Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Contarini]

Well said.

Interestingly enough, this fact - this category mistake - is the key to answering atheist rhetoric that lumps in Yahweh with Zeus… i.e. quotes like, “I simply believe in one fewer god than you” …

Indeed. I have said this to atheists repeatedly, but alas, I have failed to convince.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Dear Forum Master—

Please don’t call me that. That’s a silly title that the website gives you if you have wasted a truly disturbing amount of time on it.

Tell me also, how do you extract the label ‘fuzziness’ from my intended to be respectful reply to Ahimsa.

You are saying that we should use language so as not to offend or rock the boat, rather than to aid clear thinking and the discernment of the truth. I used the word “fuzziness” because the alternatives I could think of were less polite. Perhaps I was myself guilty of “fuzziness”!

My point above hinges on the unity of opposites that is a serious convention in Latin and Greek derived English words; hence, to use theist as meaning ‘GOD’ [the one] in mono-theistic, but as ‘g o d’ in poly-theistic is a departure with linguistic convention, confuses the reader, and is thus potentially offensive to the hearer’s conditioning.

I’m not clear on what you mean at all. How are you using “polytheistic”? There’s no other way to use the term than to mean “many gods,” because by definition you can’t have more than one GOD.

The terms “monotheistic” and “polytheistic” are necessarily referring to different things altogether. Yes, it’s an unfortunate linguistic confusion, but Ahimsa and I are trying to clear it up as much as possible, while you seem to want to keep it confused.

I don’t think Ahimsa is suggesting that we should normally refer to Christianity or Judaism or Islam as polytheistic. He’s simply pointing out that mere belief in the existence of superhuman beings does not distinguish a “monotheistic” from a “polytheistic” religion, since all traditional religions believe in such beings, and since the “devas” of Indian religion are more like the “angels” or " jinn" of Semitic religions than like the One God. At least that’s what I take his point to be.

Many scholars of early Christianity/Judaism make this same point–that early Christians and Second Temple Jews were not “monotheists” in the modern sense of believing that other “gods” simply don’t exist. They accepted the same basic framework of the universe as their pagan contemporaries: a single “High God” and hierarchies of lesser gods/angels/daemons who filled up the space (metaphysical, and arguably physical as well, since they were thought to live in the air between earth and the highest heaven where the One God lived) between humans and God.

Jews differed from pagans in claiming that worship (largely defined as sacrifice) was to be offered only to the High God, though Second Temple Jews generally did believe that God related to humans only through the mediation of angels (a view you can find reflected in Galatians and Hebrews).

Christians added the further wrinkle that Jesus of Nazareth was the “Son of God,” making him worthy of a kind of honor normally given by Jews only to the One God. This eventually led Christians to formulate the doctrine that Jesus was of one substance with the Father. (Note: I’m not questioning the Nicene doctrine, just suggesting that worship preceded theology, following Larry Hurtado insofar as I understand his argument.)

In recent centuries, especially since the Enlightenment, Christians have thought about monotheism as a kind of rationalistic exposure of the folly of ancient pagans, who peopled the universe with divine beings when in fact the universe is just a mechanism created by a single divine Mind. (I’ll grant that you can find some language pointing in that direction in early Christianity.) In my opinion, this has been a disastrous move for Christians. I don’t think that the Enlightenment picture of the universe is metaphysically true, and I am certain that it makes it much harder for us to understand the world of the Bible. So I am not very supportive of your desire to protect people’s “conditioning” from linguistic challenge.

Edwin

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

How are you using “polytheistic”? There’s no other way to use the term than to mean “many gods,” because by definition you can’t have more than one GOD.

The terms “monotheistic” and “polytheistic” are necessarily referring to different things altogether. Yes, it’s an unfortunate linguistic confusion, but Ahimsa and I are trying to clear it up as much as possible, while you seem to want to keep it confused.

I don’t think Ahimsa is suggesting that we should normally refer to Christianity or Judaism or Islam as polytheistic. He’s simply pointing out that mere belief in the existence of superhuman beings does not distinguish a “monotheistic” from a “polytheistic” religion, since all traditional religions believe in such beings, and since the “devas” of Indian religion are more like the “angels” or " jinn" of Semitic religions than like the One God. At least that’s what I take his point to be.

Many scholars of early Christianity/Judaism make this same point–that early Christians and Second Temple Jews were not “monotheists” in the modern sense of believing that other “gods” simply don’t exist. They accepted the same basic framework of the universe as their pagan contemporaries: a single “High God” and hierarchies of lesser gods/angels/daemons who filled up the space (metaphysical, and arguably physical as well, since they were thought to live in the air between earth and the highest heaven where the One God lived) between humans and God.

Jews differed from pagans in claiming that worship (largely defined as sacrifice) was to be offered only to the High God, though Second Temple Jews generally did believe that God related to humans only through the mediation of angels (a view you can find reflected in Galatians and Hebrews).

Christians added the further wrinkle that Jesus of Nazareth was the “Son of God,” making him worthy of a kind of honor normally given by Jews only to the One God. This eventually led Christians to formulate the doctrine that Jesus was of one substance with the Father. (Note: I’m not questioning the Nicene doctrine, just suggesting that worship preceded theology, following Larry Hurtado insofar as I understand his argument.)

In recent centuries, especially since the Enlightenment, Christians have thought about monotheism as a kind of rationalistic exposure of the folly of ancient pagans, who peopled the universe with divine beings when in fact the universe is just a mechanism created by a single divine Mind. (I’ll grant that you can find some language pointing in that direction in early Christianity.) In my opinion, this has been a disastrous move for Christians. I don’t think that the Enlightenment picture of the universe is metaphysically true, and I am certain that it makes it much harder for us to understand the world of the Bible. So I am not very supportive of your desire to protect people’s “conditioning” from linguistic challenge.

Edwin

Wow, excellent summary/reflection!

I think it’s apparent that many sides have distorted the distinction between the respective objects of “monotheism” and “polytheism,” and that this equivocation really hasn’t helped anyone.

I particularly agree that this has been “a disastrous move for Christians,” when really it and it alone has enabled the kind of false comparisons I noted earlier between Yahweh and pagan gods, when in reality they’re qualitatively/philosophically different concepts.

In other words, I don’t disbelieve in Zeus because the LORD is the One True God… that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Rather, I disbelieve in Zeus because I’m pretty sure no embodied superhuman beings live on Mt. Olympus - at least, what we now know empirically leads me to conclude that no one is actually throwing the lightning bolts that I see during thunderstorms…

 

[Michael19682]

Edwin–

Yes, a very powerful response. Since I want this sentiment to stand alone as a complement par excellence and since I need more to time to reply to what portions of it I can ingest and process, I’ll make that reply in another post and within a day or two. Not that I’m rushing; but that I want to be complete and thorough in return.

Michael

 

[Michael19682]

I’m not clear on what you mean at all. How are you using “polytheistic”? There’s no other way to use the term than to mean “many gods,” because by definition you can’t have more than one GOD.

The terms “monotheistic” and “polytheistic” are necessarily referring to different things altogether. Yes, it’s an unfortunate linguistic confusion, but Ahimsa and I are trying to clear it up as much as possible, while you seem to want to keep it confused.

At the risk of making myself appear anxious and responding before promised, I’ll do so any way.

I totally agree that there is only one God. Thus, of the two words: monotheistic and polytheistic: it is monotheism which refers to the correct faith/belief. That polytheistic views are false is not my fault, nor does it negate the fact that many people mistakenly believe and put faith in more than one God ,perish the thought…]. Your friend in this thread/forum took issue with me when I disagreed that Hindu’s are polytheistic. My argument was that Brahman is their closest comparable conception to our God and Father. He brought “devas” into the argument and with them tried to destabilize the meaning of the word polytheistic, which, understood, refers to a BELIEF in more than one God ,perish the thought…]. “Polytheistic” is a phantom word, I might say, referring to a belief that is false–it has no correlate in reality qua substantive reference. “Monotheistic” has a substantive reference, i.e., The Holy Trinity, God. Therefore, it not only refers to a correct belief, but the belief it refers to has substantive or real dynamism, God himself.
Finally, I would argue that “polytheism” is the belief of the “polytheistic” and therefore is equally without substantive dynamic reference. There may in fact be a class of people who are polytheistic, or who believe in a world of polytheism, but they are falsely led I’m sure you will agree.

There’s no other way to use the term than to mean “many gods,” because by definition you can’t have more than one GOD.

True enough. But terms are falsely used and conceived of all the time. A word is a signifier, or sign, properly understood. Whether or not it is the thing it refers to is not said anywhere I can find, but the Hindu’s often talk about their sacred syllable ‘Ohm’ being the thing itself that it refers to: Brahman. There is the trap of conflating sign and its thing-reference. Consider the following passage from Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine:

“…things are learned by signs. Strictly speaking I have here called a “thing” that which is not used to signify something else, like wood, stone, cattle, and so on; but not that concerning which we read that Moses cast it into bitter waters that their bitterness might be dispelled, …For [that wood, etc] are things in such a way that they are also signs of other things. There are other signs whose whole use is in signifying, like words. For no one uses a word except for the purpose of signifying something. From this may be understood what we call “signs”; they are things used to signify something. Thus every sign is also a thing…but not every thing is also a sign.”

I dispute not the spiritual essence of “Ohm”. That is a sacred belief and I cannot attack it and disavow now any charges of such attack. But nevertheless, I will not have my language appropriated by “mantrafication”. Furthermore, if you look at that region of the world, you will find the most confused use of language as anywhere: there are nearly as many dialects of Hindi as their are people. Their superiority of constitution and human rights aside, this is an issue of preset definitions.

 

[hn160]

The more I look at this thread, the more I am convinced that it is an oxymoron trying to convince people that Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together. Why not throw in Islam also? These other religions can no more fit together with Christianity than fire can compatible with water. Christ said that only He had the Truth. All other religions are false.

 

[Ahimsa]

The more I look at this thread, the more I am convinced that it is an oxymoron trying to convince people that Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together. Why not throw in Islam also? These other religions can no more fit together with Christianity than fire can compatible with water.

That depends upon how you define “fit together”. Fire is quite compatible with water: both exist in the same universe, so, at least in that sense, they “fit together”. Also, the use of fire and water is what powers steam-powered machines, machines that helped produce the modern civilization that we have today. When fire gets out of control, water helps to control it. From a Christian perspective, the baptism with water precedes the baptism with fire – so, water and fire fit together in that sense, too.

 

[Sufjon]

Christ said that only He had the Truth. All other religions are false

I see a problem with that statement, but of course my perspective is coming from a different set of life experiences than yours. The problem is that many practitioners of the other religions you have discounted also include Jesus in their faiths. Making Christ the measure by which a religion is considered true or false is problematic when that which you have determined to be false also includes Christ. My sense is that what you are really saying is that your particular way of approaching Jesus is correct and the rest are false. Of course that same problem exists among all the different Christian sects, so it is not really something that illustrates the differences between Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. It illustrates the way a neuron fires off in one person’s head as opposed to the the way one fires off in another person’s head. Of course the synapses created by the neurons firing off in either, both and all minds are created by the same God. It cannot be other than He has wished it to be.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Ahimsa]

I totally agree that there is only one God. Thus, of the two words: monotheistic and polytheistic: it is monotheism which refers to the correct faith/belief.

You’re assuming that “theos” refers to only to “God” (the necessarily one Ultimate Being), whereas “theos” can also refer to a “god” (a powerful being deserving of respect, veneration, or worth-ship).

So, “polytheism” can either refer to (1) many Gods (which is impossible, since there is, by definition, only one Ultimate Being) or (2) many gods, that is, many powerful beings deserving of respect, veneration, or worth-ship.

Since Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., do teach that there are many powerful beings that deserve respect, veneration, or worth-ship, one may speak of all of these religions as being “polytheistic”. For instance, angels are beings that deserve respect, thus, angels are, technically speaking, “gods”, though not “God”.

 

[bentcurve]

Let me offer a few things here.

Since the Vatican II the church has taken a stance that there is truth in other faiths and that just because someone is a member of another faith does not mean they are lost to the vision. However, the truth they have is not as perfect or refined as the revleaded truth given to the church by God. The church was choosen and established by God himeself, and it holds the most perfected truth available to humans.

That being said, there are tons of places that these faiths intersect. In theological terms, Hindu’s worship a trinity ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti ) and believe that all of their lesser Gods stem from one main, father like, God. This is not exclusionary from Biblical tradition. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” implies in itself that there may be other Gods, or others that that might justly be revered, but they must not be placed before the Father.

There is a great book called Living Buddha Living Christ ( amazon.com/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/1573225681 ) which is about the intersections in philosophy and morality between Christianity and Buddhism. This book is written by a monk who spent time in a Trappist monetary where he met Thomas Merton, and they became very close friends.

To not see how there might be tremendous truth, and practice that might be useful, in other faiths is to be blinded by your own narrowness. At that point you have become the very thing Christ preached against.

 

[Kelley_Green]

How is a “solitary practitioner Catholic” different from a “regular” Catholic?

It’s a departure from the gated like minded community that was in the way of God. It was the fuller realization of adulthood just past the sacrament of confirmation my soul was in my hands with each decision. Metaphorically speaking, when the Holy See/ Vatican (as commander of a ship) makes it’s decrees, as master helmsman answering the same higher calling to God in my individual capacity I cannot obey an order to steer the ship into the rocks. My fidelity is to my maker and the declared mission statement that is congruent with God’s truth as I understand it. When the higher calling is absent from my commanders eyes or in his commandment I cannot follow. When I fail to understand I’ll keep ears open as a willing student so long as they are not abused but I cannot consent to blind obedience (to the fullest letter of the law catechism).

This is not railing at authority for vicarious or nefarious motives. I have no fear of power or authority, nor do I have an ounce of desire to usurp. My objective stance is more about accountability & honing a more substantial capacity of discernment. 3 cents worth of metal on my lapels does not make me or anyone omnipotent or impervious to error. It is but a measure of the personal responsibility I am bearing. It’s a service to my commander, the faithful, and my God, to refrain from being a ‘yes man’ to assist keeping us all honest. Treachery undermines stewardship when surrounded by ambitious politico’s. Those who have genuinely embraced personal discipline in the flock failing to follow is a failure to teach, or a failure of the teacher to realize flaws disrupting unity with God. The easy path of blind obedience/ teaching for the test undermines the truest fidelity/ comprehension.

I was raised in full tradition, so I intrinsically think like a Catholic. I observe as a Catholic. I engage charitable work one on one or with multiple denominations. I do my best to keep current with encyclicals online. Aside from family out of state this forum is the maximum interaction I have with Catholic community. I occasionally attend Church when it’s empty or more regularly toss a metaphorical anchor in the middle of nowhere to commune with God. My confessions are direct & frequent. I maintain a sense of conscientiousness consistent with my upbringing despite the storm of paradigms that have transpired in the Vatican. External interference with my personal relationship with my maker is entirely unwelcome.

 

[Michael19682]

You’re assuming that “theos” refers to only to “God” (the necessarily one Ultimate Being), whereas “theos” can also refer to a “god” (a powerful being deserving of respect, veneration, or worth-ship).

It refers to ONLY GOD! This is exactly why dialogue on this subject can not proceed: it is a Greek root, used in English with a specific meaning. No one has the right to appropriate its meaning. A person, of course, may babble as he wishes, laboring under great delusion that what he says is accepted by others. I wonder, does such a description apply to any person you know?

 

[bentcurve]

Actually, because it is a greek root, it predates Christianity. Here is the definition.

Noun
θεός (genitive θεοῦ) m, second declension; (theos)
a deity, a god, God
Sometimes feminine, (ἡ θεός): a goddess

However, it is worth noting that there were many lesser spirts and whatnot in greek mythology, and they all maintained distinction from “theos”

Theos was used only to describe major deities, not lesser forms like demons, or angels, or saints, or whatnot.

 

[Kelley_Green]

To not see how there might be tremendous truth, and practice that might be useful, in other faiths is to be blinded by your own narrowness. At that point you have become the very thing Christ preached against.

Precisely. So, whatever criticisms Christians or other religions offer one another, when they animate themselves with the motives & tactics of Sadducees, Pharisee’s or Sanhedrin, each have allowed themselves to worship Machiavellian principles at the expense of the teachings they profess. If you intend to share the truth of God to people, why is it in any way necessary to abuse people’s ears with lies, prejudices, and despicable manipulations? It requires no embellishment. Truth cannot be delivered unless they are leading by example. They’ve allowed too much of themselves to get in the way obscuring the truth. They’re only proving how much false faith they’re leaning upon. I disagree with atheism but I whole heartedly thank them for their services rooting out weasels writing themselves a God license to blame God for their own malevolence. Outstanding performance.

Good thing you have doubts, but it is not God’s existence you need to doubt. It’s the man made nonsense heaped upon God usurping what IS God’s corrupting the higher calling of men for a bag of silver. It is the same malevolence Jesus fought. There is no greater evil in this world than profiteers of strife.

 

[hn160]

Let me offer a few things here.

Since the Vatican II the church has taken a stance that there is truth in other faiths and that just because someone is a member of another faith does not mean they are lost to the vision. However, the truth they have is not as perfect or refined as the revleaded truth given to the church by God. The church was choosen and established by God himeself, and it holds the most perfected truth available to humans.

That being said, there are tons of places that these faiths intersect. In theological terms, Hindu’s worship a trinity ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti ) and believe that all of their lesser Gods stem from one main, father like, God. This is not exclusionary from Biblical tradition. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” implies in itself that there may be other Gods, or others that that might justly be revered, but they must not be placed before the Father.

There is a great book called Living Buddha Living Christ ( amazon.com/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/1573225681 ) which is about the intersections in philosophy and morality between Christianity and Buddhism. This book is written by a monk who spent time in a Trappist monetary where he met Thomas Merton, and they became very close friends.

To not see how there might be tremendous truth, and practice that might be useful, in other faiths is to be blinded by your own narrowness. At that point you have become the very thing Christ preached against.

That certainly not the position of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. In religion, Christ is the only way and Truth. The only truth that the practitioners of other religions have is that which is written on their hearts. You would not see the President ( Bishop ) of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod praying with a Muslim or any other non-Christian.

 

[Sufjon]

The only truth that the practitioners of other religions have is that which is written on their hearts.

Sounds like a rather genuine place to keep what you believe, but I’m sure you have some reasoning behind what you said. I have a question. Where do you keep what you believe?

You would not see the President ( Bishop ) of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod praying with a Muslim or any other non-Christian

I’m sure you’re quite proud of him or her, and he or she sounds like a rare find. I do have a question though. What do you suppose would happen to you if you prayed with a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist or a Hindu?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[bentcurve]

That certainly not the position of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. In religion, Christ is the only way and Truth. The only truth that the practitioners of other religions have is that which is written on their hearts. You would not see the President ( Bishop ) of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod praying with a Muslim or any other non-Christian.

Remember that a catholic, a really hardcore one, would see praying with a prodestant the same as praying with a Buddhist. Also, just because you worship at the same time in the same place does not mean you are worshiping the same thing. When I sit meditation with my Buddhist friends I am not worshiping a Buddhist deity, rather I am taking what they have taught me (mindfulness, peace, awareness of self) and directing my awareness toward God. What a fantastic thing! To sit and realize the fullness of your living, the peace of your breathing, and let your very life be a prayer to God. A praise of thanks!!!

If you see a sin in that, than I am afraid we have little to discuss.

 

[hn160]

Sounds like a rather genuine place to keep what you believe, but I’m sure you have some reasoning behind what you said. I have a question. Where do you keep what you believe?

I’m sure you’re quite proud of him or her, and he or she sounds like a rare find. I do have a question though. What do you suppose would happen to you if you prayed with a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist or a Hindu?

Your friend,
Sufjon

What I was referring to is the Law, all religions I think know that you shouldn’t kill, steal, etc.: from Romans - For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, xby nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is ywritten on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 zon that day when, aaccording to my gospel, God judges bthe secrets of men cby Christ Jesus.

Again, the Missouri Synod does not believe in syncretism. I would not pray with a member of any other religion because we are NOT praying to the same God, they are praying to some type of a god.

 

[bentcurve]

So you cannot pray in the same room with someone else if you are not praying to the same God? Could you sit with a catholic praying the Rosary?

I mean, no offense, but this is also from the same church that mentions banning one specific person in their bi-laws.

 

[Ahimsa]

Actually, because it is a greek root, it predates Christianity. Here is the definition.

Noun
θεός (genitive θεοῦ) m, second declension; (theos)
a deity, a god, God
Sometimes feminine, (ἡ θεός): a goddess

However, it is worth noting that there were many lesser spirts and whatnot in greek mythology, and they all maintained distinction from “theos”

Theos was used only to describe major deities, not lesser forms like demons, or angels, or saints, or whatnot.

The Greek use of “theos” may be contrasted to the Latin use of “deus”. If the Greeks used “theos” to only apply to “major deities”, then the Latins had a much broader notion of “deus”, extending “deus” to deceased emperors (Augustus being declared “deus” after his death in 14 CE). It’s this larger use of “deus” that I find more useful when thinking about the “theos” in “polytheism”, since the Greek definition seems rather arbitrary (why “major” and not “minor” deities included in “theos”?) and the Latin definition seems to go to the heart of the meaning of “god”: any being (often supernatural but not necessarily so) whose power and presence invokes respect, awe, veneration, and worth-ship.