Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Sufjon]

Explain all the early Christ martyrs and especially St. Stephen. Muslims worship a god Allah that leads to Hell. The point is would the martyrs die for something that was not true,

Have you followed Allah to hell and come back to report your findings, or have you been in contact with someone who has? The specific point was about proof that what you believe is more true than what someone else believes. This sounds more like what you believe, based on what you’ve been told, what you have read, what you have reasoned, or a mix of all three. That however, is not proof that what you believe is true. All the people you rail against have scriptures, and all claim that t hey came from God or were God-inspired. My assertion is that perhaps they all were. Your assertion is that only yours was. Again, we are back to proof vs. believing. I agree that we all have the latter, but you would be hard pressed to convince me that either of us has the former.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Because of all the wittiness to the Resurrection, and would people die for something that was not true? Christ choose us, we can not choose Him. All we have to do is to believe in Him for eternal life. Those that don’t are destined for Hell.

Who were the witnesses of the resurrection whose accounts you have?

Mark 15:33 to 16:8
Matthew 27:52 to 28:20
Luke 23:44 to 24:12
John 19:29 to 20:18

Except that Mark didn’t write Mark. Matthew didn’t write Matthew,Luke didn’t write Luke and John didn’t write John. All were written many years after Christ (c. 70 to 90 CE). These are simply chronicles recorded by people who heard stories passed down by people who heard from people and so on over time. Therefore, these recorded accounts don’t even match very well:

When did she/they visit the tomb on Sunday?
-Mark: just after sunrise
-Matthew: at dawn
-Luke: very early in the morning, presumably while it was still dark
-John: while it was still dark

What happened to the rock that sealed the tomb?
-Mark: The stone had already been rolled back before they arrived
-Matthew: An earthquake happened; an angel appeared and rolled it away as the women approached the tomb.
-Luke: Same as Mark
-John: Same as Mark

Who did she/they find at the tomb?
-Mark: A young man dressed in a white robe was inside the tomb
-Matthew: An angel sitting on the rock outside the tomb
-Luke: Two men were inside the tomb, dressed in clothes that looked like lightning
-John: Nobody

The witnesses didn’t all see exactly the same thing, or the people who recorded them didn’t hear the same thing. It doesn’t mean that it’s false, but it is not infallible proof either. Again, I would say that it’s a matter of faith, but you don’t have anything more factual than anyone else. Yes, you should have faith in your faith but be aware that faith is based on faith. Facts again, are relative. My conclusion: There is no cause to denigrate the beliefs of others while insisting that one’s own are fact. We should accept that there’s a lot we don’t know and we’re all doing our best.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[JMartyr73340]

I don’t think I ever told you that two and two are five.

The initial question is how do you know what you believe is true?

Your friend
Sufjon

I wanted to clarify one point I made. Any religion, ideology, or philosophy that denies the existence of objective truth denies itself. It denies the truth of its own doctrines. It is in contradiction.

Hence, while some religions may be somewhat wrong/illogical, the religion which denies the existence of objective truth as one of its major doctrines is seriously wrong/illogical. It is definitely not compatible with the teachings of Christ, who said he was the Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

My point is that all religions teach a mixture of truth and untruth.

How do you know that statement to be true. To know that for a fact means that you know all that is true because only then will know whether all religions teach some falsehood.

“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.

And where has Christianity taught that one must kill in the name of religion. When you answer this please give citations.

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

But not if God decreed it to be otherwise as regard a particular religion.

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

But relativism does not work. Nothing could be more false. While not everything is absolute, there are some absolutes. Not everything is relative.

 

[Sufjon]

I

wanted to clarify one point I made. Any religion, ideology, or philosophy that denies the existence of objective truth denies itself

. It denies the truth of its own doctrines. It is in contradiction.

Which religion as part of it’s doctrines denies objective truth?

I

the religion which denies the existence of objective truth as one of its major doctrines is seriously wrong/illogict is definitely not compatible with the teachings of Christ, who said he was the Truth.

Jesus said He was the truth, and my religion doesn’t deny that. It is a matter of broader context, vs. narrow context. You see a part of the picture and call it the truth. I see that part of the picture and still more and call that the truth. It might be fair to say that one’s perception of the truth is influences by certain inhibitors and well as certain enablers. In this case, upbringing, what information we’ve been exposed to, what we’ve been taught, reinforcement of what we’ve been taught through our religions and our societies, access to information and our ability to reason have a profound effect on what you perceive to be the truth vs what I perceive to be the truth. I dare say that we both have impediments in ascertaining just what the truth is.

If two blind men examine an elephant, and one only touches the trunk, the one who touched the trunk will report that elephants are long and cylinder shaped. The other, touching only the ear will report that elephants are flat and floppy. Both are right, but neither has the full truth. They have reasoned what they can from what information they had.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

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

What do you think the writings of the apostles were?

Besides, that still does not answer the question " How do you know that that verse in the Bible is false" apart from conjecture? Since you were not there when it was said, then how can you be sure that it was not said and that it was not true?

 

[Sufjon]

I wanted to clarify one point I made. Any religion, ideology, or philosophy that denies the existence of objective truth denies itself. It denies the truth of its own doctrines. It is in contradiction.

Hence, while some religions may be somewhat wrong/illogical, the religion which denies the existence of objective truth as one of its major doctrines is seriously wrong/illogical. It is definitely not compatible with the teachings of Christ, who said he was the Truth.

Can you tell me how you determine which religion denies the existence of objective truth?

Jesus said He was the truth, and my religion doesn’t deny that. It is a matter of broader context, vs. narrow context. You see a part of the picture and call it the truth. I see that part of the picture and still more and call that the truth. It might be fair to say that one’s perception of the truth is influences by certain inhibitors and well as certain enablers. In this case, upbringing, what information we’ve been exposed to, what we’ve been taught, reinforcement of what we’ve been taught through our religions and our societies, access to information and our ability to reason have a profound effect on what you perceive to be the truth vs what I perceive to be the truth. I dare say that we both have impediments in ascertaining just what the truth is.

If two blind men examine an elephant, and one only touches the trunk, the one who touched the trunk will report that elephants are long and cylinder shaped. The other, touching only the ear will report that elephants are flat and floppy. Both are right, but neither has the full truth. They have reasoned what they can from what information they had.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus: That is simply a matter of faith. In this case, it sounds like a faith in the fact that God would let countless numbers of people go around with the wrong faith, and some others go around with the right faith.

That is why He told His apostles to make disciples of all nations. It’s a work in progress.

Then there would be the faith that all people are children of God, and that He has revealed Himself to them all in one way or another.

But not equally with all the truth. Some the revelation is fuzzyl some clearly. Some part, some full.

While I can accept that He revealed Himself to you and yours in the way you described, I also accept that He has revealed Himself to me in the ways that I know.

Not if the two revelations conflict. Only one can be true.

My way may look a bit strange and unreal to you, while your way looks strange and unreal to me.

But our points of view do not determine the truth. The truth is outside of out point of view. I think in another thread I gave you the example of the Blind Men of Hindustan. It is not a matter of different perception. There is a perception that is not blind and therefore the truth, and this sees the elephant entire and whole.

That said, I am looking for connections between them, and I do see them. Perhaps you are not interested in connections because you don’t see them. In either case, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that one is more or less real than the other.

As I said before, if two conflict, then only one is true.

 

[benedictus2]

“Christian” is a word. Words can be used in a lot of ways. If you want to call this “relativism,” fine, in the sense that I don’t think there is one fixed, objective meaning for every word. Just don’t assume that this has anything to do with any of the other things that are more normally called “relativism.” Furthermore, I hold this view of language because it matches the evidence.

If “Christian” means “holding to the essential truths of the faith revealed to the Apostles and handed down in the Church,” then no. If “Christian” means “a member of a religious tradition in which Jesus plays a central role,” then yes. It seems to me that the latter is on the whole the fairer and more reasonable way to use the word Christian. But I can respect people’s reasons for using the word more narrowly. Either way, given that the word is used in different ways, you need to qualify what you mean by it when you use it in a controversial discussion.

It is true that people give different meanings to words. But it does not mean that there is a meaning that truly encompasses what that word is.

Whole point of what? If you mean “an objective truth about what it means to be a Christian,” I certainly think that there is objective truth about what it means to be an orthodox Christian. But I think the word “Christian” is best used more broadly to define any religious movement deriving in some way from Jesus. (Early medieval Christians understood Muslims to be heretical Christians, and I think there’s a case to be made for that. Muslims themselves do not choose to be called Christians, though–unlike Mormons.)

Okay.

You’re confusing “Christianity” as a divinely revealed religion with “Christianity” as a historically discernible family of religious movements. There is of course a real and true definition of the former, though I would argue that in this life we will never have exhaustive knowledge of it. There are a lot of historical facts about the latter which should be treated fairly and responsibly.

True historical Christianity is a divinely reveled religion.

Again, if you want to call my position “linguistic relativism” then I don’t have a problem with that. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that language is not relative. However, don’t confuse this with any other kind of relativism.

But isn’t that nothing more than verbal engineering?

I’m not claiming that all claims to divine revelation are equally valid. I’m claiming that the “right” way to use a word is defined by its usage.

Huh! If I used the word “good” in reference to something that we normally call bad, because I am using this word, does that mean I am using it right?

I detect a very strong hint of nominalism here.

Language points to reality–a word is not in itself the truth to which it points. Hence there is no absolutely “right” or “wrong” way to use a word, though there are better and worse ways to use words. Take, for example, the question of whether Catholics “worship” Mary. Catholics have always said that they pay Mary that honor which is called dulia but not that worship which is called “latria.”

And that is a clear distinction of usage. That means that these words point distinctly to something objective. They are not words that take on meaning depending on how we use them. Dulia is dulia, latria is latria.

However, that doesn’t mean that those Catholics who have spoken of paying “worship” to the Blessed Mother were heretics or idolaters. In older usage, “worship” could be used more broadly.

They used the wrong word.

Today it generally refers only to latria. There’s no “right” or “wrong” way to use the word “worship.”

Well obviously there is. If you use worship in reference to Mary then you are obviously using the wrong word .
Now you may not be aware that you are using the wrong word but you still are.

 

[rossum]

How do you know that statement to be true.

Thank you for the correction. All religions that I have examined teach a mixture of truth and untruth. You are correct that I cannot speak of religions which I have not examined.

And where has Christianity taught that one must kill in the name of religion. When you answer this please give citations.

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Many people have been killed because of this passage.

Jan Hus was killed by the Catholic Church.

But not if God decreed it to be otherwise as regard a particular religion.

Are you saying that no member of the Catholic Church is human? Look at what I said, “Since all religions are, at least in part, human institutions…” (emphasis added). Do you deny that the Catholic Church is “at least in part” a human institution? Some members of the Church have shown themselves to be all too human. Popes have issued apologies for past behaviour by some members of the Church.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Besides, that still does not answer the question " How do you know that that verse in the Bible is false" apart from conjecture?

Through reason. There are no 2,000 year old people alive today and the events foretold have not happened.

Since you were not there when it was said, then how can you be sure that it was not said and that it was not true?

So, you are saying that the Gospel contains a false report of what Jesus said? Can we trust anything written in any of the Gospels? Or do you have that 2,000 year old eyewitness hidden up your sleeve.

rossum

 

[benedictus2]

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Many people have been killed because of this passage.

That is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Jan Hus was killed by the Catholic Church.

That is practice, not doctrine.

I do not dispute that there were people in the heirarchy of the Catholic Church who were hypocrites and did not practice what they preached.

But you will not find it in the doctrines of the Church that it is good to kill people in the name of religion.

I am not disputing though that some in the Catholic Church thought in this way

Are you saying that no member of the Catholic Church is human? Look at what I said, “Since all religions are, at least in part, human institutions…” (emphasis added). Do you deny that the Catholic Church is “at least in part” a human institution? Some members of the Church have shown themselves to be all too human. Popes have issued apologies for past behaviour by some members of the Church.

rossum

You were inferring that since they are in part human institutions then it is impossible for her to teach the Truth always. While we are indeed fallible human beings, the Church’s claim does not rest on her effort but upon God’s gift. For the Creator of the universe, making His Church infallible is a piece of cake.

 

[benedictus2]

Through reason. There are no 2,000 year old people alive today and the events foretold have not happened.

Which events did not happen? And nowhere in the passage will you find reference to people living for 2000 years.

So, you are saying that the Gospel contains a false report of what Jesus said?

Now I am not saying that. You were the one who said that.

Can we trust anything written in any of the Gospels?

Yes.

Or do you have that 2,000 year old eyewitness hidden up your sleeve.

Since the passage you referred to in no way infers that, I don’t even know what that has to do with it. But I am sure you will enlighten me.

 

[Andre1000]

The teaching of a religion is given by god(or gods) and is true or it is only speculation!

If two religions have a true teaching than the teachings do not contradicts to each other,
if two teachings contradicts to each other than one or both are only speculation.

By definition of Christianity:
The basic teaching of Christianity is that Jesus has died on the cross and is come back to live because of god all other thing in the bible are more secondary. I mean that’s the difference of Christianity and other religions, Jesus is the reason why we are called Christians.

All other religions contradict to this basic teaching so Christianity or the others are speculations and no true.

 

[rossum]

That is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Bible is not the teaching of the Catholic Church? You will have a hard time convincing me of that. You might also refer to Summis desiderantes affectibus of Innocent VII (1484)

That is practice, not doctrine.

Actions speak louder than words. Or are you telling me that the Catholic Church is the kind of organisation that practices, “Do as I say, not as I do”? If something is part of the practice of the Church then it is part of the Church.

But you will not find it in the doctrines of the Church that it is good to kill people in the name of religion.

I was not referring to just the doctrines of the Church, I was referring to the whole Church. If we drop all of the bad parts then no religion contains any untruth and this whole discussion is useless. In order to get a correct results we have to look at each religion as it is, not as it would like to be and not with awkward parts conveniently removed from the discussion.

You were inferring that since they are in part human institutions then it is impossible for her to teach the Truth always. While we are indeed fallible human beings, the Church’s claim does not rest on her effort but upon God’s gift. For the Creator of the universe, making His Church infallible is a piece of cake.

St. Francis of Assisi is supposed to have said, “Preach always, use words if you have to.” Using that definition then it is inevitable that the Catholic Church has sometimes “preached” untruth.

If you separate the actions of the members of the Church from the actions of the Church then no religion has ever performed any evil act. Would you say that Buddhists who martyred Christians in Japan were acting individually so their actions do not reflect on Buddhism? No, and I don’t either. All religions have resulted in both truth and untruth. A cut down version of any religion, with all the nasty bits removed, only has truth; but that is not a very useful conclusion.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Which events did not happen?
Read Matthew 24.

And nowhere in the passage will you find reference to people living for 2000 years.

 

[Sufjon]

That is why He told His apostles to make disciples of all nations. It’s a work in progress.

Hi Benedictus: Teach all nations what? The Gospels that weren’t written yet, and out of the 30 or so that were written, which ones, and which were heretical and which were not? Was that determined by who was more able to kill off the followers of the other Gospels some 300 years later? Or were these very people the false ones that Jesus warned about? How do you know? Perhaps the HS was guiding the other people. Was He guiding Constantine, do you think? It’s a coin toss. It is still a matter of interpretation if you see Jesus as fitting into a broader context that includes a much longer history of God-human history.

But not equally with all the truth. Some the revelation is fuzzyl some clearly. Some part, some full.
Not if the two revelations conflict. Only one can be true.

Again, how do you determine which is fuzzy and which is not. As far as conflict goes, you see conflict in your interpretation, which is more narrow in scope. I see no conflict in my interpretation that is broader in scope. Specifically, I see Jesus as an Avatar like a bunch of other Avatars. He just had a less spiritually enlightened audience than the other Avatars. That is my interpretation. I haven’t seen anything compelling enough to change that view.
benedictus2;7937394:

But our points of view do not determine the truth. The truth is outside of out point of view. I think in another thread I gave you the example of the Blind Men of Hindustan. It is not a matter of different perception. There is a perception that is not blind and therefore the truth, and this sees the elephant entire and whole.

As I said before, if two conflict, then only one is true.

What both blind men see is true. Their limited conclusions are just that - limited. One man sees one incarnation of God in human form as the whole story of God in human form. Another sees it in the context of lots of incarnations of God in human form, and what He had to say was the same every time, unless you read it in a Hebrew-centric view, which is of course fine if you want only part of the truth and then call it the whole truth. Then you are telling me about an ear or a trunk and trying to tell me the whole truth about elephants. You see what I am saying?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[JMartyr73340]

Jesus said He was the truth, and my religion doesn’t deny that. It is a matter of broader context, vs. narrow context. You see a part of the picture and call it the truth. I see that part of the picture and still more and call that the truth. It might be fair to say that one’s perception of the truth is influences by certain inhibitors and well as certain enablers. In this case, upbringing, what information we’ve been exposed to, what we’ve been taught, reinforcement of what we’ve been taught through our religions and our societies, access to information and our ability to reason have a profound effect on what you perceive to be the truth vs what I perceive to be the truth. I dare say that we both have impediments in ascertaining just what the truth is.

If two blind men examine an elephant, and one only touches the trunk, the one who touched the trunk will report that elephants are long and cylinder shaped. The other, touching only the ear will report that elephants are flat and floppy. Both are right, but neither has the full truth. They have reasoned what they can from what information they had.

Your friend
Sufjon

Jesus said He was the truth, and my religion doesn’t deny that. It is a matter of broader context, vs. narrow context. You see a part of the picture and call it the truth. I see that part of the picture and still more and call that the truth. It might be fair to say that one’s perception of the truth is influences by certain inhibitors and well as certain enablers. In this case, upbringing, what information we’ve been exposed to, what we’ve been taught, reinforcement of what we’ve been taught through our religions and our societies, access to information and our ability to reason have a profound effect on what you perceive to be the truth vs what I perceive to be the truth. I dare say that we both have impediments in ascertaining just what the truth is.

If two blind men examine an elephant, and one only touches the trunk, the one who touched the trunk will report that elephants are long and cylinder shaped. The other, touching only the ear will report that elephants are flat and floppy. Both are right, but neither has the full truth. They have reasoned what they can from what information they had.

Your friend
Sufjon

You’re saying that what we perceive as truth is a matter of perspective, circumstances or personal opinion. You are saying that truth is relative. This is not true. Truth is objective, and I have many great philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas who will back me up on this.

Is any reasoning valid, in your opinion? If the answer is yes, then you need to listen to the logical arguments I made, because maybe my reasoning is valid. If not, then I have no reason to listen to you, a Hindu Priest, a Catholic priest or anyone else.

**Regarding your elephant example: **

There is an objective (full) truth about the elephant. The elephant has a definite, over all shape. The parts of the elephant are part of a lager whole. The men are all wrong about the elephant because they have a disability that prevents them from seeing the entire elephant. In other words, they are incapable of discerning the objective truth about the elephant.

When you take the position that truth is just a matter of perspective you are, indeed, like a blind man searching in the dark. You cannot properly discern the reality (truth) of any situation.

 

[Sufjon]

You’re saying that what we perceive as truth is a matter of perspective, circumstances or personal opinion. You are saying that truth is relative. This is not true. Truth is objective, and I have many great philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas who will back me up on this.

Is any reasoning valid, in your opinion? If the answer is yes, then you need to listen to the logical arguments I made, because maybe my reasoning is valid. If not, then I have no reason to listen to you, a Hindu Priest, a Catholic priest or anyone else.

**Regarding your elephant example: **

There is an objective (full) truth about the elephant. The elephant has a definite, over all shape. The parts of the elephant are part of a lager whole. The men are all wrong about the elephant because they have a disability that prevents them from seeing the entire elephant. In other words, they are incapable of discerning the objective truth about the elephant.

When you take the position that truth is just a matter of perspective you are, indeed, like a blind man searching in the dark. You cannot properly discern the reality (truth) of any situation.

Hi JMartyr73340: I am not Aristotle, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas. I am only Sufjon. But I am able to reason, and I do have the advantage of knowing the observations of great minds who came much later than the people you mentioned, and have access to a good deal more information than they had.

You have said that I have not listened to the arguments you have made, and you have gone so far as to characterize them as objective. I have indeed listened to the best of my ability to what you have said and find it to be not so objective. I have been very clear that reality is dependent largely on observation. This is supported by numerous repeatable and verifiable experiments in laboratories that have been performed over many years in the past century. Indeed quantum theory has verified conclusively and repeatedly that consciousness and observation have a profound effect on reality. In fact, it seems that reality or the observable universe are not possible without consciousness and observation.

It is the desperation of the ego and it’s need to preserve itself as an entity that gives rise to the insistence that there are absolute truths, especially as they pertain to faith, spirituality and the long term existence of a separate self, which in itself might actually be an illusion in itself.

All truths are relative.

Your friend
Sufon

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi JMartyr73340: I am not Aristotle, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas. I am only Sufjon. But I am able to reason, and I do have the advantage of knowing the observations of great minds who came much later than the people you mentioned, and have access to a good deal more information than they had.

You have said that I have not listened to the arguments you have made, and you have gone so far as to characterize them as objective. I have indeed listened to the best of my ability to what you have said and find it to be not so objective. I have been very clear that reality is dependent largely on observation. This is supported by numerous repeatable and verifiable experiments in laboratories that have been performed over many years in the past century. Indeed quantum theory has verified conclusively and repeatedly that consciousness and observation have a profound effect on reality. In fact, it seems that reality or the observable universe are not possible without consciousness and observation.

It is the desperation of the ego and it’s need to preserve itself as an entity that gives rise to the insistence that there are absolute truths, especially as they pertain to faith, spirituality and the long term existence of a separate self, which in itself might actually be an illusion in itself.

All truths are relative.

Your friend
Sufon

Sufjon, when you say all truths are relative do you mean there is no objective truth and all perceived truths are subjective, on the basis of our finite reason, sensory limitations, motivational needs, and specific socialization and culture? Or do you mean there is actually more than one objective truth? If the former, do you believe there is nonetheless one objective truth, which perhaps none of us really knows in its entirety? If the latter, what are the implications of this?