Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[CHRISTINE77]

I have only read Paul on my own, without much guidance on what Protestants see in him vs. what Catholics see. I only l know what I see in him. When I read what Jesus said and did, Christianity makes sense. When I read Paul, the whole thing looks like a big mess. I am just being honest. If you could direct me to some link where the Catholic view of Paul clarifies Him better, then I would be happy to read it. I am open to hearing his case. As for now, I am very suspicious of him.

Your friend
Sufjon

This really makes me laugh, because Paul is very frustrating to me too! I love Corinthians, but lots of times Paul doesn’t make much sense to me either. It’s like I am going around in circles trying to follow his thoughts! Part of the problem, may be that a lot of the books attributed to Paul were actually written by other people in his name (or at least that is what a lot of scholars say).

That being said, I feel that the Gospel of John truly speaks to my heart.

 

[Sufjon]

This really makes me laugh, because Paul is very frustrating to me too! I love Corinthians, but lots of times Paul doesn’t make much sense to me either. It’s like I am going around in circles trying to follow his thoughts! Part of the problem, may be that a lot of the books attributed to Paul were actually written by other people in his name (or at least that is what a lot of scholars say).

That being said, I feel that the Gospel of John truly speaks to my heart.

Hi Christine: Yes, I like John the best as well.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

But of course, you are reading Jesus with the presupposition that He’s “another Avatar.”

Hi Edwin: Yes, I am going on that supposition.

But is there such a thing as the Orient? Isn’t the Orient simply an invention of Western colonialism?

Of course the term is like any other term.

Can you name me professional scholars of the New Testament/Second Temple Judaism who agree with this assessment?

I have read a number of them who say that the idea is very possible, although these are strictly academic people who are not influenced by any church in particular. For me a bible scholar is an academic person who remains pragmatic about the subject. As soon as one takes on the role of apologist or the like, then one has an agenda and loses the essential pragmatism needed to be considered a scholar. Basically, you trade one title for another. Some of the scholars who translated the Nag Hammadi codices have allowed for the possibility, and the indeed have noted the similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Eastern thought.

I think Vivekenanda was–quite appropriately and reasonably. I wasn’t complaining about this as dishonest. I simply think that it’s wrong from the start to lump the Middle East, India, China, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, etc., all together as “the Orient.” I’d say that there are at least four major cultural spheres there (Middle East, India, China, and Central Asia), though with lots of overlap around the edges.

I would have to agree with you - it is a rather broad term, but I don’t think anyone is going to consult the two of us on the matter any time soon.

Do any serious scholars hold this view? I haven’t encountered any. Not that I think only credentialed scholars have valuable insights, but when you find a certain view being confidently asserted by people who have certain agendas, but accepted by no or almost no professional scholars of the field, then I think it’s fair to wonder whether there’s much substance to the view in question. (The same goes for a lot of things conservative Christians believe.)

Yes, I have heard a few like Pagels comment on it as being a possibility, but these bible scholars don’t know Hindu scripture as well as a Hindu because they are more interested in your scriptures. If you are a Hindu and you read the words of Jesus, it is self evident that He was either an Avatar, or traveled to India, or as I see it – both. It is beyond all probability that coincidence is a factor. By the way, when you say that Jesus was God in human form, that is exactly what an Avatar is. God has come among us as Avatars throughout history and continues to do so. It doesn’t seem so odd to me that one would pop up in Palestine at some point.

Right, but that doesn’t mean that the two suppositions are equal. We don’t know of any other Second Temple Jews, as far as I know, who made such a journey. The idea that Jesus did seems to arise from purely theological motivations rather than historical considerations.

It’s been a long held tradition among some Hindus and Muslims in the Kashmir region, but admittedly there is little interest in Jesus among most Hindus. They have their own Avatars and are happy to let the Christians have Jesus. This shouldn’t be seen as detracting anything from their view of Jesus, it’s just more socially the norm to let people follow who they will. There are Tibetan monks who claim to have texts that cover the subject of Saint Issa (Jesus). We’ll probably never be able to see those, because Tibetan monks don’t really care what we think. I have heard it said that Thomas went to India as well. I personally don’t think it’s necessary as an explanation. If Jesus was God in human flesh (and I believe He was), then He would naturally say things and act like the Avatars of India.

I’d like to hear more about that last claim. I tend to put down the Indian stories about Jesus to Islamic influences–the Ahmadis in particular put a lot of emphasis on this. But orthodox Muslims think Jesus never died, and the Ahmadis think he died in India. So this is a new twist for me.

It’s just tradition, but a very old one. There are some people in the Kashmir area who have been maintaining what they insist to be the tomb of Jesus for a very long time. They have a rather passive interest in it though, it’s like “oh yea, that’s the tomb of the Jewish God-Man.” They claim that His mother is in a tomb on a mountain in Pakistan. There’s a fence around the “tomb of Mary” now, but people place flowers on it. People are no longer allowed in the supposed tomb of Jesus because westerners were defacing it by taking pieces of the building with them. I wouldn’t go so far as to promote or deny the authenticity of these sites, but I would be interested to know more. Of course to buy into that, you would have to subscribe to the theories that Jesus wasn’t on the cross long enough to die and that He put Himself into a yogic trance, spent a few weeks recovering from the wounds, and high tailed it back to India to finish out His life of teaching. I don’t care if this story is true or the standard resurrection story is true. What He said and did proves that He was genuine without the need for any such events. From my perspective it’s just interesting. Of course if my whole faith was based on a resurrection I might be a little more curious. To me, He was God and that’s good enough.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[MarkInOregon]

Oh, then what you are saying is that Islam is true!!! I mean, look at all the Muslims who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow up the place!! Then it must be true!! Having people die for a religion does not make it true.

They are not saying that. What happens today when people die for their religious beliefs is not quite the same thing as happened when the first Christians died for proclaiming Christ. The early Christians who actually witnessed the risen Christ died for something they saw, for something they witnessed. If they didn’t see the risen Christ but instead knew that he was really dead and they just moved and hid the body–then it is hard to believe they would die to preserve something they new to be false. They gained no earthly wealth and power and were persecuted unto death for their preaching it.

Muslims today, as do many Christians, die for their belief–for what they believe to be true–not for something they witnessed with their own eyes. There is a difference, a distinction to be made. You are comparing apples to oranges. I believe Christ rose from the dead and is the son of God and I would hope that if put to the test I had the courage to die for and not deny my faith. That said it is possible that I have misread the evidence and come to an incorrect conclusion about Christ–I don’t think that I have but it is possible–and if that is the case I would have died for something untrue. However, if I had lived 2000 years ago and saw Christ, followed him, saw him die on the cross and be put into the tomb and then saw him risen, ate with the risen Christ, touched his wounds and saw him ascend to the Father in heaven–well my belief would be based on something quite different than what my belief is based on today. If on the other hand 2000 years ago I saw him die and knew that he didn’t raise from the dead–it is unclear why I would proclaim that he did and stick to that knowingly false proclamation only to get myself killed–it simply makes no sense. Again you compared apples to oranges and then think gotcha. Sorry.

Peace,
Mark

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

That kind of falls short of proof. It still looks like a matter of what you believe.

As for dying for things that aren’t true, only recently we witnessed the tragedy of over 100,000 people dying because of reports of WMD that weren’t true. Of course we promptly made up new reasons, but that was the reason given to us at the time.

Your friend
Sufjon

Not quite the same thing. Those who died did not die for professing a particular belief they held to be true–they died because they were attacked by people who believed they had WMD’s. Thats a bit different. Now if you could prove they died for proclaiming to have WMD’s when they new that they did not–you might be on to something, but of couse thats not what happened.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Sufjon]

Not quite the same thing. Those who died did not die for professing a particular belief they held to be true–they died because they were attacked by people who believed they had WMD’s. Thats a bit different. Now if you could prove they died for proclaiming to have WMD’s when they new that they did not–you might be on to something, but of couse thats not what happened.

Peace,
Mark

I think you read my words wrong. My belief is that they died because people were led to believe something that was false. I do not see a fundamental difference, but you see what you see. It should be noted that many of the people who did the attacking for believing something that wasn’t true died as well. It was a tragedy for both sides, as is usually the case. Personally I don’t think that leaders who had ever been to a war would have started one in the first place, but that’s another subject.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Contarini]

Of course the term is like any other term.

Yes, but in this case I see no validity for it outside the context of colonialism.

I have read a number of them who say that the idea is very possible, although these are strictly academic people who are not influenced by any church in particular. For me a bible scholar is an academic person who remains pragmatic about the subject. As soon as one takes on the role of apologist or the like, then one has an agenda and loses the essential pragmatism needed to be considered a scholar.

I don’t think that’s fair at all. Everyone has bias, and Biblical scholars who aren’t apologists for orthodox Christianity inevitably have other axes to grind. There’s no neutrality when it comes to the Bible. A non-religious Biblical scholar is no less trustworthy (by that fact) than a religious one–but no more trustworthy either.

Elaine Pagels, for instance, whom you mention later, clearly approaches Christianity in a way shaped by her own personal spiritual journey, as her book *Beyond Belief *eloquently shows. I don’t see why she should be given any more (or any less) credence as a scholar because of her lack of orthodoxy–or N.T. Wright for his adherence to the basics of orthodox Christianity. Obviously I’m more likely to trust Wright because his presuppositions are more similar to mine, and you are probably more likely to trust Pagels. But for that very reason, we need to listen to scholars who approach these questions from perspectives that we don’t find congenial. For you, that would include both atheists and conservative Christians.

Some of the scholars who translated the Nag Hammadi codices have allowed for the possibility, and the indeed have noted the similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Eastern thought.

Koester? Pagels? Whom exactly do you have in mind? Most scholars don’t think that the Nag Hammadi texts tell us anywhere near as much about the historical Jesus as the canonical texts do. The Gospel of Thomas would be the major possible exception–Pagels and some others do think that it’s earlier than John and possibly gives some insights into Jesus’ original teachings. Many of the “Jesus Seminar” scholars think of Jesus as something like a Cynic sage, which would have some affinities with certain aspects of Eastern thought, but even they don’t seem to make a very direct Eastern connection.

Certainly the “Gnostics” of the second century may well have had some connections with Buddhism, but they were a lot more cosmopolitan than Jesus was.

I would have to agree with you - it is a rather broad term, but I don’t think anyone is going to consult the two of us on the matter any time soon.

They don’t need to. Scholars of religion dropped the term decades ago. I’m simply following the standard line, not saying anything original.

Yes, I have heard a few like Pagels comment on it as being a possibility,

Pagels thinks that Jesus may have traveled the silk road? Where does she say this?

but these bible scholars don’t know Hindu scripture as well as a Hindu because they are more interested in your scriptures. If you are a Hindu and you read the words of Jesus, it is self evident that He was either an Avatar, or traveled to India, or as I see it – both.

What are some of these similarities? I don’t claim to be deeply familiar with Hindu scriptures, but I have read the Gita and several of the Upanishads. I don’t see these striking similarities. Sure, there are similarities, but on a fairly generic level–the sort of thing you’d expect any wise and good teacher to say.

Justin Martyr and other early Christians thought that Plato had read the Hebrew Scriptures. This was somewhat less crazy as a matter of historical probability than the idea that Jesus traveled to India, but still very far-fetched and largely abandoned as a theory after the time of Augustine. The mistake in both cases is the same, I think.

By the way, when you say that Jesus was God in human form, that is exactly what an Avatar is.

But “Jesus was God in human form,” while correct, is not the most precise way of speaking of the Incarnation. The more technical theological way of putting it would be that the Second Person of the Trinity hypostatically united His divine nature to human nature. Because our conception of the relationship between God and the world is different than in Hinduism (creation ex nihilo), our conception of incarnation is different too.

Thanks for your gracious and thoughtful posts.

 

[JMartyr73340]

Hi Everybody:

I haven’t had time to read the entire string but I think this is a fascinating discussion. I think this string is really demonstrating the differences between Buddhism/Hinduism and Christianity, such as whether truth is subjective or objective, whether logic is valid or invalid, and whether reality as we perceive it (with all its many distinctions) is real or “just an illusion”.

I do not mean to be condescending to anyone who disagreed with him, but Benedictus2 replies have been priceless . There are a few points I’d like to make. Please forgive me if somebody (maybe Bendictus2) has already made them. As I said, I did not have time to read the whole string.

For the Christian, the opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is* indifference*. Suppose I had a son who was doing evil things. If I do not correct my son (if I am simply indifferent to his actions) then I do not love him. But to correct my son I must hate the evil he is doing. If you do not hate evil, it means that, on some level, you are being indifferent towards it. For the Christian, indifference to evil, whether it is huge (like saying the Holocaust was a good thing) or minor (an unwillingness to correct a friend who is cheating on his wife) demonstrates a deficiency in one’s capacity to love. For the Christian, one of the greatest acts of love you can do for another person is to tell them the truth.

Buddhist and Hindus have incorrectly, in my opinion, assumed that the opposite of love is hate. This is why they do not like the idea of hating evil. It is also why they tend to shy away from moral truth, because moral truth demands that you accept what is good and reject what is evil.

Another difference comes from Pantheism itself. Pantheistic religions says that “all things are one”, and that all distinctions are essentially an illusion. If you really adhere to such a philosophy you will soon begin to think that anything that makes distinctions is evil. You’ll start to think that the problems in this world (like war and poverty) are the result of people making unnecessary distinctions, and failing to see the great truth that “all thing are one” (I believe they are result of sin and people not following the objective moral law of God but I am not going to discuss that here).

The problem with the Pantheistic view is that truth, by its very nature, makes distinctions. In fact, one could go so far as to say that truth equals distinction. In mathematics, mathematical truth distinguishes between wrong answers and right answers. In philosophy, philosophical truth distinguishes between valid statements and invalid statements (using logic). When logic is applied to moral questions, truth distinguishes between right actions and wrong actions.

Since truth, by its very nature, makes distinctions, people who adhere to pantheistic religions tend to take a negative attitude towards it. Moral truths are the most powerful distinctions one can make. Moral truth, more than any other form of truth, is disturbing to Pantheists because it makes the most serious, the most obvious, the most painful and the most important distinction of all - the distinction between good and evil.

This is why Hindus and Buddhists tend to look down on those who make sharp distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong. They think that the wiser you get, the more these distinctions disappear (I’m quoting Lewis here). Christians actually think the opposite. They think that the wiser you get the more clearly you can see the distinction between good actions and evil actions, and the more passionate you are in condemning evil actions.

Now some Christians, without realizing, have slipped into the Buddhist way of thinking. They think that making the distinction between good and evil is wrong (I won’t talk about the contradiction here - we already tried in this string and it got nowhere). Or they think that condemning evil means condemning the person. To them, I can only say, you need to study logic and you need to understand the relationship between logic and faith. Logic is the tool we use to distinguish between false (blind) belief and true belief.

It is precisely logical analysis (and the objective truth it reveals) that Sufjon has clearly rejected in this string, which is interesting because she claims to be tolerant towards all ideas. But rejecting Western philosophy and logic is as misguided a spiritual mistake as rejecting prayer and meditation. Both are necessary in order to attain spiritual truth.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I think you read my words wrong. My belief is that they died because people were led to believe something that was false. I do not see a fundamental difference, but you see what you see. It should be noted that many of the people who did the attacking for believing something that wasn’t true died as well. It was a tragedy for both sides, as is usually the case. Personally I don’t think that leaders who had ever been to a war would have started one in the first place, but that’s another subject.

Your friend
Sufjon

I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure you understand the distinction I am making. I agree with you that they died because people believed something, that appears at this time to have been, false (I am leaving out the word “led” because to me this implies willful deception on the part of those presenting the “evidence” and I am not willing to subscribe anyones motives) and I will stipulate that throughout history people have died for erroneous beliefs. However, your statements seems to exclude or dismiss the possibility that anyone can die for something true–at least with regards to “religious belief”.

You really cannot see a distinction between refusing to recant your belief and willingly going to your death for it (whether or not it turns out to be true or false in reality) and dying because someone attacks you for something they believe? I believe my death is fundamentally different under those two senario’s. Additionally dying for refusing to recant your belief and killing for your belief are two fundamentally different things and should not be confused and lumped together as “people dying for false beliefs”. Maybe that is our problem–you lump people killed for someone elses beliefs in with those who are killed for their own personal beliefs, but I don’t think that is meaningful or germain the the argument.

I can die for something I know to be true because I witnessed it–for example the death of my grandmother. Now I don’t think I would refuse to recant this truth rather than die but if I did chose to die rather than recant this truth – I would have died for something I knew with certainty to be true–which is different from the next senario.

I can die for something I believe to be true based on my evaluation of the available evidence. For example that Geoge Washington lived and was the first U.S. president, that the Roman Empire existed and yes my Christian faith. It is possible that any one or all of these could be false and that would mean if I were to die for refusing to recant these beliefs I may possibly have died for a false belief – the point is I am dying for something I beleive to be true (which seems harder to do than dying for something I know to be true)–which is different for the next senario:

I can die for something I Know to be false. I can let myself be killed rather than recant something I know to be false. This seems highly unlikely to me as I gain nothing from it.

The earliest Christian martyrs, those who walked with Christ, saw Christ die, saw and ate with the risen Christ–were martyred under the first senario above. To dismiss their witness by saying people die for false beliefs all the time–is to deny the possiblity of this first senario or to suggest that they died under the third senario. It is to claim that they lied or did not know what they saw and testified to and that we know better today…

The fact that some kill in the name of their belief has no bearing on the martyrdom of the Christians who knew Christ – alive, dead and risen. That is a different discussion from why people allow themselves to be killed–rather than recant their faith.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

God has spoken to all people in the ways in which He reveled Himself to those people. He revealed Himself as Jesus to the Jews n a Jewish context, with teachings that were way out of the grasp of many who heard Him. So it is every time He comes among people. This is not unique. It was unique to the Jews, but not unique in the course of the larger human experience.

“…way out of their grasp…” which means the Hebrews/Jews kept hearing the “perrenial philosophy” (as Huxley and Watts would put it) message of monism/pantheism for over 1500 years and somehow they kept interpreting it as increasing strict Monotheism in the Western meaning–which boils down to the Jews were incorrigibly stubborn and stupid.

Monotheism does not mean God being separate from creation. It means one God. Dualism cannot be tagged on to the meaning of monotheism.

In the orthodox Jewish sense, it does (Kabbalah is from the 12-13th century AD and may very well have an Gnostic & Eastern origin). This is the context Jesus was preaching in. This is the context his disciples preached in–even to Gentiles who were the Jewish friendly “God-fearers” who already believed in the one God of Israel (and rejected all other gods)

This is the same misunderstanding that Christians apply when they hear of the 6.000 year old Hindu Trinity.

Since the actual writing of Vedic literature only took place a few centuries AFTER the Christian era had begun the 6000 year claim cannot be supported. According to some Vedic scholars, the “Trimurti” of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva seems to be a conflation created by some brahmins (circa 300-400 AD) in an attempt to stop the squabblings of competing Vedic worship-cultures (“cults” in the technical sense). Interestingly, there’s a possibility the brahmins may have been inspired by the actual Christian conception of the Trinity, vis the 'St. Thomas Christians" on the southwest coast of India.

While I would fault Paul with a lot of misunderstanding regarding Jesus, I don’t believe I ascribed that error to him.

So you would tend to side with the really unsustainable proposition that "Paul created Christianity? Unsustainable because its contradicted by both the NT and the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

A breakdown of why Jesus is NOT a “guru” (regardless of being an Avatar or not) of the the “perrenial philosophy” that runs through much of Eastern Religions. This is from Peter Kreeft’s and Ron Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics (This breakdown is also in Kreeft’s Beyond Heaven and Hell)

1. Judaism is exoteric–public in worship and teachings. Hinduism/Buddhism/Gnosticism (HBG) is private, inner teaching, deep teachings not communicated to outsiders

2.Judaism: Singular God, transcendent (you are NOT God). HBG: interpretations of pantheism or monism–seperateness is an illusion

1. Judaism : God is a person. HBG: as #2
2. Judaism: God created and works in time and history. HBG: Time and history another illusion
3. Judaism: God known in deeds, words, and accesable writings. HBG: “God” only known in mystical private experiences.
4. Judaism: God active initiator (king, warrior, husband, father), God searches for us (“Hound of Heaven”), male personna. HBG: God passive, only perceived by dilligant effort (“man’s search for God”), asexual or bisexual personna.
5. Judaism: God is good, and has definate moral expectations of His creatures. HBG: Beyond good & evil–morality only for detachment to be able to “progress”.
6. Judaism: Final Judgement, we created beings are seperate beings from God and can choose to be utterly seperate from Him (Hell). HBG: temporary “hells”, eventually everyone gets “liberated”

On all eight points Jesus sided with the Jewish conception.

 

[Sufjon]

“…way out of their grasp…” which means the Hebrews/Jews kept hearing the “perrenial philosophy” (as Huxley and Watts would put it) message of monism/pantheism for over 1500 years and somehow they kept interpreting it as increasing strict Monotheism in the Western meaning–which boils down to the Jews were incorrigibly stubborn and stupid.

In the orthodox Jewish sense, it does (Kabbalah is from the 12-13th century AD and may very well have an Gnostic & Eastern origin). This is the context Jesus was preaching in. This is the context his disciples preached in–even to Gentiles who were the Jewish friendly “God-fearers” who already believed in the one God of Israel (and rejected all other gods)

Since the actual writing of Vedic literature only took place a few centuries AFTER the Christian era had begun the 6000 year claim cannot be supported. According to some Vedic scholars, the “Trimurti” of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva seems to be a conflation created by some brahmins (circa 300-400 AD) in an attempt to stop the squabblings of competing Vedic worship-cultures (“cults” in the technical sense). Interestingly, there’s a possibility the brahmins may have been inspired by the actual Christian conception of the Trinity, vis the 'St. Thomas Christians" on the southwest coast of India.

So you would tend to side with the really unsustainable proposition that "Paul created Christianity? Unsustainable because its contradicted by both the NT and the Early Church Fathers.

None of the timelines you have posted are supported by most credible scholars. there are a few who support those, but they are mostly shaken up Christians with an agenda. Generally, scholarship has tended to place the composition of the Gītā r roughly the 5th and the 2nd century BCE.The Upanishads were earlier than that. Followers of Krishna are documented by Greek visitors to India hundreds of years before Christ, in secular accounts, and there could be no concept of Krishna without a Trimurti, because Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is part of the Trimurti. Yes there are a few scholars out there who have tried their best to put the theories you mentioned out there, but they are not in the mainstream.

 

[Sufjon]

So you would tend to side with the really unsustainable proposition that "Paul created Christianity? Unsustainable because its contradicted by both the NT and the Early Church Fathers.

I think you’ll find that I said that he formed a lot of the ways in which Christians view the life, teachings and meanings of Christ. I also think he didn’t understand Christ, nor ever met Him. Perhaps you can be the one who finally answers my question I have asked many times on this forum. Who else other than Paul left an account of Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus? I have asked this question openly and am open to a reply. Never have gotten one. Can you assist me in this regard? If someone could answer this, then I could stop inquiring about Christianity. My fundamental question would be answered and I could probably join my peers and never give Christianity another thought. Until then, I am too curious to settle my curiosity.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure you understand the distinction I am making. I agree with you that they died because people believed something, that appears at this time to have been, false (I am leaving out the word “led” because to me this implies willful deception on the part of those presenting the “evidence” and I am not willing to subscribe anyones motives) and I will stipulate that throughout history people have died for erroneous beliefs. However, your statements seems to exclude or dismiss the possibility that anyone can die for something true–at least with regards to “religious belief”.

You really cannot see a distinction between refusing to recant your belief and willingly going to your death for it (whether or not it turns out to be true or false in reality) and dying because someone attacks you for something they believe? I believe my death is fundamentally different under those two senario’s. Additionally dying for refusing to recant your belief and killing for your belief are two fundamentally different things and should not be confused and lumped together as “people dying for false beliefs”. Maybe that is our problem–you lump people killed for someone elses beliefs in with those who are killed for their own personal beliefs, but I don’t think that is meaningful or germain the the argument.

I can die for something I know to be true because I witnessed it–for example the death of my grandmother. Now I don’t think I would refuse to recant this truth rather than die but if I did chose to die rather than recant this truth – I would have died for something I knew with certainty to be true–which is different from the next senario.

I can die for something I believe to be true based on my evaluation of the available evidence. For example that Geoge Washington lived and was the first U.S. president, that the Roman Empire existed and yes my Christian faith. It is possible that any one or all of these could be false and that would mean if I were to die for refusing to recant these beliefs I may possibly have died for a false belief – the point is I am dying for something I beleive to be true (which seems harder to do than dying for something I know to be true)–which is different for the next senario:

I can die for something I Know to be false. I can let myself be killed rather than recant something I know to be false. This seems highly unlikely to me as I gain nothing from it.

The earliest Christian martyrs, those who walked with Christ, saw Christ die, saw and ate with the risen Christ–were martyred under the first senario above. To dismiss their witness by saying people die for false beliefs all the time–is to deny the possiblity of this first senario or to suggest that they died under the third senario. It is to claim that they lied or did not know what they saw and testified to and that we know better today…

The fact that some kill in the name of their belief has no bearing on the martyrdom of the Christians who knew Christ – alive, dead and risen. That is a different discussion from why people allow themselves to be killed–rather than recant their faith.

Peace,
Mark

Man, this is simple. People die sometimes because they believe in things that are not true. That was the point. I hate to see how many characters you would use to describe something complex, because you’re giving me a migraine or something

Yourfriend
Sufjon

 

[504Katrin]

Christians, Jewish and Moslems we kindof give proof to each others religion. We all, startin with the Old Testament, make a puzzle complete that makes perfect sense.
And you know that it’s Jesus’ resurrection where Muslims split up wit us and believe something else, but they still believe in the immaculate virgin conception of Mary, and at least they believe that Jesus was a prophet and that he will come back around judgement day and fight the battle against the evil.
Buddhism and Hinduism don’t fit in that puzzle.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Man, this is simple. People die sometimes because they believe in things that are not true. That was the point. I hate to see how many characters you would use to describe something complex, because you’re giving me a migraine or something

Yourfriend
Sufjon

People die sometimes because they believe in things that they are willing to die for. And yes sometimes those things turn out to be false. So yes that is simple and your point is true, however, you used that point in an attempt to refute an argument put forward by someone. I was trying to point out that it doesn’t refute the point in all cases.

The argument was made that the earliest Christians died for believing Christ rose from the dead and proclaiming it–and that their willingness to die argues for the truth of their belief. You and others have responded “people die for things that are false” so this proves nothing. What you are saying is true for those who believe on the basis of the testimony and evidence presented to then by others–they may have come to a wrong conclusion about Christs ressurection. But this does not apply to those who were actual witnesses to Christs ministry, death and ressurrection. They died for something they knew to be true–and their death does speak to the truth of what they proclaim and cannot be dismissed simply by saying “people die for things that are false all the time” which is what you and others have done.

And I deeply apologize for giving you a migraine or something. That was not my intention. I don’t wish to make anyone ill.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Sufjon]

People die sometimes because they believe in things that they are willing to die for. And yes sometimes those things turn out to be false. So yes that is simple and your point is true, however, you used that point in an attempt to refute an argument put forward by someone. I was trying to point out that it doesn’t refute the point in all cases.

The argument was made that the earliest Christians died for believing Christ rose from the dead and proclaiming it–and that their willingness to die argues for the truth of their belief. You and others have responded “people die for things that are false” so this proves nothing. What you are saying is true for those who believe on the basis of the testimony and evidence presented to then by others–they may have come to a wrong conclusion about Christs ressurection. But this does not apply to those who were actual witnesses to Christs ministry, death and ressurrection. They died for something they knew to be true–and their death does speak to the truth of what they proclaim and cannot be dismissed simply by saying “people die for things that are false all the time” which is what you and others have done.

And I deeply apologize for giving you a migraine or something. That was not my intention. I don’t wish to make anyone ill.

Peace,
Mark

Okay, I get what you mean now. You thought that I implied that the early Christians died for something that wasn’t true. That is not what I said. My point was the fact that they died for their beliefs in and of itself is not proof that their beliefs were true. Nor does it prove they were false. The person I was relying to asserted that their deaths were proof that what the believed was true, or at least that’s how I read it.

My sense is that a lot of what they believed was true.

I took some Advil

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Christians, Jewish and Moslems we kindof give proof to each others religion. We all, startin with the Old Testament, make a puzzle complete that makes perfect sense.
And you know that it’s Jesus’ resurrection where Muslims split up wit us and believe something else, but they still believe in the immaculate virgin conception of Mary, and at least they believe that Jesus was a prophet and that he will come back around judgement day and fight the battle against the evil.
Buddhism and Hinduism don’t fit in that puzzle.

I cannot speak for Buddhism. It may be true that Hinduism doesn’t fit into the puzzle of Christianity. Christianity, however, may easily fit into the puzzle of Hinduism. Hinduism looks at spirituality as inclusive of the God experiences of all people in a large continuum. Christianity has a very narrow and self-centric view of the God-human relationship, up to and including the view that God somehow has a favorite set of people. Of course that sounds more like the God of a playground at lunch time than a God of planets, solar systems, galaxies and universes. Imagine making a universe that defies all comprehension in it’s size, all built for one sect of people out of billions upon billions of people on one planet among countless trillions of stars, each with countless worlds coursing in their gravitational pulls. Of course the writers of the Old and New Testament had no concept of these things when they devised their views on God. The writers of the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scriptures) did. That is why they tend to be more inclusive. Even more recent discoveries in science tend to mesh well with Hindu scripture.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

The difference is that Hinduism and Buddhism teach that man can perfect himself through, behavior, meditation, detachment, yoga, stretching, whatever, that man is perfectable. Jesus said that only by accepting His sacrifice for our sins, His grace and mercy, can we be saved. We are incapable of saving ourselves, no one deserves salvation. It can only come through faith in Christ. Frankly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around that kind of love. Even with all the stupid, selfish, unkind things I’ve done, Jesus was still willing to die for me. Buddha said “I have become enlightened by detaching myself from you,” Jesus said “I’d die to spend eternity with you.”

Beautiful!!!

And you are spot on with that highlighted part

 

[benedictus2]

A Zen story:Two monks, Tanzan and Ekido, were walking down a muddy street in the city. They came on a lovely young girl dressed in fine silks, who was afraid to cross because of all the mud.

“Come on, girl,” said Tanzan. And he picked her up in his arms, and carried her across.

The two monks did not speak again till nightfall. Then, when they had returned to the monastery, Ekido couldn’t keep quiet any longer.

"Monks shouldn’t go near girls,’ he said, “certainly not beautiful ones like that one! Why did you do it?”

“My dear fellow,” said Tanzan. "I put that girl down, way back in the city. It’s you who are still carrying her!"Detachment means not carrying things around when we should have put them down back in the city.

rossum

And that should be one’s attitude towards evil? Then I suppose it is no wonder that one is hard pressed to find Buddhists and Hindus who actively fight evil. I supposed this is why one does not see many Hindu and Buddhist charitable organizations.