Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Sufjon]

Not quite. If “my” understanding is proved to be the correct understanding as opposed to “your”, understanding, then we actually have something - the truth.

Putting everything in the wash where everything blurs into each other is hardly desirable. If this is the something you are hoping for then the nothing is probably preferable.

I see. And how would you ascertain whether or not one understanding is more correct than another?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[hn160]

Hi HN160: What do you think her mentor would tell her?

Your friend,
Sufjon

The mentor should tell her that we do not worship the same God.
Muslim would tell you that their god Allah is one person only and that Christ was a prophet at best.
Jews worship God but reject Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Buddhist worship Buddha
Hindu worship whatever.
Christians worship the one True God, Three in One.
So you can see that there is nothing in common, the only thing that non-Christians have with Christians is that the Law is written on their heart.
PAX

 

[Sufjon]

The mentor should tell her that we do not worship the same God.
Muslim would tell you that their god Allah is one person only and that Christ was a prophet at best.
Jews worship God but reject Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Buddhist worship Buddha
Hindu worship whatever.
Christians worship the one True God, Three in One.
So you can see that there is nothing in common, the only thing that non-Christians have with Christians is that the Law is written on their heart.
PAX

I see. Couple of questions if I may:

-Out of all of these, how did you come to the conclusion that the title of one True God gets bestowed on one of them in particular? What is the selection or qualification process that you see as having been applied?

-You mentioned the law written in all hearts. If some transcendent or universal law is written in the hearts of non-Christians and Christians alike, would it be possible that they are all looking at the same God through diverse experience?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[hn160]

I see. Couple of questions if I may:

-Out of all of these, how did you come to the conclusion that the title of one True God gets bestowed on one of them in particular? What is the selection or qualification process that you see as having been applied?

-You mentioned the law written in all hearts. If some transcendent or universal law is written in the hearts of non-Christians and Christians alike, would it be possible that they are all looking at the same God through diverse experience?

Your friend,
Sufjon

As far the Law is concerned Romans 2:12-18:
God’s Judgment and the Law
12 For all who have sinned vwithout the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For wit is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 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.

Your first question is answered in John 14:6-7"
“I am lthe way, and mthe truth, and nthe life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 oIf you had known me, you would have pknown my Father also.4 From now on you do know him and qhave seen him.”

 

[benedictus2]

I see. And how would you ascertain whether or not one understanding is more correct than another?

Your friend
Sufjon

Because the Son of God sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth.

 

[benedictus2]

The obvious example is Mormons. It’s unfair simply to lump Mormons in with other non-Christian groups, given the importance that Jesus and the Christian story have for them. At the same time, we can’t say without qualification that they are Christians, because what they mean by “Christian” is different than what we do.

But is “what they mean by Christian” what Christian really is?

Isn’t that the whole point? That there is a certain definition of what being Christian is? Do we make up our own definitions of what being Christian is or is there a real and true definition of that?

Someone who believes Jesus is a prophet (like Muslims) is not a Christian by the mainstream, traditional definition.

But here again I ask the question: Is this about having mainline or traditional definitions or having a true definition? Are we saying that orthodox definition is just one valid definition among many?

Their definition is not meaningless. But we have to say that what they mean by “Christian” is different from what we mean.

I never said that their definition is meaningless but I ask here again, is their definition correct? Is there a correct definition of what Christianity is about? If none, then everyone’s claim becomes equally valid and that is why I keep saying relativism.

You’re abusing the term “relativism.” Recognizing gray areas and nuances is not relativism–quite the reverse, in fact.

Not abusing relativism at all. If everyone’s definition of Christianity is according to you, when there must be a correct definition, then that is relativism.

The reason we should use complicated, nuanced language is that reality really is complicated and nuanced. If I were a relativist, I could make simplistic statements cheerfully and without qualms! If you define the dichotomy as “Jesus is either just a prophet or more than a prophet,” then my original claim is true: people get to define which side they fall.

This has nothing to do with using complicated and nuanced language.
There is a definition of Christian that is correct. The dichotomy that has been set above cannot be both correct. People may define which side they fall but it does not make both sides true.

But if you define the dichotomy as “Jesus is either what orthodox Christianity says He is or he is not,” then people may claim to agree with what orthodox Christianity says but be mistaken, because they don’t understand the orthodox tradition very well and/or are twisting it for their own agenda.

But that does not change it one bit. First who does Orthodox claim Jesus to be : Is he just a prophet or more than that? So how is that different?

But if you define the dichotomy as “either Jesus is just a prophet or He is what orthodox Christianity says he is,” then you are creating a simplistic dichotomy that doesn’t match reality.

How is that dichotomy false and not matching reality when some sects consider him to be just a prophet and yet orthodox Christianity teaches he is so very much more than that. That IS reality.

And, of course, there’s a range of views within orthodox Christianity, and reasonable people differ over where the boundary of orthodoxy lies.

Huh!? Weren’t Christological disputes already settled? Was it not that those who claimed otherwise declared heretics?

 

[benedictus2]

None of this is relativism. I’m not saying that there is no truth about who Jesus is or that the truth depends on our perspective or definition.

Sorry but it is relativism. If you give the same validity to those who define Christ other than the orthodox definition then it is relativism.

But the term “monotheism” does not itself suggest that God is a family–indeed, it might reasonably be supposed to exclude such an understanding.

How does the term monotheism not suggest that God is a family other than the fact that you are basing it on a prior narrow understanding of what monotheism is. Why should this narrower understanding define what monotheism is?

Of course it does, if the previous definition would have been assumed to exclude my present understanding.

But again, why would the present more accurate understanding be gauged by the narrower view.

Indeed, in the sense that the way the term is commonly understood may not adequately describe the nature of the One God. But the fact remains that when you say “we are monotheists but we believe God is a family” (not quite the way I’d put Trinitarianism myself–I think I smell Scott Hahn lurking behind your language!) you are introducing a significant tweak into the concept of monotheism.

How is a greater understanding a tweak? A clearer view of things is not a tweak on the cloudier one.

BTW, did you also see JPII lurking behind Scott Hahn on that one?

It’s of consequence if we are not relativists and want to use language in reasonable ways to communicate with our fellow human beings.

Let me clarify. It is of no consequence whether they have a different view of monotheism because their belief will not make that view correct.

However, understanding their view is of consequence because we need to know their conception for proper dialogue.

 

[benedictus2]

Sorry, for the error.

My post 66 is actually in response to Contarini’s post 60. Don’t know what happened with the quoting there.

 

[babylonsfalling]

A friend of mine lent me his World Religions(Huston Smith) text book. I ended up reading the chapters on Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The 3 religions all shared notable storys and teachings such as:

Mara trying to tempt Buddha (Jesus in the desert with the Devil)
The ideas of acceptance of God.
The stages of life (Sacraments),
The idea of letting go of material items to follow God or a deeper calling.
The 10 Commandments and Path of Renunciation (refrain from certain things for God)
Love, joy, and peace and a lifestyle free from guilt.

These are all deep basic ideas that all trace back to morality, and the idea of 1 God; living a better lifestyle. In a sense, they all seem the same on ground level. Is it possible to be Christian but agree and follow some Hinduist and Buddhist ideas?

A religion can be false and still contain bits of truth.

 

[rossum]

A religion can be false and still contain bits of truth.

A religion can be true and still contain bits of falsehood.

rossum

 

[babylonsfalling]

A religion can be true and still contain bits of falsehood.

rossum

How cute…you can rearrange the words of another persons post…with buddhism and hinduism and other false religions there is no eternal salvation of the soul…with Christianity there is.

 

[meltzerboy]

I guess I see religion a little differently. There is only one God, but every religion has their own name for Him, whether it’s Buddha, Christ, Shiva, or Jesus.
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” - Romeo and Juliet

The practices of each are very different, but if we all get to the same place, God, what’s the difference? The methods of reaching God may be different, but whose to say which one is absolutely correct? Isn’t it a bit arrogant to say which way to God is correct because then we are speaking for God? Can’t we approach God from different angles?

I personally believe in what you’re saying. The moral principles of most religions are quite similar and they all share profound truths. However, even though I’m not Catholic, I’ve learned enough about Catholicism on this Forum (and elsewhere) to know that what you’re saying is not exactly in accord with Catholic teaching. Catholics do NOT believe in moral equivalency or syncretism, and they do believe their faith is the full and absolute Truth. They believe there is enough evidence in Scripture, Church Tradition, and the Magisterium to prove the case regarding the truth of Jesus as Messiah and Lord as well as the nature of the true religion, based not on Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. This is an essential part of Catholic dogma and doctrine, not practice or custom. My own religion–at least, Torah (Orthodox) Judaism–is also quite adamant that Judaism is the full and absolute expression of Truth, while still recognizing the moral principles and values of other faiths. The other branches of Judaism, such as Conservative and Reform (of which I am a part), are considered by many Torah Jews as heretical, just as Protestantism is regarded by many Catholics. That doesn’t mean the “separated brethren” are to be ostracized and unloved; but that’s the way Traditional Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism view those who do not abide by the doctrines of the faith.

 

[rossum]

How cute…you can rearrange the words of another persons post…with buddhism and hinduism and other false religions there is no eternal salvation of the soul…with Christianity there is.

Please learn something of what you are criticising before you post your comment. One of the Three Marks in Buddhism is “anatta” - no soul. There is no eternal soul in Buddhism. You will not find anything about saving souls in Buddhism any more that you will find anything about attaining nirvana in Christianity.

As to my post, here is a Buddhist statement and a Christian statement. Tell me which one is true and which one is false:

• "Love your neighbour as yourself.
• "Love others as you love yourself.

Here is a false statement from Christianity: “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” - Matthew 24:34
I am sure you can supply plenty of false statements from Buddhist scriptures.

rossum

 

[babylonsfalling]

Please learn something of what you are criticising before you post your comment. One of the Three Marks in Buddhism is “anatta” - no soul. There is no eternal soul in Buddhism. <–That’s one of the things which make it a false religion. You will not find anything about saving souls in Buddhism any more that you will find anything about attaining nirvana in Christianity.

As to my post, here is a Buddhist statement and a Christian statement. Tell me which one is true and which one is false:

• "Love your neighbour as yourself.
• "Love others as you love yourself.

Both are true. Read my first post…I already said in a post that you responded to that false religions (buddhism) can contain bits of truth. Maybe you should “learn something” of what you’re responding to BEFORE your respond.

Here is a false statement from Christianity: “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” - Matthew 24:34
I am sure you can supply plenty of false statements from Buddhist scriptures.

rossum

Actually there is an eternal soul in everyone, buddhist or not. I thought buddhism denied this but wasn’t sure. The reason I called it a false religion is because I believe it denies the deity of Christ.

The generation which Christ was speaking of has not passed away yet. He was speaking of the Christian generation…the last age. You’re applying temporal worldly standards to statements made by an ageless immortal God who can place a camel through the eye of a needle.

There ARE Biblical verses which I cannot explain however. The inability of a human being to explain the things of God discredits the human, not God.

 

[rossum]

Actually there is an eternal soul in everyone, buddhist or not.

I am aware that is what Christianity teaches. Obviously that is a false teaching as it is explicitly denied in scripture.

The reason I called it a false religion is because I believe it denies the deity of Christ.

Christ may or may not have been the avatar of a deity on Earth; Buddhism has nothing to say on the matter. He was probably a Bodhisattva, which is a far more elevated status than a mere God.

The generation which Christ was speaking of has not passed away yet.

Show me a 2000 year old man, or is this another version of Harold Camping’s “it was a spiritual event and not a physical one”?

He was speaking of the Christian generation…the last age.

Ah. We’re in Harold Camping mode: “it is a spiritual generation, not a physical generation.” How convenient.

You’re applying temporal worldly standards to statements made by an ageless immortal God who can place a camel through the eye of a needle.

You are applying temporal worldly standards to a manifestation of the Dharmakaya, a nirmanakaya representing a Samyaksambuddha.

Are you convinced by my argument? No, I didn’t expect so. I wasn’t convinced by your argument either.

rossum

 

[benedictus2]

A religion can be true and still contain bits of falsehood.

rossum

Depends on what you mean by “a religion being true”. If you mean it is a true religion in that it conforms to the definition of what religion is then yes.

However if you mean “true religion” in terms of one that teaches the truth, then no.

Once it is contaminated by untruth, it ceases to be so.

So, if if a religion is true in the second sense I mentioned, then your point is wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

Here is a false statement from Christianity: “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” - Matthew 24:34

How do you know that this is false?

 

[rossum]

Depends on what you mean by “a religion being true”. If you mean it is a true religion in that it conforms to the definition of what religion is then yes.

However if you mean “true religion” in terms of one that teaches the truth, then no.

My point is that all religions teach a mixture of truth and untruth. “Love others as you love yourself” is true in both Buddhism and in Christianity. Killing in the name of religion, which has also been taught by both religions, is false.

Since all religions are, at least in part, human institutions they all suffer from the failings of being human institutions.

Once it is contaminated by untruth, it ceases to be so.

I do not hold to such an absolute standard, which is impossible for any institution containing humans to meet.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How do you know that this is false?

If there was a 2000 year old Jew who had actually witnessed Jesus speaking, do you think that the Christian churches would have kept him or her under wraps ever since? An actual witness to the life of Jesus on Earth?

rossum

 

[dharmasister]

Everybody has a God shaped hole in their hearts. I remember a Vatican II document that stated that we should not reject the parts of other faiths are a true and lead to Christ. Most faiths and belief systems have the basic idea of love thy neighbor built into the core. You can still be on the path to God without yet being in the fullness of what He set for us.

I agree wholeheartedly! And let’s not forget that Pope John Paul II and the Dali Lama had GREAT respect for each other. Each acknowledging the wisdom and beauty of the other’s beliefs.