present fad for the Orthodox irritates me. These people may have a beautiful liturgy and beautiful icons, but they are just as brutal, bigoted and narrow-minded as the Western rest.)


Actually, it's not that Buddhism has no Creator, but rather that belief in a Creator or otherwise is optional in their belief system. Yes, this a difference between Buddhism and Christianity.

Buddha apparently refused to answer the question whether Brahman exists or not. He insisted that the mind must first be thoroughly cleansed before the answer to that question can be comprehended. In your circles, they do it the opposite way: first they cram all the big metaphysical truths into your head and then...you wait until death or the Last Judgment to check their accuracy!

With the Buddha you have an experimental science of the mind/body. With Paul (whom I consider the real founder of Christianity) you have a faith in a myth, a moralizing tale.

I don't know if, as you say, belief in a Creator is optional (I doubt it, if there is a Creator, it seems to me that huge parts of Buddhist metaphysics become incomprehensible), but you don't seem to realize that optional belief in a Creator is by itself a tremendous difference with Christianity. Is Jesus Christ optional in the Christian package?


When I say that Christianity and Buddhism are similar, I'm speaking of Orthodox Christianity. When I speak of Buddhism, again, I'm speaking of old Buddhism. Probably closer to Therevada (which I believe is the oldest form).

I thought that you were thinking of Pure Land Buddhism (Jingtu Fojiao). There they have exclusive devotion for a personal guide, the Buddha Amitabha (Omitofo). But even here the differences are huge. Amitabha is not fundamentally different from the least of his devotees and there are thousands of others Buddha Saviours, not just one as in Christianity.


I've already acknowledged that God is a difference between the two religions. But that doesn't mean that there aren't significant similarities. The similarities I see between Buddhism and (Orthodox) Christianity are:

Yes, but you don't see that the non theistic nature of Buddhism is enough to completely separate the doctrines of the two religions.

1. The idea that "existence is suffering", and that the goal is to escape suffering ("this world groans under sin", as Paul says to the Corinthians).

Sorry, the first noble truth of Buddhism cannot be compared with anything in Christianity. Again you miss the difference of context: the noble truths of the Buddha are psychological observations based on experience and as such verifiable by the disciple. It is not a mythological tale about our proto-ancestors and the wrath of a surly deity in a garden somewhere in Mesopotamia. Besides, the First Noble Truth cannot be understood outside the context of reincarnation: because people will incarnate again and again, suffering is perpetual. There is therefore a very powerful incentive for the Buddhist to embrace the Noble Path of Liberation.

(There is no reincarnation in orthodox Christianity...)

The central truth of Christianity is that man has sinned and that a Jewish man-God has saved him from the debt so incurred through his death on a cross in 36 AD, if he or she believes in him. This is different from the central truth of Buddhism that man suffers or rather that all existence (which includes non-human life, again a tremendous difference!) is essentially painful. For the Buddhists the world is an unadulterated evil from which one has to escape at any price.

2. The idea that desire is the cause of suffering. The same concept is present in Christianity, where it is called "temptation".

Tanha in pali, thirst, desire to live, will to life. How can you compare this with Christian "temptation", which is supposed to come from an outside agent named the devil or Satan, God's temporary adversary? It is through ignorance and pride and because of the snake that Eve sinned. And because God created the (arbitrary?) rule that none shall taste of the fruit of the knowledge of evil and good. Greed may also have been involved in primal sin but again what you have in Judeo-Christianity is a moral and ethical problem, not a biological problem. The two approaches may lead to similar ascetic practices but their starting points are different.

3. There are parallels between Buddhist meditation and Christian prayer. The main difference is that meditation is a complete emptying of the mind, whereas the goal of prayer is to fill one's mind with God and empty it of distractions. But aside from that, they serve similar purpose (though prayer obviously has additional meaning in Christianity which finds no parallel in Buddhism).

Sorry, again you show yourself blind to the differences.

First of all, in Buddhism, meditation is absolutely essential. A Buddhist who doesn't meditate in the lotus position every day (I'm exaggerating for the sake of the argument) will not be liberated. He may be an active member of the sangha and believe everything that is written in the sutras, this will not liberate him (liberate, not save!!!). A Christian just needs to believe in his heart that Jesus Christ has saved him and to say it to be saved.

Second, in Buddhist meditation you empty your mind of all illusions and (in Zen Buddhist terminology) you discover your eternally-existent "Buddha nature". In Christianity, you pray God to receive earthly and spiritual benefits (Synoptics).

Christian ascetes have gone much farther than this, of course, but the final aim is still very different. A Christian communes with a transcendent/immanent personal God who freely bestows his grace to him/her because of a special sacrifice performed in time (36 AD); in Buddhism you are extinguished, you cease to exist as an individual at the end of the road. This is the way things have been from all eternity, the coming of the Buddha did not create any new reality. And prayer is not a dialogue or a communion with the silent son of the Sakyas. Therefore nirvana cannot be compared with God.

4. The biggest parallel that I see is in Ecclesiastes. As I pointed out in my post on Ecclesiastes, the story of the Buddha and his quest for Enlightenment has strong parallels to the Teacher's quest for Wisdom in Ecclesiastes. Both spend a lifetime seeking enlightenment/wisdom. They are struck by "temporariness" of everything in life. They witness extremes - workaholics versus lazy people, gluttons versus people starving themselves, etc.

All religious figures go through these trials. How could it be otherwise? We are not born with God or nirvana.

You are unduly insisting on a minor feature of the Bible.

5. The idea that life should be a balance ("the middle way", in Buddhist thought) between over-indulgence and extreme ascetism.

A balance? What about the saying of Jesus that if one's foot leads one to temptation it should be cut off? What about all the intolerant stuff in the NT?

6. The idea that we can learn to resist desires/temptations by practicing acesticism - fasting, meditation/prayer, etc - and that this in turn leads one on the path of enlightenment/wisdom.

Sorry, a Christian is saved through free grace bestowed by the heavenly Father as a result of the free sacrifice of his son. Besides, Christians are predestined to be saved. They don't have to do anything, God acts in them. In Theravada Buddhism, you can only rely on yourself. Remember Buddha's last words: Be diligent. Commentators add that these words mean that the only saviour is oneself. A huge difference.

7. An emphasis on monasticism. Buddhism, like Orthodox Christianity, places a heavy emphasis on monasticism and holds monks in high regard. I do not know of too many other religions that have monastaries. Indeed, apart from Roman Catholics and Orthodox, there aren't too many Christian monasteries in the world (though there are some).

Agree. But there are differences. Buddhist monks (at least in Japan) do not make life-long vows. A monk may marry after spending ten years in deep meditation on mount Eheiji. I think this is a great difference. Besides, Buddha did not conceal the fact that monks are vastly superior to laymen. In Christianity, monks and married people are equal.

These are just a few of the similarities I have noticed. The big one is the similarity between "enlightenment" and "wisdom". I believe that to seek wisdom/enlightenment is the same thing as seeking Christ. Christ is the Wisdom of God incarnate - from Whom true wisdom comes. He is also the Light of the World - by whom we are enlightened.

There are a few similarities, yes but on the crucial points the two religions are worlds apart. We could have explored the question of the body, the relationship between personal identity and the body. We could have compared resurrection and nirvana. We could have gone into the concept of time. At every step we would have stumbled on huge obstacles. Buddhism is essentially a pagan world-view. Christianity is different.

Ahh, well there's your first mistake. Are you not aware that Christianity is an Eastern religion? It started in the East, not in the West. Moreover, there are some 250 million Christians today who are Eastern Orthodox. It is primarily them that I have in mind when I say that Christianity and Buddhism have a lot in common. I believe that Orthodox Christianity is Christianity in its purest form.

I've said before that I don't consider Semitic religions as truly oriental. Anyway, the concept of the East is relative.

The Eastern Orthodox are a bunch of intolerant bigots who have really little in common with Buddhists (although they also have their bigots). I have a lot of experience in discussing with them: they are even more arrogant and stupid than Arkansas fundamentalists. But they have magnificent liturgies, I must grant that. And their mystical teachings are fascinating, I grant that too. But as count Tolstoi said in his Confessions, these things have no influence on the real life of the faithful.

How is Buddhism any different on this issue of "strife"? Buddhism acknowledges that there is strife in the world, doesn't it? "Existence is suffering" and "bad karma" and all that? Indeed, it was when he first started to learn about strife in the world that Siddartha decided to abandon his privileged life to go on his quest for enlightenment. Buddhism thus acknowledges that between man and nature and between man and man (though obviously not between man and God, because he was agnostic) - that's what the whole "existence is suffering" motif is all about.

For the Buddhists, the strife is superficial, just an ephemeral phenomenon. Underlying the strife is perfect harmony. IOW, God and the devil are one. Do I really need to point out that this is different from the Christian concept of God?


Correct. An attitude which is most emphatically not Christian. The Gospel of Christianity can be summarised as the Good News that God is reconciling all of creation to Him through Christ. Thus, the centre of Christianity is about God reconciling creation - the very opposite of your assertion that Christianity teaches that everything is irreconcilable.

Reconciling the whole world to himself ? Please read Paul attentively. You will soon realize that the "whole world" is a handful of eternally selected people. The rest will incur eternal wrath and damnation. At the end of the story of Creation, there is eternal suffering for most and eternal bliss for the "little flock". IOW, failure.

How different from the total realization of the Buddha nature by all sentient beings of some Buddhist sects!!! (I know that the Greek Orthodox pray for the salvation of all sinners: that is irrelevant)

The pagan authors of Antiquity said it: Christianity is parochial. Just compare the Bhagavad Gita and the Gospels. You will see what I mean.


No, humanity is not superior to nature - humanity is part of nature and we have a special role within nature to take care of it (including our own self and our fellow humans). A role that we frequently neglect and/or abuse.

Only man has a soul. This is enough to set him apart from the "brutes". In Buddhism and Hinduism, animals may become enlightened (this cannot be compared with Balaam's talking ass, please!). The Buddha was once a tigress.

The relationship between the mindstuff and the body is fundamentally different in the two religions. This difference explains the rejection of the teachings of Origen and others on reincarnation, an essential part of Buddhist metaphysics.


No, the world is ruled by Christ. Evil has no power over good. In Christianity, there is no such thing as "total evil" - an evil power that is God's equal and opposite. God is always in control.

But the devil is absolutely evil. And God has nothing to do with evil. For the Chinese, there is a black dot in the white fish of the yin/yang picture. This says it all.


If your above paraphrase is what you mean by "dualistic", then one does not have to go to an "esoteric" version of Christianity to find a non-dualistic Christianity. Christianity has never been dualist in the senses that you described. It is no more or less dualistic than Buddhism in those senses.

Mainstream Christianity has always been dualistic in the senses I have indicated, sorry.


Hello! Be blessed non-dualistically!:lol: :lol: :lol:

[yougotstachill]

Coming from a Buddhist, I can assure you Jesus was far from being Buddhist. Although I have no doubt he was influenced by Buddha's teachings. But I actually don't know the time period in which Jesus lived, haha.

[shunyadragon]

It's not for me to boast about my knowledge of Buddhism or Christianity. Let me say that I'm not wholly ignorant about them, so that I feel I can assert with relative confidence that the two are indeed very different, despite some more or less superficial resemblances due mainly to the very nature of religion (any religion must preach love of others, mustn't it? every religion must advocate a more or less radical detachment from the world of the senses). Its a good thing you did not boast, because you got a bunch stuff wrong about Buddhism.

The problem here is: what does one mean by terms like "Christianity" or "Buddhism"? There are dozens of different sects in both religions and the differences are sometimes quite substantial. The main difference for me is that Buddhism has no God, no divine creating agent independent of the rest of the universe. For Buddhists everything is interdependent, if there is a God, he must be interdependent too, an interacting part of the universe.
First mistake. In Buddhism there are several concepts that could have a distinctive parallel with the concept of God. One is a bit anthropomorphic, but a gentler God than the Judaism/Christian version. The Mahavairocana Buddha (The adi-Buddha principle that resides in the heaven and never bocomes manifest, kike God the Father.) All Earthly Buddhas are manifest or emanate from Mayavairocana Buddha. The Buddhas voluntarily suffer and die an earthly death in order to enlighten and save humanity.

Partial credit, because Buddhism does not have and athropomorphic vendictive, jealous, arbitrary God.

Second mistake, nothing must be in Buddhism. The exact nature of God and the soul is unknown. This is actually true in Christianity, but people make the foolish claim to know.

When I say that Christianity and Buddhism are very different I'm thinking of official Roman Catholic Christianity and so-called Mahayana Buddhism.

It is of course possible to re-interpret Christianity in Buddhist terms. One could for example say that if God is Father, he cannot be thought as being totally independent from his creation. There is no father without a son (the son here being the universe considered as a unitary organism).I avoide the official versions of the religion, because they are the furthest from the source.

Joseph Campbell described Western religious attitudes very accurately when in the Power of Myth he quoted Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, the author of the "Essays in Zen Buddhism" as saying (approximate quote): "What is this religion (i.e Christianity) in which there is constant strife between God and man, between man and nature and between man and man?" Dualism is a philosophic attitude which sees everything as irreconcilable opposites. A male is a male, there is nothing feminine in him. God is up there and man, here on earth, is cut off from him because of an infinite difference in nature. Man is superior to nature by nature and has therefore to "control" it. The world is ruled by conflicting powers of total evil and total goodness. Etc., etc.Joesph Campbell is my next least favorite source, and Suzuki tows the party line. The bothe make the unfortunate mistake of trying to define things that cannot be defined.

God is up there? Really? Where is up there?

Nothing feminine about him? :lol: A male is a male? :lol: Sounds like George Bush writing Marriage Laws. Etc., etc., etc. :teeth:

I'm aware that some esoteric currents in Judaism (Kabbala) and Christianity (Jacob Boehme, Angelus Silesius, Meister Eckhardt) are non-dualistic but they do not represent their respective religions.I am glad you know exactly who is who, and what is what concerning orthodoxy? Maybe you ought let God know.

[shunyadragon]

Why the irrelevant distraction technique?
Not irrelavent distraction technique. FACT. In Judaism there is not Trinity, temptation by the devil, no devil, no fall, and not original sin. This is a good list for starters. Most Christians consider these foundation beliefs in Christianity and Judaism does not accept them and they use basically the same OT scripture.



Since you're not naming any specifics, and this wouldn't change anything for the Buddhism/Jesus problem, I don't see why I'm obligated to answer. I will just say that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think I'll stop there.
I have named specifics in many threads and some have been discussed by more than me in this thread. I do not think that naming specifics is what your really asking, but since you asked.

The Mayavairocana Buddha (Adi-Buddha principle that resides in heaven and does not become manifest on earth, like God the Father.) sends the earthly Buddhas who voluntarilly suffer a earthly life and died, so that humanity may be enlightened and saved, like the messiah.


And I recommend that you read through the book of Matthew and Hebrews.
I recommend that you broaden your reading list beyond one book of questionable Greco-Roman origins.

[Magdalenbrother]

Its a good thing you did not boast, because you got a bunch stuff wrong about Buddhism.

I'm always glad to know more about everything.

First mistake. In Buddhism there are several concepts that could have a distinctive parallel with the concept of God. One is a bit anthropomorphic, but a gentler God than the Judaism/Christian version. The Mahavairocana Buddha (The adi-Buddha principle that resides in the heaven and never bocomes manifest, kike God the Father.) All Earthly Buddhas are manifest or emanate from Mayavairocana Buddha. The Buddhas voluntarily suffer and die an earthly death in order to enlighten and save humanity.

I don't think the Buddhists have anything even remotely akin to the Semitic concept of a God who creates an intrinsically good and real world ex nihilo, except maybe the most ignorant Omitofo devotees, who may have been contaminated by Christianity or by popular Taoism and its God-like Laotianye. The difference is that in Buddhism all are equal, there is no fundamental difference between a Buddha and a sparrow: they are both interrelated manifestations of the one infinite mindstuff that manifests as the Universe in its myriad forms.

In Buddhism the world is essentially of the nature of an illusion (maya) and as such is an unmitigated evil which has to be destroyed in the mind of the disciple through proper psycho-somatic techniques. In a way, you and I have created this world. The world or rather this particular world will end when all its deluded "creators" wake up.

On the one hand you have a materialistic worldview, on the other an idealist one. On the one hand you have a legalistic and ethical appoach, on the other a medical one. The Chinese say that yi (medicine) and dao (religion) have the same root. This the Christians would strenuously deny. This alone makes Buddhism and Christianity two separate planets.

Partial credit, because Buddhism does not have and athropomorphic vendictive, jealous, arbitrary God.

True enough.

Second mistake, nothing must be in Buddhism. The exact nature of God and the soul is unknown. This is actually true in Christianity, but people make the foolish claim to know.

There is much controversy about this in Buddhist circles, the silence of the Buddha on the question of whether there is a Self, both in individuals and in the universe, being interpreted differently. Nevertheless, to my (limited) knowledge, this silence has never been construed as an implicit admission of any form of theism.

Buddhism vehemently denies the existence of the soul, a permanent entity who lives after death and is the recipient of rewards and punishments. Anatta, the challenging teaching of no-self, is one of the pillars of Buddhism, whether Theravada or Mahayana.

Some Christian mystics, I'm thinking of the Blessed Ruysbroeck, have spoken of the importance of "holy ignorance" to attain perfect knowledge of God. But by and large Christianity is not a religion of silence and holy ignorance, alas. This may be your own self-invented brand of Christianity, like Jezz's, but it remains an individual adventure and endeavour, for which I wholeheartedly wish you ultimate success and happiness (if such ordinary words have any meaning in this very special context).

I avoide the official versions of the religion, because they are the furthest from the source.

Not necessarily but often so, yes. Too much power and money involved, I guess.

Joesph Campbell is my next least favorite source, and Suzuki tows the party line. The bothe make the unfortunate mistake of trying to define things that cannot be defined.

Why? For me, Joseph Campbell is simply a genius. I know some people (specially scholars and people who fancy themselves to be scholars) hate him because he has made mythology accessible to the masses in books like The Power of Myth but that is a ridiculous, pretentious prejudice.

The Essays in Zen Buddhism are first-class. Have you read them? One should not confuse Daisetz Suzuki with Shunryu Suzuki. They are both Zen but they are different people. Shunryu was a monk. Daisetz was a lay scholar.

God is up there? Really? Where is up there?

"Up there" is a metaphor for "in a transcendent realm". This is a very good figure of speech by the way: Jesus often looked up to heaven when praying and blessing things. Heaven, the physical heaven, is the symbol of the other world.

Nothing feminine about him? :lol: A male is a male? :lol: Sounds like George Bush writing Marriage Laws. Etc., etc., etc. :teeth:

That's what Christians in their vast majority think, not what I think.

I am glad you know exactly who is who, and what is what concerning orthodoxy? Maybe you ought let God know.

A silly comment. On the whole I find your reply very disappointing both in tone and in content. Viva Chavez!

[shunyadragon]

I don't think the Buddhists have anything even remotely akin to the Semitic concept of a God who creates an intrinsically good and real world ex nihilo, except maybe the most ignorant Omitofo devotees, . . .

This is very true, and in some ways fortunate that they do not believe this. Christianity gets this notion from the Stone Age worldview of God presented in the OT.

In response to your posts I presented an example of Buddhism presents a more theistic relationship with the divine, but the anthropomorphic Stone Age extreme of traditional Christian worldview is highly mythical and not in touch with reality.

who may have been contaminated by Christianity or by popular Taoism and its God-like Laotianye.Contamination is apparent in many forms, the less subtle is manifest in rigid orthodoxy. This a problem on both sides of the fence.

The difference is that in Buddhism all are equal, there is no fundamental difference between a Buddha and a sparrow: they are both interrelated manifestations of the one infinite mindstuff that manifests as the Universe in its myriad forms. Not a bad idea as a beginning point. In the Judeo-Christian and Moslem west too much is made of seperateness and defining differences, and interrelationships are avoided. Reality is most likely somewhere in between.

In Buddhism the world is essentially of the nature of an illusion (maya) and as such is an unmitigated evil which has to be destroyed in the mind of the disciple through proper psycho-somatic techniques. In a way, you and I have created this world. The world or rather this particular world will end when all its deluded "creators" wake up.

On the one hand you have a materialistic worldview, on the other an idealist one. On the one hand you have a legalistic and ethical appoach, on the other a medical one. The Chinese say that yi (medicine) and dao (religion) have the same root. This the Christians would strenuously deny. This alone makes Buddhism and Christianity two separate planets.You have presented the two different extremes of orthodoxy okay, but I consider both unreal and idealistic. The reality is likely somewhere in the middle. Our world is not likely totally illusion, but on the other hand in Christianity the ultimate reality is not of this world either.


There is much controversy about this in Buddhist circles, the silence of the Buddha on the question of whether there is a Self, both in individuals and in the universe, being interpreted differently. Nevertheless, to my (limited) knowledge, this silence has never been construed as an implicit admission of any form of theism.

Buddhism vehemently denies the existence of the soul, a permanent entity who lives after death and is the recipient of rewards and punishments. Anatta, the challenging teaching of no-self, is one of the pillars of Buddhism, whether Theravada or Mahayana. Many Buddhist deny the existence of the soul, but Buddhism does not necessarilly deny it. Being a pillar of orthodoxy does not make it true. Vehemently denying something exists is not any better than vehemently demanding its existence. The imortality of what Christians call the soul is not necessarily accepted in the same manner in Judaism, nor is the concept of what happens after death in agreement among all Christians. See below concerning the importance of silence.

Some Christian mystics, I'm thinking of the Blessed Ruysbroeck, have spoken of the importance of "holy ignorance" to attain perfect knowledge of God. But by and large Christianity is not a religion of silence and holy ignorance, alas. This may be your own self-invented brand of Christianity, like Jezz's, but it remains an individual adventure and endeavour, for which I wholeheartedly wish you ultimate success and happiness (if such ordinary words have any meaning in this very special context).Christianity is not a religion of silence, but neither is Buddhism always a religion of silence. Silence is an excellent way to express the humility and limits of the human experience to define that which cannot be defined. It is often the practice of Judaism, but seems to misplaced in modern theocracy. It should be practiced by Christians and Moslems more often.

Now 'Holy ignorance' is another issue. I believe the more rigidly the concept of God and the soul are defined, the more ignorant and impotent the belief becomes. This is unfortunately true of orthodoxy in all religions.

Why? For me, Joseph Campbell is simply a genius. I know some people (specially scholars and people who fancy themselves to be scholars) hate him because he has made mythology accessible to the masses in books like The Power of Myth but that is a ridiculous, pretentious prejudice.

The Essays in Zen Buddhism are first-class. Have you read them? One should not confuse Daisetz Suzuki with Shunryu Suzuki. They are both Zen but they are different people. Shunryu was a monk. Daisetz was a lay scholar. I read and study all of the above, but I do not quote them as a first source. My criticism was probably a little strong, but intended only to negate them as authoritative. Making mythology accessable is okay, but living in the past is another matter.

"Up there" is a metaphor for "in a transcendent realm". This is a very good figure of speech by the way: Jesus often looked up to heaven when praying and blessing things. Heaven, the physical heaven, is the symbol of the other world. This is only true in the adaptation of a Stone Age mythology to the modern world when we went up there and down there and did not find any gods or the lesser gods and demons of hell.

Nothing feminine about him? :lol: A male is a male? :lol: Sounds like George Bush writing Marriage Laws. Etc., etc., etc. :teeth:

That's what Christians in their vast majority think, not what I think. Yes, that is unfortunately what most Christians think, but this is mythical notion of Greco-Roman Christianity. Clinging to OT Stone Age mythology puts a lot of holes in the credibility of orthodox Christianity.


I am glad you know exactly who is who, and what is what concerning orthodoxy? Maybe you ought let God know.

A silly comment. On the whole I find your reply very disappointing both in tone and in content. Good reason, people often use orthodoxy to define themselves different, unique and superior to others. On this thread you seem to equate present orthodox beliefs with what the nature of God and the soul are, though in different post on other threads you seem to give a different view on some issues. There is good evidence that the beliefs of the different religions have a strong cultural, linguistic and corrupted theologies, and awkward attempts to adapt the Stone Age mythology to the modern world.

[Magdalenbrother]

I really think celestial Dragon that we shouldn't take advantage of the Buddha's unwillingness to define the nature of ultimate reality to try and introduce the Christian God into his vision as through the backdoor. IMHO, refusal to describe the mystery of mysteries is not permission to start fantasizing about it and filling the gap with more or less anthropomorphic representations, but a positive rejection of all man-made concepts and explanations. The Christian God, even reinvented by progressive thinkers such as you and Jezz, has no place here, if only because this God is not inherently negative. We should respect the silence of the Buddha.

And let us ponder on the fact that the question asked by Buddhists is not

Who created the world?

But:

What is the ultimate nature of reality?

To which the answer is (in the Mahayana tradition at least):

Shunyata. Void (a very imperfect translation)!!!

The difference in emphasis and in orientation of enquiry is striking.

I think also that we should be very careful in comparing religious traditions. It's no good picking the word "dukha" in the Buddhist canons and comparing it with the word "suffering" in the Pauline epistles. Even if the two words meant exactly the same in the dictionary, because the context in which they appear is different, we must be extremely cautious before we think we have discovered a so-called "similarity". In my mind, since Buddhism and Christianity are on two completely different tracks to start with, similarities in terminology have very little meaning, if any.

Insisting on the differences is important also if we want to avoid to fall into the trap of a disguised form of religious imperialism, which must shock our interlocutors. What would the majority of Christians say if a Buddhist told them that Jesus is a great arhat? Or that their resurrection is similar to the Zen satori? I think it is important to let the strangeness of the other religion intact. To love we have, but then let it be a love that leaves the other untouched by our desire to extend our ego and to reduce everything to what we already know.

No "amour fusionnel", please.

[shunyadragon]

I really think celestial Dragon that we shouldn't take advantage of the Buddha's unwillingness to define the nature of ultimate reality to try and introduce the Christian God into his vision as through the backdoor. IMHO, refusal to describe the mystery of mysteries is not permission to start fantasizing about it and filling the gap with more or less anthropomorphic representations, but a positive rejection of all man-made concepts and explanations. The Christian God, even reinvented by progressive thinkers such as you and Jezz, has no place here, if only because this God is not inherently negative. We should respect the silence of the Buddha.I would chose not invent, reinvent, fill gaps, fantisize, cut and paste, or shmooze over with peanut butter, when it comes to God. The orthodox theologians of the world have done the worst possible they could to mold God or whatever into their own image. I would be just another fool among many, whether it be in the west or the east. The silence of the middle mountain is the best choice. We will not see God, but we will at least see the two other mountains.

When human thoughts turn to themselves, God is silent.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes

I would never think of trying to introduce the Stone Age Christian God through the backdoor to anywhere.

And let us ponder on the fact that the question asked by Buddhists is not

Who created the world?

But:

What is the ultimate nature of reality?

To which the answer is (in the Mahayana tradition at least):

Shunyata. Void (a very imperfect translation)!!!

The difference in emphasis and in orientation of enquiry is striking. Ah! So you are impressed with the perfection of your translation!

Both questions are interesting and valid, spoken from two different mountains.

The difference in orientation of enquiry is striking, but what is shunyata? I may seem clear to western mind that tries to define things to the satisfaction of their own logic, but the reality may be quite different.

I think also that we should be very careful in comparing religious traditions. It's no good picking the word "dukha" in the Buddhist canons and comparing it with the word "suffering" in the Pauline epistles. Even if the two words meant exactly the same in the dictionary, because the context in which they appear is different, we must be extremely cautious before we think we have discovered a so-called "similarity". In my mind, since Buddhism and Christianity are on two completely different tracks to start with, similarities in terminology have very little meaning, if any.Your still caught on the hamster wheel of western logic trying to define what cannot be defined, with all the care of a Hebrew grammmarian. I am neither concerned with 'comparing', splicing, so-called similarizing or catagorizing different religions. I believe in the oneness of God, the religions, and existence and desire only to appreciate the differences.

Only heart to heart can speak the bliss of the mystic knowers;
No messenger can tell it and no missive can bear it.

Hafiz: Shamsu'd-Din Muhammad.

I am silent from weakness on many a matter,
For my words could not reckon them and my speach would fall short.

from an Arabian poem

Insisting on the differences is important also if we want to avoid to fall into the trap of a disguised form of religious imperialism, which must shock our interlocutors. What would the majority of Christians say if a Buddhist told them that Jesus is a great arhat? Or that their resurrection is similar to the Zen satori? I think it is important to let the strangeness of the other religion intact. To love we have, but then let it be a love that leaves the other untouched by our desire to extend our ego and to reduce everything to what we already know.

No "amour fusionnel", please.
These things may or may not be similar. I have never been concerned with whether they were or not. There is a distinct misconception of the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith that it is accused of being synchronistic and puting all the religions into a blender and coming up with what you may call the 'religious imperialism soup'. This is very far from the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and what I believe.

The infinite diversity of spiritual experiences and expression should be appreciated in their diversity and not blended into one cafeteria goulash.

Religions have spent their entire history cutting their theology in stone and justifying their uniqueness that they will carry these ballast stones around their necks for eternity and unfortunately never recognize the diversity of spiritual expression that the Baha'i Faith teaches.

You ended with a nice poetic flurry, but how would the grammarians of orthodoxy every recognize the diversity of spiritual experiences of the world carefully anotating, cataloguing, and documenting each significant difference that makes the ONE superior over others.

[Magdalenbrother]

Things which are different cannot be compared.

[shunyadragon]

Things which are different cannot be compared.
Existence is one, nothing is different, nothing can be compared, nothing is . . .

[Magdalenbrother]

I would chose not invent, reinvent, fill gaps, fantisize, cut and paste, or shmooze over with peanut butter, when it comes to God. The orthodox theologians of the world have done the worst possible they could to mold God or whatever into their own image. I would be just another fool among many, whether it be in the west or the east. The silence of the middle mountain is the best choice. We will not see God, but we will at least see the two other mountains.

Agree.

When human thoughts turn to themselves, God is silent.

"God" is even more silent when human thoughts turn to Him. Thinking is the greatest obstacle to communion with "God" because thought is always of the past and dualistic.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes

I agree with the first statement but I think the second metaphor is inaccurate: "God" is also the fish.

I think the word "Being" would be closer to the truth. Krishnamurti used the term "Ground".

I would never think of trying to introduce the Stone Age Christian God through the backdoor to anywhere.

Sorry, you said belief in God is optional in Buddhism. Maybe you think that a futurist God deserves a place in the Buddhist system, but as I said "God" is not compatible with Buddhist metaphysics.

Ah! So you are impressed with the perfection of your translation!

This is how "shunyata" is translated by most translators. In Chinese the word "kong", which is used profusely and in a technical sense in Buddhist sutras simply means "empty"(or "free"/ "available"as in "ni you kong ma?) in everyday parlance.

Both questions are interesting and valid, spoken from two different mountains.

The question who created the universe is a wrong, anthropomorphic question in my opinion.

The difference in orientation of enquiry is striking, but what is shunyata? I may seem clear to western mind that tries to define things to the satisfaction of their own logic, but the reality may be quite different.

The Buddhists also have very elaborate systems of logic with many definitions. Buddhism has thousands of sutras and is anything but a totally void and gaseous doctrine on spiritual invertebrates. Buddhism has a solid doctrine that can be analysed and studied just like any other branch of learning. In fact, the careful study of the sutras is considered by many Buddhist schools an indispensable requisite for enlightenment.

Your still caught on the hamster wheel of western logic trying to define what cannot be defined, with all the care of a Hebrew grammmarian. I am neither concerned with 'comparing', splicing, so-called similarizing or catagorizing different religions. I believe in the oneness of God, the religions, and existence and desire only to appreciate the differences.

To argue (without any proof!!!) that all religions lead to God is off topic. What we are discussing here is the question of whether Buddhism and Christianity have any common ground. It may be that despite substantial doctrinal differences, Buddhists and Christians reach the same reality but that doesn't make their belief systems similar.

To argue that all religions are one is still a thing of the mind. Your Oriental approach is still waaaaaaay too positive, I'm afraid.

How can one know that all reach the same heaven? Is that a new dogma? Shall I be burnt on the stake if I disbelieve it?

Only heart to heart can speak the bliss of the mystic knowers;
No messenger can tell it and no missive can bear it.

Hafiz: Shamsu'd-Din Muhammad.

I am silent from weakness on many a matter,
For my words could not reckon them and my speach would fall short.

from an Arabian poem

I appreciate the poetry.

These things may or may not be similar. I have never been concerned with whether they were or not.

Then you are off topic.

There is a distinct misconception of the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith that it is accused of being synchronistic and putting all the religions into a blender and coming up with what you may call the 'religious imperialism soup'. This is very far from the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and what I believe.

What's the use of believing in anything? Why should one accept any belief? What's the use of a savior or teacher?

Not all religions lead to God. Some religions have a very limited, earthly goal. Some cults are demonic in the first place. Some religions don't worship any god, like Buddhism.

The infinite diversity of spiritual experiences and expression should be appreciated in their diversity and not blended into one cafeteria goulash.

Agree but false religions and demonic cults should be seen for what they are.

Religions have spent their entire history cutting their theology in stone and justifying their uniqueness that they will carry these ballast stones around their necks for eternity and unfortunately never recognize the diversity of spiritual expression that the Baha'i Faith teaches.

You ended with a nice poetic flurry, but how would the grammarians of orthodoxy every recognize the diversity of spiritual experiences of the world carefully anotating, cataloguing, and documenting each significant difference that makes the ONE superior over others.

Suppose we were discussing the question of whether two kinds of apples taste the same. You say they do, I say they don't. Then you object that arguing for a difference in taste is morally wrong because it leads consumers to turn away from one kind of apple, which drives apple growers of that particular variety to bankruptcy and destitution. As you can see this argument is wrong. To argue that there is a difference and to argue that A is superior to B are two completely different things. I say that Buddhism and Christianity are very different in their doctrine and organisation and I say that Buddhism is superior to Christianity(most Buddhists would agree with me, by the way!) not because Buddhists are different but because they are infinitely more sophisticated and tolerant. And when I argue for Buddhist superiority I don't mean that Buddhists should exterminate Christians, obviously.

Un discours sur la différence n'est pas nécessairement un discours de haine.
Un discours sur la non-différence n'est pas nécessairement un discours de fraternité.
Un amour adulte reconnaît la différence et s'en réjouit. Un amour infantile veut absorber la différence en soi pour éviter toute remise en question. Ni hao!

[shunyadragon]

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.


God is the sea and we are the fishes

I agree with the first statement but I think the second metaphor is inaccurate: "God" is also the fish.

I think the word "Being" would be closer to the truth. Krishnamurti used the term "Ground".




Would your view be pantheist?

Some words may be closer than others, than again they may not be.




I do believe god flows through us like water flows through the fish and gives life.

I would never think of trying to introduce the Stone Age Christian God through the backdoor to anywhere.

Sorry, you said belief in God is optional in Buddhism. Maybe you think that a futurist God deserves a place in the Buddhist system, but as I said "God" is not compatible with Buddhist metaphysics.

I did not say God is optional in Buddhism, especially the Stone Age God of Judeo-Christian tradition. Like the story of the Monk and the student looking at the ducks flying over. 'Are you God?'




I do not think what you say determines what is. I do not believe in a futurist God. I believe in the unknowable undefinable source called 'God' in English. I believe this is compatable with Buddhism. There are several images of the Source including the Mahavairocana.

Ah! So you are impressed with the perfection of your translation!

This is how "shunyata" is translated by most translators. In Chinese the word "kong", which is used profusely and in a technical sense in Buddhist sutras simply means "empty"(or "free"/ "available"as in "ni you kong ma?) in everyday parlance. This still assuming the undefinable can be defined. I believe that shunyata is one of the attributes of the nature of existence, but not the only one, and I am not vain enough to put a tag on it.


Both questions are interesting and valid, spoken from two different mountains.

The question who created the universe is a wrong, anthropomorphic question in my opinion. No question is wrong. It is demanding or assuming an answer that leads to clinging.

The difference in orientation of enquiry is striking, but what is shunyata? I may seem clear to western mind that tries to define things to the satisfaction of their own logic, but the reality may be quite different.

The Buddhists also have very elaborate systems of logic with many definitions. Buddhism has thousands of sutras and is anything but a totally void and gaseous doctrine on spiritual invertebrates. Buddhism has a solid doctrine that can be analysed and studied just like any other branch of learning. In fact, the careful study of the sutras is considered by many Buddhist schools an indispensable requisite for enlightenment.

Yes, like many religions, Buddhism has a very elaborate system of logic with many definitions, ah . . . and a solid doctirne that can be analysed and studied, but this, like all religions, in it self is a rigidness that leads to senility. I read the sutras, but orthodox Buddhism is just piled higher and deeper depending on which pile you want go with.




Your still caught on the hamster wheel of western logic trying to define what cannot be defined, with all the care of a Hebrew grammmarian. I am neither concerned with 'comparing', splicing, so-called similarizing or catagorizing different religions. I believe in the oneness of God, the religions, and existence and desire only to appreciate the differences.

To argue (without any proof!!!) that all religions lead to God is off topic. What we are discussing here is the question of whether Buddhism and Christianity have any common ground. It may be that despite substantial doctrinal differences, Buddhists and Christians reach the same reality but that doesn't make their belief systems similar.

To argue that all religions are one is still a thing of the mind. Your Oriental approach is still waaaaaaay too positive, I'm afraid.

Odd that you would call it off-topic. Are you foolish enough to actually demand proof of blind men searching for an elephant. Such an argument is futile vain imagination. Proof is even more futile. I do not consider my approach oriental or occidental. I believe the attributes of the source is infinite. I sincerely admit that my view is based on faith and not any vain illusion of proof.





How can one know that all reach the same heaven? Is that a new dogma? Shall I be burnt on the stake if I disbelieve it?

I do not know if heaven exists, or that everyone goes to the same place or not. As for you, no idea again. I believe that sincerity is an important attribute that determines the journey in this would and whatever exists beyond.

Only heart to heart can speak the bliss of the mystic knowers;
No messenger can tell it and no missive can bear it.

Hafiz: Shamsu'd-Din Muhammad.

I am silent from weakness on many a matter,
For my words could not reckon them and my speach would fall short.

from an Arabian poem

I appreciate the poetry.

These things may or may not be similar. I have never been concerned with whether they were or not.

Then you are off topic.Missed again, I do not come compare to see whether they are similar or not. I believe there are different attributes of the source that we percieve differently.

There is a distinct misconception of the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith that it is accused of being synchronistic and putting all the religions into a blender and coming up with what you may call the 'religious imperialism soup'. This is very far from the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and what I believe.

What's the use of believing in anything? Why should one accept any belief? What's the use of a savior or teacher?

This can be an interesting question, if it is indead a question, but here is more like a statement. There is considerable evidence that the Baha'i Faith brought some interesting and revolutionary principles and knowledge to the world that have indeed changed the world.

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

Seven Valles and Four Valleys by Baha'u'llah

Not all religions lead to God. Some religions have a very limited, earthly goal. Some cults are demonic in the first place. Some religions don't worship any god, like Buddhism.

You are very correct, not all religions lead to God.

O brother! Not every sea hath pearls; not every branch will flower, nor will the nightingale sing thereon.

The Seven Valleys and Four Valleys by Baha'u'llah


Suppose we were discussing the question of whether two kinds of apples taste the same. You say they do, I say they don't. Then you object that arguing for a difference in taste is morally wrong because it leads consumers to turn away from one kind of apple, which drives apple growers of that particular variety to bankruptcy and destitution. As you can see this argument is wrong. To argue that there is a difference and to argue that A is superior to B are two completely different things.

There were several principles introduced to the world with the revelation of Baha'u'llah. One is the independent search for truth, another is the relative nature of knowledge, and another is the harmony of science and religion, which in turn recognizes the falsifiable nature of the objective nature of science. Considering the level of sophistication of the Bah'i view of truth and knowledge, spiritual and scientific, the above argument is childish foolishness.


I say that Buddhism and Christianity are very different in their doctrine and organisation and I say that Buddhism is superior to Christianity(most Buddhists would agree with me, by the way!) not because Buddhists are different but because they are infinitely more sophisticated and tolerant. And when I argue for Buddhist superiority I don't mean that Buddhists should exterminate Christians, obviously. [/quote]

Your comparison is obvious beyond belief, but it does not necessarily reflect reality. It is obvious and vain that Buddhist would consider their way superior and Christians would say that their way is superior. If they did something else beside looking in the mirror, or maybe climb the middle mountain they may see something different.

[Magdalenbrother]

With all due respect, Shenyang Sufi Dragon, the trouble with you is that you seem to oscillate continually between a "sophisticated" Baha'i approach (which, by the way, I find pretty similar to what sanatana dharma or Hinduism teaches) and what I would call "naive non-judgmentalism". To deny that Christianity is an inferior kind of religion may sound very friendly and non-dualistic, but it is an insult to reason, a faculty which still applies in relative reality. IOW, I do believe in advaita and all the non-dualistic stuff, but this doesn't make me blind to the errors of religious systems, which you also point out to in some of your replies. How can you describe the Judeo-Christian God a "Stone Age god" and still say that Buddhism and Christianity are the same?

You must know the story of the guy who had been told that everything was God ("sarvam kalvidam brahman") and let himself be overrun by an elephant whom he mistook for God...

I don't believe all religions lead to God. I believe that any human being can find God or Reality independently of his belonging to this or that clerical institution. Some find it despite the errors of the their official doctrine, some find it because of the truths it contains, some find it spontaneously. Some find it and they're not even aware of it!

Hail to those who find it and don't tell anybody about it! Enough religions already on earth !

All religions are impure. That's my dogma. Those who deny it, I stuff them to total indigestion with huge Chinese steambread buns (mantou) in cyberspace :lol: :lol: :lol: . (Have you seen Zhang Yimou's Huozhe?)

[Jezz]

Jezz, the Christianity you are describing does exist in the minds of some very enlightened and progressive Christians like you, Angelus Silesius and Alan Watts (in his short-lived Christian phase) to cite a few names, but it is not the Christianity that has been taught by the clergies of the main churches and that has fashioned the mind of the West and its masses.
MB, you are again trying to make it seem as if mine is a minority or fringe position. But it is not a view that only exists in the minds of a few "very progressive" Christians - there are 200+ million very traditional Orthodox in the world, and it is likely that most of them believe similar to what I believe.

It is true that the West has gone on its own path, but the West does not constitute the whole of Christianity.

True, orthodox theologians agree that God is immanent (Thomas Aquinas is one of the most articulate and subtle exponents of this doctrine, there is no need to always look East for truth !), but the transcendent God has played a much, much bigger role in the minds of Christians, both ordinary Christians and Church leaders and luminaries. Think about it: if they had truly believed that God is present in everything, they wouldn't have deforested the West, thinking that they were thereby driving away the devil and his hosts and giving glory to the Almighty.
??? Where do you come up with this stuff??? Can you quote me some respected Christian theologians who claimed that by deforesting they were driving away the devil???

If the immanent God had been the living core of the Christian teaching, we wouldn't be facing a planetary ecological catastrophe today, would we?
Well surprise, surprise - Christians (like all people) don't always do what their teachings say that they should do. That hardly proves that they teach that God is not immanent.

This is a painful reality and we could wish that things were different and more in harmony with the loftiest parts of the theory. We could wish that the horrendous persecutions of heretics and thoughtless destruction of entire "pagan" civilizations starting in the time of Constantine and Theodosius, and carried out in the name of "sola ecclesia", hadn't happened because Jesus said: "Love your enemies" (did he really mean that the oppressed first century Jews should love the hateful Romans, I doubt it!!!), but the fact is that the hands of Christianity are full of blood and this is no accident. The cruelty and intolerance, the hate of any difference is biblically inbuilt.
You oversimplify what is an extremely complicated history, and conveniently forget those occasions and those nations where Christianity was persecuted. For example, when the Roman empire became officially Christian, the Christians in Persia were subjected to intense persecution because they were seen as Romanisers.

As for your comment "did he really mean that the oppressed first century Jews should love the hateful Romans, I doubt it!!" - well, I find it hard to take this ridiculous comment seriously. Of course He meant that they should love the hateful Romans. Not only did the Torah teach that they should love the alien living in their land, but Jesus Himself proved that was His meaning with His actions: when He was dying on the cross asked His Father to forgive those "hateful Romans" who were crucifying them!

Augustine said it is merciful to show no mercy towards heretics because heretics kill people's souls, instead of their bodies.
Quote and source, please. I would like to read it in context. You also need to learn what "heretic" really means.

His idea, shared by all Christians, is that one is saved by accepting and repeating a set of rigid formulas. Any departure from the official credo means hell !
Some Christians may teach that. But again, you overgeneralise when you say that "all Christians" share this idea. Not all do. Perhaps not even most do.

Salvation does not come by repeating a set of rigid formulas. That is what gnosticism teaches. Christianity teaches that we are saved by the grace of God, through faith - which means continual repentance and the forgiveness that accompanies it.

Now that has never been the attitude of any truly Oriental religion in India, China or Japan. (Following Joseph Campbell, I make a distinction between Asian religions and Semitic religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They are all Eastern, yes, but nevertheless they are worlds apart in doctrine and practice).
"Worlds apart in doctrine and practice?" As I have already shown, this is rubbish.

There are some aspects of doctrine and practice that are worlds apart, I grant that. But there are some aspects of doctrine and especially practice where the two worlds overlap significantly.

For Buddhist there are countless doors to truth, not just one, just as one has countless lives both in human and non human form, not just one and exclusively human.
The Buddhist believes that to be the case. The Buddhist is wrong.

Now the interesting point is: why should Buddhists say such things? Why should Christians on the other hand think otherwise, namely that there is only one door, only one life, only one pope, only one saviour, only one this, only one that?
Because it is true (apart from the bit about the pope).

If you are interested, we can go into this more deeply, for this this is the core, the root of the problem.
Indeed, this is the root of the problem. But I would prefer to stay on-topic. The topic is whether or not Buddhism and Christianity have significant similarities.

Even the Church Fathers you love to quote could be brutal and intolerant. I'm thinking of all the horrors committed by Athanasius against the Arians. Again this is not the result of personal wickedness or error: brutality is Biblical.
What horrors did Athanasius commit against the Arians? I've never heard anyone claim that Athanasius committed horrors against the Arians. This would have been difficult for him to do, because the Arians were the ones that were in power when he was bishop. Indeed, he was exiled by the Arian powerbrokers about 7 times. I think you have it backwards.

Perhaps you could do us (and St Athanasius) the courtesy of either supporting your (rather serious) allegations from primary sources, or retracting them.

I strongly disagree that the aim of the two religions is to escape suffering. Christians (at least in the Middle Ages and up until the late 19th century) love suffering, they are not trying to escape suffering at all !
You may disagree strongly if you want. You are simply wrong.

The end goal of all the this-worldly suffering in Christianity is so that one might obtain salvation in the life to come. The idea is that the life to come will be free of suffering. Thus, the goal is ultimately to escape suffering.

Do you or do you not agree that the Christian idea of "salvation" is to be saved from suffering?

Besides, Christianity is not interested in the intricacies of the human mind/body at all. Christians are not, like the Buddhists, refined scientists trying to unravel the mysteries of the human mind to liberate it from its illusions and pathologies (except for a few ascetes and hermits in the solitudes of the Theban desert or the mountains of the Grande Chartreuse, people who simply couldn't afford not to deal with these crucial issues). They don't have any anthropology to speak of. What they have instead is a cumbersome, awfully complicated Christology. They know everything about God, and almost nothing about themselves !This is why I say that Christianity has led humanity to an extreme form of alienation and estrangement from the body/mind and from the natural world (of which man is not even a part!!!), tying it to a (false and worthless) world of Christological and Trinitarian abstractions.
Again, this is blatantly false. Anthropology is a very important part of Christianity. Indeed, in Eastern Christianity it is sometimes said that the very purpose of the Church is to act as a hospital for psychotherapy - that is, "therapy for the soul". Christ is the great Physician, who heals the souls of human beings through His hospital (ie, the Church).

Even in Western Christianity, questions of free will, sin, morality, resurrection, salvation, death, etc - these are all anthropological considerations.

You are also incorrect to claim that Christian theology (Christology and Trinitarianism) is purely abstract. True Christian theology is anything but abstract. In fact, it isn't true Christian theology unless it in some way is tied to the practical consequences. For example, the reason Christianity puts such a heavy emphasis on Christology is because Christ was a human being. Christology includes anthropology.

And you are incorrect to claim that man is not part of nature in the Christian worldview. I already corrected you on this. Please stop repeating the same errors.

Finally, let me ask you one important question: what's the point of saying that Jesus and Buddha are very close? I'm not asking this agressively at all. I'm just wondering...
Because it's true.

Besides, I do not recall saying that Jesus and Buddha are very close. I said that they have significant similarities. Please, be careful not to misrepresent what I say.

Many people now are trying to make Christianity more appealing by drawing more or less plausible parallels between it and fashionable Oriental creeds like Zen Buddhism or Taoism.
All I am doing is counteracting the falsehoods that you are spreading about Christianity which make it appear that Christianity has nothing good in it whatsoever. Most of what you point out as good in Buddhism is present in Christianity.

Maybe you want to foster tolerance. Maybe... I don't know, you tell us if that is not asking too much.
Tolerance is important, but there is one thing I will not tolerate - error and falsehood. I have only one agenda - to speak the truth, and to expose falsehood. That is the only reason I entered this thread, and it is the only reason I continue - to expose all the falsehoods that you have told about Christianity.

[Magdalenbrother]

MB, you are again trying to make it seem as if mine is a minority or fringe position. But it is not a view that only exists in the minds of a few "very progressive" Christians - there are 200+ million very traditional Orthodox in the world, and it is likely that most of them believe similar to what I believe.


More than 200 million accomplished mystics of Christian non duality in the world...

I wish it were true!

You are idealizing the Orthodox. I did that too, until I got to know them. They may have lofty treatises on the "Cloud of Unknowing" and all that, but they aren't much better than the others. Poor Bulgakov was within an inch of being declared an heretic because he had dared to bridge the gap between God and the world in his so-called sophianic theology.

To believe means nothing. What matters is realization, perception. Belief is an obstacle to perception.


It is true that the West has gone on its own path, but the West does not constitute the whole of Christianity.


Western Christianity has moulded the world, Jezz. The Orthodox didn't colonize America. The Puritans and other Protestants did. It is those same Protestants and Catholics who pounded the Orthodox Serbs during the disgraceful war in the Balkans. But that's something different...


??? Where do you come up with this stuff??? Can you quote me some respected Christian theologians who claimed that by deforesting they were driving away the devil???


Your knowledge of Church history exhibits gaping lacunae, Jezz.


Well surprise, surprise - Christians (like all people) don't always do what their teachings say that they should do. That hardly proves that they teach that God is not immanent.

Surprise, indeed. They should be sinless since, according to Paul, they have been crucified and buried with their saviour in baptism and received the spirit of adoption which cries "Abba" in their hearts. Aren't they new creatures according to the theory? (Even in the time of Paul gross sexual misconduct by church members should have led to a revision of the beautiful theory but apparenly Paul was never able to do that)


God is immanent but the Christians don't care.


You oversimplify what is an extremely complicated history, and conveniently forget those occasions and those nations where Christianity was persecuted. For example, when the Roman empire became officially Christian, the Christians in Persia were subjected to intense persecution because they were seen as Romanisers.


Because one has been persecuted is no good reason to persecute others.


As for your comment "did he really mean that the oppressed first century Jews should love the hateful Romans, I doubt it!!" - well, I find it hard to take this ridiculous comment seriously.


I still haven't used the word "ridiculous" in my posts to you.


Of course He meant that they should love the hateful Romans.


The people who thought that the earth was flat also said: "Of course, Aristotle and the Bible can't be wrong."


Not only did the Torah teach that they should love the alien living in their land,


The Roman legions cannot be compared to the isolated, wandering alien envisaged by the Biblical author.


Didn't the Jews commit a wholesale genocide when they entered the land of Canaan? Wasn't the order to kill all Canaanites issued by Yahveh himself?


but Jesus Himself proved that was His meaning with His actions: when He was dying on the cross asked His Father to forgive those "hateful Romans" who were crucifying them!


Jesus may have been changed a great deal by his sufferings. He too had to learn perfect obedience (Hebrews), and I would also add, perfect wisdom. He may have realized that universal compassion is the ultimate truth of the universe on the cross, but again what did he really say on the cross? No two Gospels agree on this point (to say nothing of the highly embarrassing fact that Luke has one of the bandits recognize Jesus as the Messiah while Matthew says that the two guys reviled him).

You, like John Damascene (have you read his convoluted chronology of the Resurrection events with Maggie running four times to the tomb like an Evangelical Evelyn Ashford?), paste all the accounts together. I don't think that's a credible exegetical method, sorry.

He called pagans "dogs" and "swines" (to which no pearls should be thrown). He forbade his disciples to teach in foreign lands or in Samaria. He didn't let the man whom he had liberated from the evil spirits collectively called "Legion (was it an allusion to the Roman army?)" follow him: he was not a Jew! The poor man who was helped by the Samaritan in the famous parable was obviously a Jew.

And Jesus gave his disciples no instructions whatsoever as to how to integrate the Gentiles into the Church. Hence all the quarrels between Paul and the Judaizing Christians of the Jamesian Church in Jerusalem. Seems that James didn't like Gentiles a lot.

Of course, these passages have been "corrected" by interpolating less xenophobic sayings into the Christian corpus, but the old truth still shines through here and there that Jesus despised the heathens, just like the majority of his contemporaries. See how he laughs at their religious practices and gross materialism in Matthew 5 and 6. See how he calls Jerusalem the "City of the Great King": what a challenge to Roman authority!

And he didn't want Caesar to plunder the Holy Land. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". And what is Caesar's? The Italian Peninsula and nothing more. Israel belongs to God. IOW, no taxes to Rome.

To know the truth one must read the whole Bible, you see, and then choose the most plausible interpretation by taking into account all sources.

Quote and source, please. I would like to read it in context. You also need to learn what "heretic" really means.

I have read it in books on the Holy Inquisition which also quote him. You are an intelligent Christian, Jezz: you should understand why anyone holding the theories of Christianity must give his assent to the notion that "it is merciful to be merciless to the heretics".

Don't you teach "exclusive salvation"?

Some Christians may teach that. But again, you overgeneralise when you say that "all Christians" share this idea. Not all do. Perhaps not even most do.

I don't care about the little intelligent Oriental flock, sorry. They have had no impact on the world at large.
Besides and more importantly, you too overgeneralize when you want the good Christians to be the icon of Christianity.

Physician, cure thyself...

Salvation does not come by repeating a set of rigid formulas. That is what gnosticism teaches. Christianity teaches that we are saved by the grace of God, through faith - which means continual repentance and the forgiveness that accompanies it.

Read Paul: "If you believe that Jesus died for your sins and confess it, you are saved." The¨Protestants are the only Christians who have carried Paul's theology to its (il)logical conclusion.

Why then the credo? If the credo doesn't save one, why all the struggles to define it? Why all the anathemas?

Are you saying that I can dispense with all the knowledge about Jesus and be saved all the same?


"Worlds apart in doctrine and practice?" As I have already shown, this is rubbish.

Moderate your tone, Jezz. Charity and humility are much better than clever arguments and boastful rhethoric if you want to convert people to your faith rather than simply assert yourself macho-like. The Orthodox are vey macho: I was expelled from a Greek Orthodox forum for simply suggesting that the Magdalen may have played a greater role in Jesus'life than just embracing his feet at the Resurrection (and being told simultaneously not to touch him).

Yesterday I had a conversation with a Buddhist and he told me: "No God in Buddhism. Never."

There are some aspects of doctrine and practice that are worlds apart, I grant that. But there are some aspects of doctrine and especially practice where the two worlds overlap significantly.

Of course, they must both teach people to be good and patient. But good to whom? And patient why? There the differences arise.

The Buddhist believes that to be the case. The Buddhist is wrong.

No comment.

Because it is true (apart from the bit about the pope).

How do you know? Because it's written in a book?

Indeed, this is the root of the problem. But I would prefer to stay on-topic. The topic is whether or not Buddhism and Christianity have significant similarities.

They have some superficial similarities.

What horrors did Athanasius commit against the Arians? I've never heard anyone claim that Athanasius committed horrors against the Arians. This would have been difficult for him to do, because the Arians were the ones that were in power when he was bishop. Indeed, he was exiled by the Arian powerbrokers about 7 times. I think you have it backwards.

Again you seem not to have read the right books about Church history. Read "When Jesus became God". Available on Amazon.com and with a special review by yours truly.

You may disagree strongly if you want. You are simply wrong.

Affirmer n'est pas prouver.

The end goal of all the this-worldly suffering in Christianity is so that one might obtain salvation in the life to come. The idea is that the life to come will be free of suffering. Thus, the goal is ultimately to escape suffering.

You said that faith saved. And grace. Now it's suffering. What on earth is it that saves? Can you write a list?

Buddhists have gone very deeply into this question of suffering. They have stated-and they are right-that the very essence of human life is continual suffering. In Christianity, they (Paul) say that the ultimate truth about our present human life is sin.

Again the contrast between the medical/biological approach and the ethical approach.


Do you or do you not agree that the Christian idea of "salvation" is to be saved from suffering?

People look for "God" because they are unhappy. They don't care about the truth: what they want is the Ultimate Eternal Orgasm . If something other than God could demonstrably give them this experience, they would turn their backs on "God" instantly.

No, I don't agree. Salvation for a Christian consists not in being saved from suffering, but in being saved from the radical separation from God brought about by his transgression of the divine law, ie sin. Happiness, cessation of suffering, is a by-product of reconciliation with God.

Again, this is blatantly false. Anthropology is a very important part of Christianity. Indeed, in Eastern Christianity it is sometimes said that the very purpose of the Church is to act as a hospital for psychotherapy - that is, "therapy for the soul". Christ is the great Physician, who heals the souls of human beings through His hospital (ie, the Church).

Anthropology was important for Evagrius Ponticus, Isaac the Syrian (a hateful Nestorian by the way!) and the other ascetes, who had to invent or rediscover a workable, practical anthropology since the Bible didn't give them any detailed, precise indications on that subject (how could it be otherwise? the Bible is mainly concerned with the material welfare of the Jewish people). Not for your average Christian. Just ask him what there is in Man, and he will sheepishly say that he is made up of a "soul and body". Most are not even aware of the Paulinian trilogy of pneuma, psyche and soma. Even Paul does not explain what the trilogy really means and how it works. It's all hazy and confusing.

Why care when belief in Jesus Christ is enough to be saved?

Monks are a paradox in Christianity, yeah a scandal! They give the lie to all the demagogical promises of the Church regarding salvation through faith. The Protestants, who were very intelligent people after all, abolished the monasteries.

Even in Western Christianity, questions of free will, sin, morality, resurrection, salvation, death, etc - these are all anthropological considerations.

They are, but what has Christianity to say on the spiritual anatomy of Man? Not much. I've read the books, sir. Written by Orthodox theologians (Yannaras).

Most of it is just fluffy theories and inferences laboriously extracted from vague Biblical passages. They have never looked inside themselves, that's the sad truth.

Compare the Christian anthropological skeleton with the incredibly rich knowledge of the Tibetans, all the things they know about the intermediate states of the soul between death and reincarnation. It's amazing how much these people know! See Sri Aurobindo's anatomy of Man with all its fine distinctions between the different bodies or koshas. It's amazing!

You are also incorrect to claim that Christian theology (Christology and Trinitarianism) is purely abstract. True Christian theology is anything but abstract. In fact, it isn't true Christian theology unless it in some way is tied to the practical consequences. For example, the reason Christianity puts such a heavy emphasis on Christology is because Christ was a human being. Christology includes anthropology.

A double nature: God and man. How will that help me to breathe better?

And you are incorrect to claim that man is not part of nature in the Christian worldview. I already corrected you on this.

Man has a soul. The rest of creation hasn't a soul. Man towers therefore above fallen nature altogether. You can't be a part of nature when you say that you have some kind of supernatural thing in you that comes from God. Your body may be a part of this world, but what is the body in Christianity?

A body of death. A body of sin. The temple of the Holy Spirit? That's the passage they never cared to explore very deeply (except some monks, I agree).

Please stop repeating the same errors.

I have no orders to receive from you, Jezz. If you don't want to read my "errors", just stay away from this thread and go listen to fat purring orthodox cats. Know that I'm a lean, hungry Japanese Tosa dog restlessly roaming in Sinjuku, the redlight district of Tokyo, in search of holy bones to plant my dirty, broken teeth into.

Besides, I do not recall saying that Jesus and Buddha are very close. I said that they have significant similarities. Please, be careful not to misrepresent what I say.

I disagree and I have explained why. You haven't gone very deeply into any of the points I raised.


All I am doing is counteracting the falsehoods that you are spreading about Christianity which make it appear that Christianity has nothing good in it whatsoever. Most of what you point out as good in Buddhism is present in Christianity.

I don't want to analyze you, Jezz, but contrary to what you blithely affirm here, I think that your real aim is to wrap up Buddhism in the Christian Immaculate Doctrinal Shroud by suggesting that Buddhism isn't that special since all the good things Buddhists have Christians also have.

The not all too subtle message is: for Christ's sake, remain within the God-given Church! We snow white Orthodox in fact outorientalize the saffron church of the Buddha!


There is certainly some good in Christianity. Christianity does contain some nuggets of the philosophia perennis, but these truths are obscured, covered by many layers of cultural accretions that have nothing to do with God and truth and everything to do with questions of power and mind-control of the masses by greedy mitred clerks.

Tolerance is important, but there is one thing I will not tolerate - error and falsehood. I have only one agenda - to speak the truth, and to expose falsehood. That is the only reason I entered this thread, and it is the only reason I continue - to expose all the falsehoods that you have told about Christianity.

I'm afraid this is only the beginning of your lofty labors since there is so much mess for you to clean up on this unorthodox board, a real anti-Christian Augean stable...

I propose that you should be renamed "JezzHercules" and I sincerely expect the bearded Archimandrites, Higoumenoi and Patriarchs to make you a saint after you go to Heaven. You will have your own Holy Icon in all American Orthodox churches, with an Apple computer resting on your lap: "St JezzHercules, Holy Patron of Christian Forum Apologists, pray for us, Buddhists, sorry Christians."

I'm moved to tears... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't believe in tolerance in the sense of agreeing with whatever people say in the name of respect for the beliefs of others. For me tolerance has essentially a material meaning: the government shouldn't force anybody to believe in a particular creed.

Error should always be exposed for what it is. Intellectually, tolerance is the suicide of reason. And is in fact a nice word for lazy, cowardly "relativism".

Noble disinterested soul, go in peace.

Be blessed in the non-duality of Father, Son and Holy Mother Spirit.

Please refrain from making sexually explicit comments

[Magdalenbrother]

All I am doing is counteracting the falsehoods that you are spreading about Christianity which make it appear that Christianity has nothing good in it whatsoever. Most of what you point out as good in Buddhism is present in Christianity.

That's it! I judge the huge universe of Buddhism from the parochial point of view of one puny sect within Christianity, and in order not to be fully impacted and disturbed by its radically alien character, I declare it to be similar to my own creed. I can thus remain the same. No real encounter has taken place.

We transform everything we meet into our own flesh. We devour things. We won't let them challenge us through their absolute otherness. No, sir, that would be the end of my own ego-ic stronghold.

Back to back posts are not allowed to the same poster. Use the edit feature on the post, or PM a moderator to add the content you wish to add.

[shunyadragon]

With all due respect, Shenyang Sufi Dragon, the trouble with you is that you seem to oscillate continually between a "sophisticated" Baha'i approach (which, by the way, I find pretty similar to what sanatana dharma or Hinduism teaches) and what I would call "naive non-judgmentalism". You apparently feel is is more appropriate to talk down to people than respond to their posts. As it is your statements below and in the past do not reflect what I said. The common "naive non-judgementalism" again does not reflect my worldview.

I love the poetry and art, but I do not agree with the theology of Sufi. Baha'u'llah's answer to Sufism is in his 'Seven Valleys and Four Valleys'.

To deny that Christianity is an inferior kind of religion may sound very friendly and non-dualistic, but it is an insult to reason, a faculty which still applies in relative reality. IOW, I do believe in advaita and all the non-dualistic stuff, but this doesn't make me blind to the errors of religious systems, which you also point out to in some of your replies. How can you describe the Judeo-Christian God a "Stone Age god" and still say that Buddhism and Christianity are the same?If you read my posts you would see I consider the Judeo-Christian Stone Age God, the Greco-Roman trinitarian version, and the Buddhist view of the 'Source' as the human views of God through the eyes of different times and cultures. I consider the 'Stone Age' God of the OT and the Greco-Roman trinitarian version as the Christian God inferior and incorrect. If you were willing to read deeper you would also know that I believe religions are corrupted and adapted to culture language and time, which is a realistic view of the differences of religion.


You must know the story of the guy who had been told that everything was God ("sarvam kalvidam brahman") and let himself be overrun by an elephant whom he mistook for God. . .I do not believe everything is God, so the lesson is very appropriate for the pantheists who do.

I don't believe all religions lead to God. I believe that any human being can find God or Reality independently of his belonging to this or that clerical institution. Some find it despite the errors of the their official doctrine, some find it because of the truths it contains, some find it spontaneously. Some find it and they're not even aware of it!I also agree that all religions do not lead to God. My last post made that clear. The Baha'i Faith is not a clerical institution, because there is not a priesthood, and all positions are elected.

As to who can and cannot find God by this way or that is another question. Few in reality search, because they most often chose the religion of their parents or are forced to chose a religion or die. Tens of thousands of Baha'is have died.

One of the most important principles of the Baha'i Faith is the 'Independent investigation of truth'. It is the first religion to endorse this principle in the foundation of its beliefs.

Hail to those who find it and don't tell anybody about it! Enough religions already on earth ! This is interesting coming from a person who does his best to tell everyone who is right and who is wrong. So far everyone appears to wrong except for Krishnimurti, one of the latest prophets to start a new religion, breaking away from the Theosophists.

All religions are impure.Agreed.

That's my dogma. Those who deny it, I stuff them to total indigestion with huge Chinese steambread buns (mantou) in cyberspace :lol: :lol: :lol: . (Have you seen Zhang Yimou's Huozhe?)Mantou is Chinese Wonderbread. I do not eat either. My dog won't eat mantou either, unless it soaked with meat broth.

[NorthernLights]

The discussion would have been on the whole much more fruitful if, instead of trying to compare big religions with a long and varied doctrinal history, one had tried to compare, say Maximus the Confessor with Zen master Dogen.

I agree with Magbro that you can't argue that Christianity is perfect or Buddha-like just because some isolated mystics seem to have had experiences comparable to Buddhist "enlightenment" and have put forward so-called non-dualistic views as a result of them. The Cloud of Unknowing and apophatic theology are no more representative of Christianity as Schindler's generosity is representative of German fascism. With such arguments one could easily present Nazism as a benign ideology which helped cure the economic woes of Germany and protected the environment. Too bad they slaughtered the Jews Roman Inquisition-like...

Real Christianity is what Christians make of their scriptures. A good Christianity with bad or mediocre Christians is a figment in the mind of tired apologists.

[shunyadragon]

The discussion would have been on the whole much more fruitful if, instead of trying to compare big religions with a long and varied doctrinal history, one had tried to compare, say Maximus the Confessor with Zen master Dogen.

I agree with Magbro that you can't argue that Christianity is perfect or Buddha-like just because some isolated mystics seem to have had experiences comparable to Buddhist "enlightenment" and have put forward so-called non-dualistic views as a result of them. The Cloud of Unknowing and apophatic theology are no more representative of Christianity as Schindler's generosity is representative of German fascism. With such arguments one could easily present Nazism as a benign ideology which helped cure the economic woes of Germany and protected the environment. Too bad they slaughtered the Jews Roman Inquisition-like...

Real Christianity is what Christians make of their scriptures. A good Christianity with bad or mediocre Christians is a figment in the mind of tired apologists.
I do not argue that Christianity is perfect or Buddha-like just because some isolated mystics seem to have had experiences comparable to Buddhist "enlightenment" and have put forward so-called non-dualistic views as a result of them.

Dualism was simply how the people of the time saw the world of good and evil. Much of the extreme dualism of the Christian world with the lesser God ruling the evil world is a creation of their own mythology.

Comparisons like Maximus the Confessor and Zen Master Dogen are interesting, but it would simply compare two different worldviews nothing more.

You should not compare, similate, contrast or seperate (punch, staple or mutilate) different faiths or religions with the purpose of forcing them together or forcing them appart. The best purpose is to understand and appreciate them.

[Magdalenbrother]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon]You apparently feel is is more appropriate to talk down to people than respond to their posts. As it is your statements below and in the past do not reflect what I said. The common "naive non-judgementalism" again does not reflect my worldview.


Talk down to people?



My Shakespearean reply: "I am more sinned against than sinning."



My mum's reply: "I'm not talking down to you, Babee'lah, I'm telling you the Truth."


My Socratic response:"I see your vanity through the holes in your woolen Sufi robe."



My Eastern Orthodox Christian response:"Only people who suffer from passionate vulnerability (pathe) feel they are being talked down to."



My Roman Catholic response:"Thank you for pointing out my lack of humility. I will confess that sin to my confessor next Sunday."



My Protestant response: "Thank you for reminding me that I'm a bag of stinking, sinful flesh doomed to eternal hell unless redeemed by Christ's blood and predestined to salvation by God's eternal and inscrutable decree."



My Buddhist response:"Stop re-acting!"


My Shinto response:"Did you look at that solitary pine trembling in the cold winter wind?"




If you read my posts you would see I consider the Judeo-Christian Stone Age God, the Greco-Roman trinitarian version, and the Buddhist view of the 'Source' as the human views of God through the eyes of different times and cultures. I consider the 'Stone Age' God of the OT and the Greco-Roman trinitarian version as the Christian God inferior and incorrect. If you were willing to read deeper you would also know that I believe religions are corrupted and adapted to culture language and time, which is a realistic view of the differences of religion.


So not all religions are one after all? I thought that was one of the big poles that support the all-embracing Baha'i tent :smile: .
[QUOTE]

For those who still nourish childish illusions about the Greek Orthodox, here is what blessed Anoetos writes about them on the Ecclesiology Board:

I mean they promise you solidity, consistency, historical immutibility, solemnity of worship, beards...but when you join them you find that they are ethnically parochial, constantly bickering, arrogant and dismissive of any and all fath traditions other than their own.

Seems like they need to update their commitment to truth in advertizing.

[shunyadragon]

Talk down to people?
My Shakespearean reply: "I am more sinned against than sinning."
My mum's reply: "I'm not talking down to you, Babee'lah, I'm telling you the Truth."
My Socratic response:"I see your vanity through the holes in your woolen Sufi robe."
My Eastern Orthodox Christian response:"Only people who suffer from passionate vulnerability (pathe) feel they are being talked down to."
My Roman Catholic response:"Thank you for pointing out my lack of humility. I will confess that sin to my confessor next Sunday."
My Protestant response: "Thank you for reminding me that I'm a bag of stinking, sinful flesh doomed to eternal hell unless redeemed by Christ's blood and predestined to salvation by God's eternal and inscrutable decree."
My Buddhist response:"Stop re-acting!"
My Shinto response:"Did you look at that solitary pine trembling in the cold winter wind?"Yep! Talking down to people.

Okay! It appears were dealing with a multi-faith personality disorder. At times a bit changable and nasty. No wonder your icon changes so often.

Actually I find many of your posts worth while and very interesting and helpful. Some of them are even added to my personal archives and referenced for future use. But, sometimes the print gets big, bold, quote commands get scattered and the mood gets squirrely. I guess this is the multi-faith personality disorder taking over. Sorta like Dr. Jeckle and multiple Mr. Hydes, on a full moon.

If you read my posts you would see I consider the Judeo-Christian Stone Age God, the Greco-Roman trinitarian version, and the Buddhist view of the 'Source' as the human views of God through the eyes of different times and cultures. I consider the 'Stone Age' God of the OT and the Greco-Roman trinitarian version as the Christian God inferior and incorrect. If you were willing to read deeper you would also know that I believe religions are corrupted and adapted to culture language and time, which is a realistic view of the differences of religion.


So not all religions are one after all? I thought that was one of the big poles that support the all-embracing Baha'i tent :smile: .
A little knowledge of the Baha'i Faith would help in the debate. The above quote remains as my belief. The Baha'i Faith believes that all the people in history and around the world have a relationship with God through one or more revelations. There are certain religions that the Baha'i Faith names as revelations from God, but not all are named. Humanity has always had a personal relationship with God since the first human became human with the gift of knowledge. Humanity has evolved both spiritually and physically in a pattern of cyclic revelations that include the primal religions of all the Neolithic cultures. It is taught that the spiritual heritage of all peoples should be respected. Not all beliefs are revelations and religions are indeed acknowledged as corrupted by humans. Things like human sacrifice and wars of aggression carried out in the name of God are examples of the corruption of religion.

[Jezz]

For those who still nourish childish illusions about the Greek Orthodox, here is what blessed Anoetos writes about them on the Ecclesiology Board:

I mean they promise you solidity, consistency, historical immutibility, solemnity of worship, beards...but when you join them you find that they are ethnically parochial, constantly bickering, arrogant and dismissive of any and all fath traditions other than their own.

Seems like they need to update their commitment to truth in advertizing.
As if we needed any further proof of your tendency to quote out of context and distort things to suit your agenda...

Here is what Anoetos wrote only one post later (see here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45185#post859409)):

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I couldn't finally resist the urge to respond to tizzi's post in kind. Hopefully it will be understood to have been presented in the same spirit in which he gave his; i.e. a kind of heavy-handed levity prevailing.

Anoetos was joking. Tell me: did you deliberately quote him out of context, or was it an accident? And if it was an accident, then can you explain how you made an error that only a rookie could make?

Note also how I provided a reference to the source that I was quoting. It is a rookie mistake to leave that sort of information, too... unless, of course, you left it out on purpose...

[Magdalenbrother]

I confirm everything Anoetos said about the Orthodox. I have been to their monasteries and know how nasty they can get, specially when they grow very long beards.

Jezz, agapetos, instead of grasping at straws and resorting to humorless ad hominem arguments, I think you would render a great service to yourself and to the (rare) readers of the Unorthodox Board, if you humbly and persistently tried to apply your mind to the very real and serious issues raised in this thread.

Shuny, thank you for your qualifications and corrections of the "all religions are one" concept. Let me simply say that if "all religions are one" means what you say it means, the wording of it is very misleading indeed.

[shunyadragon]

As if we needed any further proof of your tendency to quote out of context and distort things to suit your agenda...

Here is what Anoetos wrote only one post later (see here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45185#post859409)):

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I couldn't finally resist the urge to respond to tizzi's post in kind. Hopefully it will be understood to have been presented in the same spirit in which he gave his; i.e. a kind of heavy-handed levity prevailing.

Anoetos was joking. Tell me: did you deliberately quote him out of context, or was it an accident? And if it was an accident, then can you explain how you made an error that only a rookie could make?

Note also how I provided a reference to the source that I was quoting. It is a rookie mistake to leave that sort of information, too... unless, of course, you left it out on purpose...I reviewed the posts and I have to say I have to side in part with Magybro here. If Anoetos was, ah . . . joking, he needs to explain his jokes better, which jokes should not have to be explained.

I have also traveled the world and visited Greek Orthodox churches and communities, and studied their history and cultural background. On the surface a wonderful and hospitable people. Orthodox churches are not very eastern, they are very orthodox with a darker side to their history that more than reflects Anoetos remarks. I and/or course Magybro would not mind documenting that further if necessary.

The Eastern Orthodox is not a bed of ecumenical roses, there are too many thorns for that.

[Jezz]

I reviewed the posts and I have to say I have to side in part with Magybro here. If Anoetos was, ah . . . joking, he needs to explain his jokes better, which jokes should not have to be explained.
You perhaps might like to read the thread that it was a response to - Is Protestantism a bait and switch? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45035), and that might help put it in context.

Anoetos was of course partially serious, just as tizzidale was, but he was nowhere near as serious as Magdelenbrother made him out to be.

I have also traveled the world and visited Greek Orthodox churches and communities, and studied their history and cultural background. On the surface a wonderful and hospitable people. Orthodox churches are not very eastern, they are very orthodox with a darker side to their history that more than reflects Anoetos remarks. I and/or course Magybro would not mind documenting that further if necessary.
No, I'm fairly well acquainted with it thanks. Besides, it would take this thread way off topic. I'll be dealing with some of that in my upcoming response to Magdelenebrother.

The Eastern Orthodox is not a bed of ecumenical roses, there are too many thorns for that.
Oh, I have no illusions about that. The Orthodox Church is made up of sinners who are in need of salvation - we should not be surprised. I have no doubt that this is another area in which Orthodoxy is similar to Buddhism. :wink:

[Happy Buddha]

Whether or not he was Buddhist, he was certainly enlightened.

There is a writer believing that being is and that, to the best of her knowledge, humanity is its highest expression as only humanity has self conscious knowledge. By our actions, we evolve being. Our actions mould the configurations of being into the future. That makes us responsible for whether we live in heaven or hell.

Jesus would have supported the consequences of that belief for ethics and human conduct and he would have liked the dignity it gives humanity. He wouldn't have swallowed the godless nature of being, though.

[shunyadragon]

Whether or not he was Buddhist, he was certainly enlightened.

There is a writer believing that being is and that, to the best of her knowledge, humanity is its highest expression as only humanity has self conscious knowledge. By our actions, we evolve being. Our actions mould the configurations of being into the future. That makes us responsible for whether we live in heaven or hell.

Jesus would have supported the consequences of that belief for ethics and human conduct and he would have liked the dignity it gives humanity. He wouldn't have swallowed the godless nature of being, though.
Welcome to Tweb! I am looking forward to your input concerning your journey.

[Jezz]

You are idealizing the Orthodox. I did that too, until I got to know them. They may have lofty treatises on the "Cloud of Unknowing" and all that, but they aren't much better than the others. Poor Bulgakov was within an inch of being declared an heretic because he had dared to bridge the gap between God and the world in his so-called sophianic theology.
I'm idealising the Orthodox? Hardly. The Orthodox are sinful people, in need of God's salvation. My friend (who is an Orthodox priest, who has been of some help in guiding me in my research into Orthodoxy) has told me more than once that "Orthodoxy has many treasures, but the Orthodox people are terrible."

I doubt that I'm not idealising the Orthodox any more than you're idealising the Tibetan monks...

To believe means nothing. What matters is realization, perception. Belief is an obstacle to perception.
Is that what you believe? :lol:

Western Christianity has moulded the world, Jezz.
No, Western Christianity has moulded the Western world.

The Orthodox didn't colonize America. The Puritans and other Protestants did.
True but irrelevant. It is a big leap from "Western Christians founded America" to "Western Christianity has moulded the world". I don't know about you, but I do not tend to equate "America" with "the world".

It is those same Protestants and Catholics who pounded the Orthodox Serbs during the disgraceful war in the Balkans. But that's something different...
You're right - it's something different. Why did you bring it up? Just so that you had something negative to say?

??? Where do you come up with this stuff??? Can you quote me some respected Christian theologians who claimed that by deforesting they were driving away the devil???

Your knowledge of Church history exhibits gaping lacunae, Jezz.
Well, if my knowledge of Church history has "gaping lacunae", then perhaps you would do me the honour of filling the gaps for me using your superior knowledge? All I asked was for you to quote a respected Christian theologian who claimed that by deforesting they were driving away the devil. I will reward you with 5 pearls for your efforts. That is, of course, if you are able.

The closest I can think of in Christian history is an occasion where an evangelist (whose name escapes me at the present time) was trying to preach the Gospel to some pagans. These pagans believed that their gods resided in a couple of big old trees in the area. The evangelist chopped down these trees to convince the natives that this was false. The natives expected the evangelist to die as a result of the vengance of the gods he had offended - when he did not, they were convinced of the superiority of his God over the ones that they had hitherto worshiped and hence were converted. But this is a far cry from the belief that deforestation drives out the devil - it was a particular few trees, and it was only on account of the local superstition that they were chopped down.

Well surprise, surprise - Christians (like all people) don't always do what their teachings say that they should do. That hardly proves that they teach that God is not immanent.

Surprise, indeed. They should be sinless since, according to Paul, they have been crucified and buried with their saviour in baptism and received the spirit of adoption which cries "Abba" in their hearts. Aren't they new creatures according to the theory? (Even in the time of Paul gross sexual misconduct by church members should have led to a revision of the beautiful theory but apparenly Paul was never able to do that)
Your superficial understanding of Paul again betrays you. In Pauline writings, there is a difference between "sinless" and "sinner". One is sinless if one's sins have been forgiven - but this does not rule out the possibility of future sins.

God is immanent but the Christians don't care.
I would appreciate it if you didn't make such generalisations like that. A great many Christians care.

You oversimplify what is an extremely complicated history, and conveniently forget those occasions and those nations where Christianity was persecuted. For example, when the Roman empire became officially Christian, the Christians in Persia were subjected to intense persecution because they were seen as Romanisers.

Because one has been persecuted is no good reason to persecute others.
Don't change the topic. You were trying to make it seem as though persecution is all that Christianity ever does. I was pointing out that this is not the case. In fact, it's not even most of what Christianity does.

As for your comment "did he really mean that the oppressed first century Jews should love the hateful Romans, I doubt it!!" - well, I find it hard to take this ridiculous comment seriously.

I still haven't used the word "ridiculous" in my posts to you.
No. You've simply made sweeping generalisations about of group of people, and you've accused my knowledge of history of having "gaping lacunae".

Of course He meant that they should love the hateful Romans.

The people who thought that the earth was flat also said: "Of course, Aristotle and the Bible can't be wrong."
What does Aristotle and flat-earth claims have to do with what Jesus taught about the Romans, or about Buddhism??? This is just another of your mud-bearing red herrings...

But since you brought it up...

How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind straight, gibbous, and concave-but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth's surface, which is therefore spherical.

You can find an online copy of this here (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html).

I'll give you 5 pearls if you can admit that you were wrong to insinuate that Aristotle thought that the Earth was flat.

As for the Bible - the Bible is equivocal as to the shape of the Earth. It does not attempt to describe the earth's shape in scientific detail.

The Roman legions cannot be compared to the isolated, wandering alien envisaged by the Biblical author.

Didn't the Jews commit a wholesale genocide when they entered the land of Canaan? Wasn't the order to kill all Canaanites issued by Yahveh himself?
The order was not to kill all the Canaanites - only those who remained in the cities.

but Jesus Himself proved that was His meaning with His actions: when He was dying on the cross asked His Father to forgive those "hateful Romans" who were crucifying them!

Jesus may have been changed a great deal by his sufferings. He too had to learn perfect obedience (Hebrews), and I would also add, perfect wisdom.
(Emphasis mine.)

You would add??? And you wonder why I accuse you of making stuff up? It's because you do.

He may have realized that universal compassion is the ultimate truth of the universe on the cross, but again what did he really say on the cross? No two Gospels agree on this point
He probably said lots of things on the cross, and I'd wager that none of the Gospels record them all. That the Gospel writers were selective in their reporting does not make them incorrect. Only a superficial thinker would immediately conclude that they were in direct contradiction.

(to say nothing of the highly embarrassing fact that Luke has one of the bandits recognize Jesus as the Messiah while Matthew says that the two guys reviled him).
How embarassing is it that two eyewitness accounts will give slightly different testimonies? Perhaps one of the bandits originally "reviled" Him and then repented later on? They were, after all, on their crosses for a long time.

You, like John Damascene (have you read his convoluted chronology of the Resurrection events with Maggie running four times to the tomb like an Evangelical Evelyn Ashford?), paste all the accounts together. I don't think that's a credible exegetical method, sorry.
When did I paste them altogether? How did you suddenly turn this into a discussion about Gospel harmonisation? You're just throwing in more mud-coated red-herrings, aren't you...

Like it or not, the Gospels are the best surviving textual witnesses to the events surrounding Christ's crucifiction. If your view of what Christ did, said and believed is not based on them, then they are based purely on speculation.

He called pagans "dogs" and "swines" (to which no pearls should be thrown). He forbade his disciples to teach in foreign lands or in Samaria.
He did not forbid his disciples to teach in foreign lands forever. He simply told them to restrict their activities to within Israel at that particular point in time. Are you not forgetting the explicit command to go and make disciples of all nations in Matt 28? (Let me guess, that was an "interpolation"... :ahem:) To understand why Jesus went to the Jews first would require you to understand the Biblical story a whole lot better than what you currently do, so I'll just skip it for now...

Jesus only called pagans "dogs" once, and that in a mini parable. You seem to forget that, in that instance, Jesus actually healed the woman. It was clearly a test of her faith, and she passed with shining colours.

As for calling them "swine to which no pearls should be thrown", he does no such thing. The comment about not throwing pearls before swine (Matt 7:6) comes in the context of judging others - there is no indication that he is speaking of Gentiles in particular. That's just another of your exegetical "embellishments".

He didn't let the man whom he had liberated from the evil spirits collectively called "Legion (was it an allusion to the Roman army?)" follow him: he was not a Jew!
So instead, He told him to go and spread the word about him. He had the honour of becoming the first one to preach about Christ in his own region. An honour he would not have had, if he had followed Christ at that time.

If Jesus hated him as much as you claim, then why did He bother to heal him at all? :doh:

The poor man who was helped by the Samaritan in the famous parable was obviously a Jew.
:doh: I can't believe you'd miss the basic moral behind the Good Samaritan parable - which is that the Samaritan is the hero of the story. If Christ hated non-Jews, then why did He make the Samaritan the hero of His story?

And Jesus gave his disciples no instructions whatsoever as to how to integrate the Gentiles into the Church. Hence all the quarrels between Paul and the Judaizing Christians of the Jamesian Church in Jerusalem.
Jesus didn't need to give His disciples instructions - He gave them the Holy Spirit, Who would guide them into all truth. And He did. The Judaisers lost that particular battle.

Seems that James didn't like Gentiles a lot.
You mean the James who judged that "we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19)?

Of course, these passages have been "corrected" by interpolating less xenophobic sayings into the Christian corpus, but the old truth still shines through here and there that Jesus despised the heathens, just like the majority of his contemporaries.
:lol: I bet you're one of these "moon hoax" nuts too. They like to postulate all sorts of conspiracies at how the "real" evidence has been covered up and the true story hidden. It is convenient that the evidence which supports their theories cannot be accessed. Just like those (conveniently unavailable) uninterpolated New Testament documents. :smile:

See how he laughs at their religious practices and gross materialism in Matthew 5 and 6. See how he calls Jerusalem the "City of the Great King": what a challenge to Roman authority!
:lol:

1. Most of Matthew 5 and 6 is about Jewish materialism and religious practices. He is taking swipes at the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. The Gentiles are only mentioned once (in passing) in that entire passage - in Matthew 6:32.
2. There is no indication that Jesus was laughing. That's just another of your little "embellishments".

And he didn't want Caesar to plunder the Holy Land. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". And what is Caesar's? The Italian Peninsula and nothing more. Israel belongs to God. IOW, no taxes to Rome.
So you've somehow managed to turn the famous "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" saying and twist it around so that you believe it means the exact opposite of what it actually means. That's some mighty fine creativity you've shown with that exegesis, but it has no grounding in anything outside of your own little mind.

What did Jesus do immediately prior to saying this? He held up a coin with Caesar's inscription on it. In this context, the message is obvious for anyone who does not have a chip on their shoulder: the coins belong to Caesar. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

To know the truth one must read the whole Bible, you see, and then choose the most plausible interpretation by taking into account all sources.
This is about the most sensible thing that you've said. It's just a pity that you can't follow your own advice. :smile: You tend to place too much emphasis on fringe interpretations.

Quote and source, please. I would like to read it in context. You also need to learn what "heretic" really means.

I have read it in books on the Holy Inquisition which also quote him.
I'm sorry, but "I've read it in a couple of books that a couple of anonymous people wrote claiming that Augustine said these things" doesn't cut it. I want to see what St Augustine actually wrote, and the context in which he wrote it.

To aid you in your search, you can find Augustine's works online here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/).

You are an intelligent Christian, Jezz:
If you say so.

...you should understand why anyone holding the theories of Christianity must give his assent to the notion that "it is merciful to be merciless to the heretics".
I do understand it. I understand it better than you, I wager. And it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Don't you teach "exclusive salvation"?
No. Orthodoxy teaches that God desires that all people be saved. But, of course, not all people actually want to be saved...

I don't care about the little intelligent Oriental flock, sorry. They have had no impact on the world at large.
If by "they have had no impact on the world at large" you mean "they have had no impact on the Western world in the last 400 years", then I'd agree with you. But some people have a bit less temporo-grapho-centric view of the world than this.

And anyway, if you don't care about the Orthodox, then why are you bothering to have this conversation with me? I am trying to show the similarities between Orthodoxy and Buddhism. If you wish to continue to point out the differences between Buddhism and Protesantism, then you'll get nothing but agreement from me. But you'll be attacking a strawman.

Besides and more importantly, you too overgeneralize when you want the good Christians to be the icon of Christianity.
You do not judge the quality of a piece of music as it is played by average musicians. You judge it as it is played by the best.

Salvation does not come by repeating a set of rigid formulas. That is what gnosticism teaches. Christianity teaches that we are saved by the grace of God, through faith - which means continual repentance and the forgiveness that accompanies it.

Read Paul: "If you believe that Jesus died for your sins and confess it, you are saved." The¨Protestants are the only Christians who have carried Paul's theology to its (il)logical conclusion.
I've read Paul - and I've read him in Greek. You missed out the bit about believing in your heart. You also understand the true meaning of "having faith", and you take the passage out of context (which occurs at a particular point in an argument Paul develops throughout the whole of Romans).

Why then the credo? If the credo doesn't save one, why all the struggles to define it? Why all the anathemas?
To defend the truth from error and from those who seek to pervert it.

Are you saying that I can dispense with all the knowledge about Jesus and be saved all the same?
Yes and no. If I thought you were actually interested in the answer to this question, I'd explain in more detail. But I get the distinct impression that you're only interested in a fight, so I won't waste my time. If you are genuinely interested, ask me and I will do my best to answer.

Moderate your tone, Jezz.
Well, you know what they say about glass houses 'n all... speaking of "tones", I'm not the only one who has detected a strong note of condescension in yours...

Charity and humility are much better than clever arguments and boastful rhethoric if you want to convert people to your faith rather than simply assert yourself macho-like.
I am not trying to convert anyone. It is not my job to "convert" people - that is the job of the Holy Spirit.

I am mounting an "apologia" - ie, a defense - of the truth. I am correcting your errors and exposing your deceptions so that the innocent bystander may not be led astray.

The Orthodox are vey macho: I was expelled from a Greek Orthodox forum for simply suggesting that the Magdalen may have played a greater role in Jesus'life than just embracing his feet at the Resurrection (and being told simultaneously not to touch him).
And I guess you are actually proud of the fact that you managed to push people's buttons and upset them enough for them to dissociate yourself from them?

Yesterday I had a conversation with a Buddhist and he told me: "No God in Buddhism. Never."
Fair enough. Some sources I have seen claim that this depends on which particular Buddhist tradition you are following, but I will not belabour the point here. It is not essential to my argument.

Of course, they must both teach people to be good and patient. But good to whom? And patient why? There the differences arise.
Of course, I have shown that the similarities are far less superficial than that. But as you have already addressed me here in another post,

The Buddhist believes that to be the case. The Buddhist is wrong.

No comment.
That is the second most intelligent thing that you have said in this post. :wink:

Because it is true (apart from the bit about the pope).

How do you know? Because it's written in a book?
Most of what I know about the world I learned by reading book. Are you saying that you can't learn anything useful in the world from a book?

They have some superficial similarities.
They have some similarities. Some are superficial. Others are more profound. Monasticism is one that is more profound.

What horrors did Athanasius commit against the Arians? I've never heard anyone claim that Athanasius committed horrors against the Arians. This would have been difficult for him to do, because the Arians were the ones that were in power when he was bishop. Indeed, he was exiled by the Arian powerbrokers about 7 times. I think you have it backwards.

Again you seem not to have read the right books about Church history. Read "When Jesus became God". Available on Amazon.com and with a special review by yours truly.
I tried to get "When Jesus became God", but it was not available at my local seminary (which just happens to be the 2nd biggest theological library in Australia...). I also noted that it was not written by a historian or by a theologian, but by someone who was inexpert in the period. You'll have to excuse me if I don't find the opinion of a layman to be compelling - especially when it is clearly a fringe work.

As for not reading the "right books" - I must confess, I have a preference for primary sources. If this constitutes "not reading the right books", then colour me guilty! You, on the other hand, seem to rely on secondary works (and those who are more fringe and speculative at that) more than primary sources. You've still not produced any references to primary sources for the allegations you've made against either Athanasius or Augustine.

You said that faith saved. And grace. Now it's suffering. What on earth is it that saves? Can you write a list?
Are you so one-dimensional that you can't understand how grace, faith and suffering (and other things, for that matter) might all be interrelated? If you are drowning and I throw you a life perserver and pull you out, what has saved you? Did I save you? Did the life preserver save you? Did you save yourself by virtue of your struggle in holding on to the life preserver in the rough seas? Can you write a list for me? :rofl:

Buddhists have gone very deeply into this question of suffering. They have stated-and they are right-that the very essence of human life is continual suffering. In Christianity, they (Paul) say that the ultimate truth about our present human life is sin.
Sin = suffering. Thankyou for proving my point...

Do you or do you not agree that the Christian idea of "salvation" is to be saved from suffering?

People look for "God" because they are unhappy. They don't care about the truth: what they want is the [snip]. If something other than God could demonstrably give them this [snip] experience, they would turn their backs on "God" instantly.

No, I don't agree. Salvation for a Christian consists not in being saved from suffering, but in being saved from the radical separation from God brought about by his transgression of the divine law, ie sin. Happiness, cessation of suffering, is a by-product of reconciliation with God.
I took the liberty of editing out your crude sexual comment. Other than that, you simply confirmed what I wrote. Suffering is a result of separation from God. As reconciliation with God is the goals of Christianity, it follows as a corollary that a goal is to escape suffering. QED.

Anthropology was important for Evagrius Ponticus, Isaac the Syrian (a hateful Nestorian by the way!) and the other ascetes,
And ascetic theology is an important part of Orthodoxy. Hence the emphasis on the monastic ideal.

...who had to invent or rediscover a workable, practical anthropology since the Bible didn't give them any detailed, precise indications on that subject (how could it be otherwise? the Bible is mainly concerned with the material welfare of the Jewish people).
I agree that the Bible doesn't give them any detailed, precise indications on the subject. To which I reply "so what"? It doesn't give detailed designs for an ocean liner either.

Not for your average Christian. Just ask him what there is in Man, and he will sheepishly say that he is made up of a "soul and body". Most are not even aware of the Paulinian trilogy of pneuma, psyche and soma. Even Paul does not explain what the trilogy really means and how it works. It's all hazy and confusing.
There is no such triology. "pneuma" and "psyche" are used more-or-less interchangably, except where Paul speaks of the pneuma of God (ie, the Holy Spirit).

Why care when belief in Jesus Christ is enough to be saved?
Mere belief in Jesus Christ is not enough to be saved. One must have faith.

Monks are a paradox in Christianity, yeah a scandal! They give the lie to all the demagogical promises of the Church regarding salvation through faith. The Protestants, who were very intelligent people after all, abolished the monasteries.
Not all Protestants abolished monasteries - there are some Lutheran and Anglican, even Baptist monasteries. As for the Protestants being intelligent people - perhaps, but they were misguided. The monks were no less intelligent...

They are, but what has Christianity to say on the spiritual anatomy of Man? Not much. I've read the books, sir. Written by Orthodox theologians (Yannaras).

Most of it is just fluffy theories and inferences laboriously extracted from vague Biblical passages. They have never looked inside themselves, that's the sad truth.

Compare the Christian anthropological skeleton with the incredibly rich knowledge of the Tibetans, all the things they know about the intermediate states of the soul between death and reincarnation. It's amazing how much these people know! See Sri Aurobindo's anatomy of Man with all its fine distinctions between the different bodies or koshas. It's amazing!
Plenty of fiction writers have written speculations about such things... Are you actually criticising Christianity for not making stuff up?

A double nature: God and man. How will that help me to breathe better?
It shows you the kind of person you can become, if you are willing.

Man has a soul. The rest of creation hasn't a soul. Man towers therefore above fallen nature altogether.
Incorrect. Man does not have a soul - man is a soul. And the word for soul (psyche) is used for animals as well as human (see Genesis 1:20-24 - "living creatures" is rendered "psychwn zwswn".

You're confusing Christianity with Platonism - a common mistake for those not familiar with early Christianity and Hellenism.

You can't be a part of nature when you say that you have some kind of supernatural thing in you that comes from God. Your body may be a part of this world, but what is the body in Christianity?

A body of death. A body of sin. The temple of the Holy Spirit? That's the passage they never cared to explore very deeply (except some monks, I agree).
The "body" that is referred to as the temple of the Holy Spirit is the Church - not a particular individual.

I have no orders to receive from you, Jezz. If you don't want to read my "errors", just stay away from this thread and go listen to fat purring orthodox cats.
Translation: "I have no orders to receive from you... instead, here are my orders for you..." :rofl: This is exactly the kind of condescension (hypocritical, too) that shunydragon was irked about.

Know that I'm a lean, hungry Japanese Tosa dog restlessly roaming in Sinjuku, the redlight district of Tokyo, in search of holy bones to plant my dirty, broken teeth into.
As I suspected. You're not looking for truth. You're looking for a fight. Unfortunately, truth is usually the first casualty in such a fight...

Besides, I do not recall saying that Jesus and Buddha are very close. I said that they have significant similarities. Please, be careful not to misrepresent what I say.

I disagree and I have explained why. You haven't gone very deeply into any of the points I raised.
No, I haven't. I don't seem to have as much time spare as you do at the moment. I hope to get to that soon.

I don't want to analyze you, Jezz, but contrary to what you blithely affirm here, I think that your real aim is to wrap up Buddhism in the Christian Immaculate Doctrinal Shroud by suggesting that Buddhism isn't that special since all the good things Buddhists have Christians also have.
:rofl: Translation: "I don't want to analyse you Jezz... ahh, who am I kidding? I'm itching to analyse you! Here's my analysis..." :lol:

There is certainly some good in Christianity. Christianity does contain some nuggets of the philosophia perennis,
Well, it is good of you to admit that!

...but these truths are obscured, covered by many layers of cultural accretions that have nothing to do with God and truth and everything to do with questions of power and mind-control of the masses by greedy mitred clerks.
:ahem: I don't have the time to go through this. I've dealt with enough of your red herrings already.

I'm afraid this is only the beginning of your lofty labors since there is so much mess for you to clean up on this unorthodox board, a real anti-Christian Augean stable...
I'm well aware of that... I fight little battles here and there, but I can't possibly fight them all.

I propose that you should be renamed "JezzHercules" and I sincerely expect the bearded Archimandrites, Higoumenoi and Patriarchs to make you a saint after you go to Heaven. You will have your own Holy Icon in all American Orthodox churches, with an Apple computer resting on your lap: "St JezzHercules, Holy Patron of Christian Forum Apologists, pray for us, Buddhists, sorry Christians."
I thought you knew something about Christianity? The idea that we "go to Heaven when we die" is a Platonic idea, not a Judeo-Christian one.

Error should always be exposed for what it is. Intellectually, tolerance is the suicide of reason. And is in fact a nice word for lazy, cowardly "relativism".
Well, here I can certainly agree with you. Which is a good note to finish on! :cheers:

[shunyadragon]

You perhaps might like to read the thread that it was a response to - Is Protestantism a bait and switch? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45035), and that might help put it in context.
I actually did take this into consideration that is why I said I agreed in part with Magybro.

Anoetos was of course partially serious, just as tizzidale was, but he was nowhere near as serious as Magdelenbrother made him out to be.
Again, I say in part. Magybro's venom often puts him in a very aggressive adversary position attacking everyone, except, ah . . . Krishnamurti. I prefer the middle way.

No, I'm fairly well acquainted with it thanks. Besides, it would take this thread way off topic. I'll be dealing with some of that in my upcoming response to Magdelenebrother.
I will pull this back partially on topic at the end.

Oh, I have no illusions about that. The Orthodox Church is made up of sinners who are in need of salvation - we should not be surprised. I have no doubt that this is another area in which Orthodoxy is similar to Buddhism. :wink:
I will object to the duck, weave and dodge of being sinners and the comparison to Buddhism.

Sin is different than pervasive charactor. If what you mean by being a sinner, whould mean the weakness of the human charactor to temptation. If it is sin, Repent and go and sin no more. Part of being a sinner is to realize the errors of our ways. It does not mean will never sin again, but it does mean we should 'change'. What I am referring to is the charactor of relationships with other people who are of different beliefs or in other ways different. There is very little or no effort among the Orthodox to change their ways. In fact after the initial wave of the illusion of hope of eccumenism and change, most churches have retreated form any attempt to change.

Back on topic sort of. The comparison to Buddhism is not really justified. There are some similarities in that the austere monasticism may be also found in some schools of Buddhism, but the attitudes and relationships with those who believe diferently is a world appart. Buddhism distinctly lacks the overt since of superiority over people of other beliefs and the vengence of anti-semitism and the notion of calling Jews 'Christ killers'. Even when the Buddhist were severely persicuted and oppressed by the Communists and others in history, there is no since of vengence against the oppressors that you would see in Europe with the historical blood feuds between religions like in Yugoslavia.

One of the reasons I spent many years as a student of Buddhism and became a Baha'i is what I call the underlieing charactor of a faith and the people, and not the weakness of being sinners. Just like the sky is blue on a clear day at noon, all people of all faiths are sinners. Even though Buddhism is by far more tolerant than other religions, it still has an inherant aloofness over other beliefs today.

A little bebirth of Buddha/Christ spirit in Christianity could help.

I do not consider Orthodox very eastern or much different from the western churches in that the Orthodox did spiritually colonize Asia and by the way Alaska. Religious diversity was not tolerated any more in Asia than it was when western Christianity forcefully colonized much of the rest of the world.
East or West, Christianity is still very much Christianity.

[div_patel77]

:wink: Eastern religion such as Hinduism was well alive and practiced before even Moses came about. The 'four' Vedas were created through the centuries, which was followed by the Moses inspiration from God on the otherside of the world. Buddha lived before Jesus. Buddha came from the inspiration from Hindu teachings. Jesus's teachings are well aligned with the Buddhist teachings. The Western notion of religion never understood the Eastern religion due to recognizing only one type of religion. I would not take whatever your professor said about Jesus with full heart, but Jesus's teachings are very similar to Buddha's teachings, which Buddha lived well beofre Jesus. Also, the very first notion of God was from the Eastern religion. Hinudism is a religion of the East, but it was the Arayans who migrated to the Subcontinent Asia who started to practice Hinduism. I just wish Christians can see that most likely, Jesus could have been influenced by Buddha. Many people in the Western side of the world has interpreted the Jesus's ways differently within their own religion, but if you read the Bible of Jesus's actions and words, they are all similar to Buddha's teachings. In addition, the Hinduism had many influence on the ancient Greek teachings during the Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates times.

You may also want to consider that many people have added and subtracted things out of the Bible throughout the centuries. These people were the religious leaders of their time. For example, the wrong concept of Mary Magdelene. Mamy people think she was a prostitute. Why would people think that way? Well, the Pope in around 52 A.D. came up with that concept. Also, in addition, many Chrisitians always talk about 'hell.' In the Bible, it does not mention much about hell. What is does say that evil people will be destroyed and God's kingdom will take over Earth. There is no enternal torture. It is hard to believe that God has this type of heart to his creations, such as animals, including humans.

[div_patel77]

You are right on.



Whether or not he was Buddhist, he was certainly enlightened.

There is a writer believing that being is and that, to the best of her knowledge, humanity is its highest expression as only humanity has self conscious knowledge. By our actions, we evolve being. Our actions mould the configurations of being into the future. That makes us responsible for whether we live in heaven or hell.

Jesus would have supported the consequences of that belief for ethics and human conduct and he would have liked the dignity it gives humanity. He wouldn't have swallowed the godless nature of being, though.

[shunyadragon]

You are right on.
There is another book in the Bible that has an interesting Vedic, Buddhist and Taoist slant to some of the verses. It does refer to God, but in some ways less OT and more Vedic.

It is Ecclesiastes.

A Time for Everything

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
9 What does the worker gain from his toil? 10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. 12 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. 13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil-this is the gift of God. 14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

[Magdalenbrother]

It seems to me that Ecclesiastes is just a form of disillusioned Jewish Epicureanism. I don't see how it could be described as Taoist or Buddhist in any sense. The author-like most Biblical writers-doesn't even believe in an afterlife. I know that there are some materialistic schools in sanatana dharma too, but they are on the whole quite marginal.

Was Jesus enlightened? He may have become enlightened as a result of his sufferings (this is confirmed by Hebrews in several verses) but before the crucifixion he was IMHO just another Jewish religious teacher with many eschatological and nationalist illusions. Some of his teachings are clearly substandard: I'm thinking of all the passages in which he promises earthly rewards to people, threatens them with hell if they deny him or encourages them to suffer martyrdom for him. In Zen Buddhism you don't expect any rewards. Expecting a reward is part of the old greedy mind.

For me the biggest flaw in Jesus' teachings is his insistence on the need to rely on him to have access to the Ultimate Truth. Buddha repeatedly emphasized that one is saved by one's efforts only. There is no savior. The Buddha would never have said: "Do this in remembrance of me". What the Buddha wanted to be is just a temporary bridge, to be thrown away as soon as one reaches the other shore.

Jesus may also have had such a view of himself, but his disciples obviously didn't want to let go of him.

I didn't notice your long refutation, Jezz, and after a quick glance at it, I am in doubt whether I'm going to go to all the trouble of trying to convince you that you may be wrong. I'm tired to have to demonstrate that elephants, even bearded Orthodox ones, don't water-ski in Antarctica, you see.

Your lack of "levity" in all this just kills me...

Let the non dualistic embrace of the joyous Trinity keep us all safe and well.

Magbro

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me that Ecclesiastes is just a form of disillusioned Jewish Epicureanism. I don't see how it could be described as Taoist or Buddhist in any sense. The author-like most Biblical writers-doesn't even believe in an afterlife. I know that there are some materialistic schools in sanatana dharma too, but they are on the whole quite marginal.
You noticed some similarities in there is not specific after-life reference. There are other similarities without getting into a heavy Jewish Epicureanism.

[Magdalenbrother]

Suppose tomorrow someone were to produce absolutely irrefutable evidence that both the Buddha and Jesus never existed.

Buddhism would survive. Christianity wouldn't.

That says a lot on the fundamental difference between the two.

[Richbee]

Suppose tomorrow someone were to produce absolutely irrefutable evidence that both the Buddha and Jesus never existed.

Buddhism would survive. Christianity wouldn't.

That says a lot on the fundamental difference between the two.

The real rub here, is that the tesimonies about the birth, life, teacjings and death of the Buddha are higly suspect, IMO.

The 'scriptures" or writings were not recorded until some 300 years after the death of the Buddha.

He died too young, IMO, and who knows, he might have found the one God, the one original monotheistic God that Hindus originally believed in.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe the Buddha exsted, as a Hindu.

He never set out to start a Religion, or a Non-Religion.

He just got lost in a river of confusion, and had some real difficulties with the Law(s) of Karma, and the caste system.

Who wouldn't? It is a curse.

When Buddha rejected the Hindu sciptures, was he a god in ignorance, or a god in enlightement? How do we know, and why did he adopt an exclusivenistic POV on the matter of Truth?

[Richbee]

I posted this on another thread, and I DESIRE to post it here too!

I was thinking of starting a new thread on Desire and Suffering, and PLEASURE!

There is a very wide gulf between Jesus, Christianity and Buddhism.

Stuart McAllister writes:

"......Buddha said that the way to end suffering is to end desire, but the Christian Scriptures reveal that desire is inescapable, for we are made in God’s image. And in God is the fullness of desire for God delights in being God. He is inexhaustible in his perfection, holiness, and love, and he takes delight in all he does.

We see this particularly in the phrase “the gospel of the glory of the blessed God,” or as John Piper says, “happy God.” Piper writes, “God’s glory consists much in the fact that he is happy beyond our wildest imagination.” Does this portrait of God strike you as unfamiliar, or even perhaps unorthodox? After all, God is, well, God. What does he care about happiness? He cares to the uttermost, for in the loving relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit is the very fullness of such desire.

“The happiness of God is first and foremost a happiness in his Son,” writes Piper. “Thus when we share in the pleasure of God we share in the very pleasure that the Father has in the Son.” God delights in His Son’s majesty coupled with his meekness, and utters upon Jesus’ baptism, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” We see such majesty and meekness in Jesus’ final days on earth. He is the victorious Lion who conquers sin and death by laying down his life as a meek sacrificial Lamb.

Source - Clcik Here for More (www.rzim.org/publications/today.php/196)

[youthalive]

My Philosophy professor gave a lecture today on Jesus being Buddhist originally and living with some group of people (I won't attempt to remember their name but it started with an A). I had never heard this idea before, ever. It seemed absolutely ridiculous, but I wondered if anyone here has heard of this and could perhaps help me out with it. He also claimed Jesus wrote the Stigmata... Again, I'd love help and more information if anyone's heard of these theories before.

Well, I'm sorry to put it this way, and pardon me if I sound intolerant to others, but you're philosophy teacher was talking pure nonsense. I really don't know much about the claim that Jesus was Buddhist, but I do know some information.

Many people believe that Jesus was Buddhists (especially the Buddhists) because Jesus did live among some Buddhists when he passed by some country. They believe that also because some biblical values, such as treat others the way you want them to treat you etc, is also found on some ancient Buddhist scrolls. However, I don't think that counts for much, especially not enough for your Philosophy teacher to jump into conclusions just like that. Besides, if Jesus was Buddhist, why would the people who wrote the bible portray him as a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God? Also, I would like to think that the Biblical values that coincide with the Buddhist scrolls were results of Jesus' influence on the Buddhists during his visit.

Finally, do not believe whatever you hear. Always refer to the Bible for answers. Ask your professor how he came to that absurd conclusion. I find it enlightening to learn about religious things from others point of view; I find it strengtens my faith even more to think that so many people out there do not know the truth, and yet I do.

I hope I was of help to you!

[youthalive]

I posted this on another thread, and I DESIRE to post it here too!

I was thinking of starting a new thread on Desire and Suffering, and PLEASURE!

There is a very wide gulf between Jesus, Christianity and Buddhism.

Stuart McAllister writes:

"......Buddha said that the way to end suffering is to end desire, but the Christian Scriptures reveal that desire is inescapable, for we are made in God’s image. And in God is the fullness of desire for God delights in being God. He is inexhaustible in his perfection, holiness, and love, and he takes delight in all he does.

We see this particularly in the phrase “the gospel of the glory of the blessed God,” or as John Piper says, “happy God.” Piper writes, “God’s glory consists much in the fact that he is happy beyond our wildest imagination.” Does this portrait of God strike you as unfamiliar, or even perhaps unorthodox? After all, God is, well, God. What does he care about happiness? He cares to the uttermost, for in the loving relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit is the very fullness of such desire.

“The happiness of God is first and foremost a happiness in his Son,” writes Piper. “Thus when we share in the pleasure of God we share in the very pleasure that the Father has in the Son.” God delights in His Son’s majesty coupled with his meekness, and utters upon Jesus’ baptism, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” We see such majesty and meekness in Jesus’ final days on earth. He is the victorious Lion who conquers sin and death by laying down his life as a meek sacrificial Lamb.

Source - Clcik Here for More (www.rzim.org/publications/today.php/196)



I'm sorry, but I feel that I must add to your entry, rich. Those aren't the only differences between Christianity and Buddhism. I think you missed the main one.

To me, the thing that sets Christianity apart from all other religions is that salvation comes free. Absolutely free. Unlike some other religions, we don't have to earn it, like we don't have to sacrifice our first born baby to our "God" because that pleases him and thus he will not pour his wrath upon us. We don't have to be extremely charitable and give away all our money in order to ensure us a place in heaven. Or at least we don't now.

In the past, people were required to sacrifice lambs to God in exchange for their own life. That seems fair enough: the lambs life for yours. God saw this as a problem, though. You weren't guarenteed a place in heaven as a lamb was not enough. So, God sent down his son Jesus to die for us in our place. So now it's no longer the lamb in exchange for our lives. It's Jesus in exchange for our lives. Jesus died so that we can live. Jesus died so that we can live. That was the only reason Jesus came down. TO DIE FOR US. How amazing is that?

"So what? Millions of people die everyday." you might say. Jesus was merely one more innocent man who died for a cause. Ah, but here's the catch. Jesus was the son of God. Jesus was God. so now it's God in exchange for our lives. God died so that we can live. When Jesus was sentenced to death, he was whipped so hard by two roman guards that they fell dead exhausted. It was because he didn't die from the whipping that they had to hang him on the cross. He went through all that, when he could have just destroyed us all and created a new earth, new creation (which is what alot of other religions suggest).

Now, to receive salvation, all we have to do is to admit that you are sinful (which includes things as simple as lying.) and that Jesus died for you and want him in your life. No killing of babies. No sacrificing of innocent men.

I guess, all i'm trying to say is that Christianity is a religion of hope and love. Sure, I admit that we are sinful in nature, but all our sins are paid for, when Jesus died on the cross. Jesus committed no sin, and yet he chose to suffer for us, unlike other religions which portray their God as angry and revengeful, with a temper that can be lethal if you don't obey the orders of your God.

I'm not saying that we Christians should just completely disregard what the Bible has to say either. God has set down guidelines for the way he wants us to live. In fact, the Bible is what you would call, "The Dummy's Guide to Life." The most commonly refered to set of laws in the Bible is the Ten Commandments. God has said plain out that it is impossible for any man to not break one, if not all , of the ten commandments. But every commandment that God has set can be found in basic law. God says, "Do not lie." The law says," Do not lie in court before the judge and jury." Actually, if you read the bible, it says that God is the ultimate judge. What is so ridiculous about a law that says, "Do not lie"? Another example would be " Do not murder." In almost any country in this world, if you committed murder, you would put in jail for a long long time, or sentenced to death. So what's so wrong about a law that says "Do not murder?" Besides, i think most of us would think it is a great law if we were the ones being murdered. So, every law God sets for us is for our own good. It is to prevent us from being hurt, or inflicting pain, for that matter.

Most people believe that God exists, and that jesus did come down to die for us, but yet do not believe it because of what they fear they might miss out; the sacrifices they have to make to be a Christian. Common reasons are that they don't want to wake up on Sundays for church, they don't want to give up their fun-filled life of booze and drugs and waking up with some person they hardly know, and that they feel that life is much simpler or easier if they were athiest. Most people feel that they would have to make a great sacrifice by giving up things like that in order to be a Christian. Well, here's a question I would like to ask: Is it worth it? Is it worth throwing your life away to drugs and alcohol because you think it's fun? Is it worth it ignoring God your whole life, and later ending up in hell, regretting it for eternity? Furthermore, what you give up or "sacrifice", cannot be considered a sacrifice, because you are trading it in for something much much better! Imagine you had a car. A run down, old, slow car, but a car nevertheless, and you derive happiness and joy for it. Someone offers to trade that rundown car for, say, the newest ferrari model. Would you do it? In a heartbeat. But would you consider the rundown car you just gave up a sacrifice? No, because you have received something much better. That is the joy of being a Christian. the little sacrifices you make aren't sacrifices at all, compared to the one Jesus did, and compared to what you get in return of those sacrifices!

I hope I was of help to you! :teeth:

[sonofyah]

The Essenes perhaps?



It sounds absolutely ridiculous, because it IS absolutely ridiculous. Eastern religion simply hadn't reached the ANE at the time of Christ.

Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank has an article here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat2.html

Most of these claims stem from the copycat Christ theories.



What is the Stigmata?

Yours,
Xavier

Most of these claims stem from the copycat Christ theories.

This is the truth check "Harry Krishna". To say Jesus is Buddist would be crazy because the name Jesus is English. The Messiah is absolutely, positively "Jewish", so that means he didnt have an english name or an Indian name, he has the name above every Name being "Yahoshua". The origin of Buddist comes from India who submits to the Hindu triad Vishnu, Shiva, & Bharama. Buddah being an Avatar means that he was incarnated by the spirit of the Hindu triad and the "Vedas" donot speak of Yahoshua Hamessiach. The Bagavad Gita speaks of "Krishna"

[Jillyn'Toast]

I think it's odd that a couple of my old threads are being commented on a year later, lol... but thats cool.. anyway...

youthalive, I don't always believe everything I hear. In fact, I rarely believe anything I hear. This certain prof. and I had a lot of disagreements. This being one of them... He actually brought this point up in a class lecture he made specifically to rebuttal our after class discussions. I think there's a lot of confusion out there about who Jesus was historically. (Just watch National Geographic.) I can't say that I'm very qualified to have the discussion of who he was, but I think I can figure out when someones just pulling stuff out of the air. I do, though, like to know more about why they've said it and possibly some responses to it. That's why I posted here. Thanks for the reply!

[Pilgrim]

I'm sorry, but I feel that I must add to your entry, rich. Those aren't the only differences between Christianity and Buddhism. I think you missed the main one.

To me, the thing that sets Christianity apart from all other religions is that salvation comes free. Absolutely free. Unlike some other religions, we don't have to earn it, like we don't have to sacrifice our first born baby to our "God" because that pleases him and thus he will not pour his wrath upon us. We don't have to be extremely charitable and give away all our money in order to ensure us a place in heaven. Or at least we don't now.

In the past, people were required to sacrifice lambs to God in exchange for their own life. That seems fair enough: the lambs life for yours. God saw this as a problem, though. You weren't guarenteed a place in heaven as a lamb was not enough. So, God sent down his son Jesus to die for us in our place. So now it's no longer the lamb in exchange for our lives. It's Jesus in exchange for our lives. Jesus died so that we can live. Jesus died so that we can live. That was the only reason Jesus came down. TO DIE FOR US. How amazing is that?

"So what? Millions of people die everyday." you might say. Jesus was merely one more innocent man who died for a cause. Ah, but here's the catch. Jesus was the son of God. Jesus was God. so now it's God in exchange for our lives. God died so that we can live. When Jesus was sentenced to death, he was whipped so hard by two roman guards that they fell dead exhausted. It was because he didn't die from the whipping that they had to hang him on the cross. He went through all that, when he could have just destroyed us all and created a new earth, new creation (which is what alot of other religions suggest).

Now, to receive salvation, all we have to do is to admit that you are sinful (which includes things as simple as lying.) and that Jesus died for you and want him in your life. No killing of babies. No sacrificing of innocent men.

I guess, all i'm trying to say is that Christianity is a religion of hope and love. Sure, I admit that we are sinful in nature, but all our sins are paid for, when Jesus died on the cross. Jesus committed no sin, and yet he chose to suffer for us, unlike other religions which portray their God as angry and revengeful, with a temper that can be lethal if you don't obey the orders of your God.

I'm not saying that we Christians should just completely disregard what the Bible has to say either. God has set down guidelines for the way he wants us to live. In fact, the Bible is what you would call, "The Dummy's Guide to Life." The most commonly refered to set of laws in the Bible is the Ten Commandments. God has said plain out that it is impossible for any man to not break one, if not all , of the ten commandments. But every commandment that God has set can be found in basic law. God says, "Do not lie." The law says," Do not lie in court before the judge and jury." Actually, if you read the bible, it says that God is the ultimate judge. What is so ridiculous about a law that says, "Do not lie"? Another example would be " Do not murder." In almost any country in this world, if you committed murder, you would put in jail for a long long time, or sentenced to death. So what's so wrong about a law that says "Do not murder?" Besides, i think most of us would think it is a great law if we were the ones being murdered. So, every law God sets for us is for our own good. It is to prevent us from being hurt, or inflicting pain, for that matter.

Most people believe that God exists, and that jesus did come down to die for us, but yet do not believe it because of what they fear they might miss out; the sacrifices they have to make to be a Christian. Common reasons are that they don't want to wake up on Sundays for church, they don't want to give up their fun-filled life of booze and drugs and waking up with some person they hardly know, and that they feel that life is much simpler or easier if they were athiest. Most people feel that they would have to make a great sacrifice by giving up things like that in order to be a Christian. Well, here's a question I would like to ask: Is it worth it? Is it worth throwing your life away to drugs and alcohol because you think it's fun? Is it worth it ignoring God your whole life, and later ending up in hell, regretting it for eternity? Furthermore, what you give up or "sacrifice", cannot be considered a sacrifice, because you are trading it in for something much much better! Imagine you had a car. A run down, old, slow car, but a car nevertheless, and you derive happiness and joy for it. Someone offers to trade that rundown car for, say, the newest ferrari model. Would you do it? In a heartbeat. But would you consider the rundown car you just gave up a sacrifice? No, because you have received something much better. That is the joy of being a Christian. the little sacrifices you make aren't sacrifices at all, compared to the one Jesus did, and compared to what you get in return of those sacrifices!

I hope I was of help to you! :teeth:
If one is only worshiping God because one fears hell then one is missing the point of grace and is living selfishly.

[youthalive]

If one is only worshiping God because one fears hell then one is missing the point of grace and is living selfishly.


I agree with you, and that is what most other religions are about. They worship their God in fear of "divine punishment" or "retribution". But if a Christian worships God because of fear of hell, then can you really say that the Holy Spirit is dwelling in him, or is his heart just filled with fear?

[youthalive]

I think it's odd that a couple of my old threads are being commented on a year later, lol... but thats cool.. anyway...

youthalive, I don't always believe everything I hear. In fact, I rarely believe anything I hear. This certain prof. and I had a lot of disagreements. This being one of them... He actually brought this point up in a class lecture he made specifically to rebuttal our after class discussions. I think there's a lot of confusion out there about who Jesus was historically. (Just watch National Geographic.) I can't say that I'm very qualified to have the discussion of who he was, but I think I can figure out when someones just pulling stuff out of the air. I do, though, like to know more about why they've said it and possibly some responses to it. That's why I posted here. Thanks for the reply!


I'm also rather puzzled about who jesus was, and what he did during the period of his life that the Bible didn't mention. There are alot of claims that it was during this time that Jesus became an icon of Buddhism, but there is no historical document proving this; I think it is fair to say that it is just a figment of someone's imagination and leave it there. It's nice to know that you care enough to post something about it though.

As for the fact that I'm replying this a year late, well, it's because i just joined today. :)

[Pilgrim]

I agree with you, and that is what most other religions are about. They worship their God in fear of "divine punishment" or "retribution". But if a Christian worships God because of fear of hell, then can you really say that the Holy Spirit is dwelling in him, or is his heart just filled with fear?
Exactly. You just confused me because in your first post you asked, "is it worth throwing your life away and ending up in hell?" That sounded like argument by fear to me.

[youthalive]

Suppose tomorrow someone were to produce absolutely irrefutable evidence that both the Buddha and Jesus never existed.

Buddhism would survive. Christianity wouldn't.

That says a lot on the fundamental difference between the two.


You might be right, but let me put it this way. Buddhism states that Buddha was merely the man that started the religion, but he isn't God. In fact, in some forms of Buddhism, they do not believe in a God. (Who is it they pray to anyway?) In Christianity, Jesus is God. If evidence shows up that Jesus never existed, Christianity would crumble, because Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the reason why crosses are hung on the walls of almost every Christian, the reason why we celebrate Christmas! However, I'm not entirely sure that Buddhism would survive if evidance shows up that Buddha never existed. I mean, isn't the whole religion based upon him? (Buddha... Buddhism...)

[youthalive]

Exactly. You just confused me because in your first post you asked, "is it worth throwing your life away and ending up in hell?" That sounded like argument by fear to me.

I apologise for that. I meant that in the sense that when (if) you eventually get to hell, and you realized that you have made a grave mistake, it's too late. I once heard a quote that went something like this, "If God is a lie, and he isn't real, then I have wasted a lifetime on earth. But if he is real, and I never believed, then I would have wasted eternity in hell."

[Happy Buddha]

To me, the big difference is that if you are a christian you believe that Jesus saves, whereas if you're a Buddhist you do not believe that Buddha saves. Buddha was a teacher, saying "I personally have found that these methods can lead to enlightenment". You still have to do them yourself. If you don't, then Buddha can't help you. This seems to me fundamentally different from christianity, where belief in Jesus is, in itself, a sufficient condition for salvation.

The similarities in ethics can't mask fundamental philosophical differences.

[shunyadragon]

To me, the big difference is that if you are a christian you believe that Jesus saves, whereas if you're a Buddhist you do not believe that Buddha saves. Buddha was a teacher, saying "I personally have found that these methods can lead to enlightenment". You still have to do them yourself. If you don't, then Buddha can't help you. This seems to me fundamentally different from christianity, where belief in Jesus is, in itself, a sufficient condition for salvation.

The similarities in ethics can't mask fundamental philosophical differences.

I consider this a too fine a distinction to be valid between Jesus and Buddha to be valid.

The Master asked, "Where are the geese going?"

[Pilgrim]

To me, the big difference is that if you are a christian you believe that Jesus saves, whereas if you're a Buddhist you do not believe that Buddha saves. Buddha was a teacher, saying "I personally have found that these methods can lead to enlightenment". You still have to do them yourself. If you don't, then Buddha can't help you. This seems to me fundamentally different from christianity, where belief in Jesus is, in itself, a sufficient condition for salvation.

The similarities in ethics can't mask fundamental philosophical differences.
Right, the claims of Jesus are the big difference. Buddha was just another teacher and Christ was divine.

[shunyadragon]

Right, the claims of Jesus are the big difference. Buddha was just another teacher and Christ was divine.

From the Christian perspective this is what is believed, but from the outside it does not reflect the differences between what Jesus and Buddha claimed.

[Pilgrim]

From the Christian perspective this is what is believed, but from the outside it does not reflect the differences between what Jesus and Buddha claimed.
Jesus claims divinity, Buddah does not. How is this different from the outside?

[shunyadragon]

Jesus claims divinity, Buddah does not. How is this different from the outside?

From the outside the differences are what traditional Christian dogma claims about Jesus, and what traditional Buddhist Dogma claims about Buddha, and among various sects and divisions they do not agree.

These claims are based on the interpretation of ancient texts not writen in their lifetime and filtered through various fallible human institutional and linguistic barriers.