Buddhism and Hinduism are very different from Christianity. They have very few similarities. If I understand correctly, Buddhism is an Atheistic or Agnostic religion while Hinduism is polytheistic. That is quite a difference from Christian Monotheism.
I agree that they’re very different, being similar only in those areas of universally human, common-sense principles: morality, the efficacy of sacrifice, the need to let go, living for something higher than obvious worldly pursuits, etc.
Still, I don’t agree with how you’ve characterized Buddhism or Hinduism: I suppose you could call Buddhism agnostic, but it’s not really concerned either way with the existence or attributes of gods. And even “agnostic” might be a stretch as that implies lack of knowledge, whereas our Buddhist friend rossum on this very thread has been regularly and casually speaking of “gods” as beings whose existence he
is aware of… I think these theistic distinctions are outside the realm of things Buddhist teaching is concerned with.
And Hinduism is only externally polytheist, and even then only in some of its practices. At its core it’s monist, panentheist, or pantheist - and as this thread will show, any or all of those descriptions have highly debatable applicability.
Anyway, it all supports your main point anyway - that Christianity is very different from them both.
Hi Fone Bone: Actually, I think it is the interpretations of Mark and especially Paul that cause trouble. It is not in anything Jesus said in particular.
Okay. I have found, though, that the canonical gospels generally present a pretty unified picture of Jesus’ teachings - the more controversial claims in John certainly have their counterparts in the synoptics, and vice versa.
It is the context within which it was viewed by those who wrote about Him.
Fair enough. Still, it’s highly unlikely that those who knew Him personally before and throughout His ministry, and who shared His culture and religion, would misinterpret or unwittingly distort His teachings.
Jesus was indeed the message for the people He came among in that particular instance. It wasn’t necessary for those people in that time and place to understand the broader scope of God’s relationship with creation.
Well, Jesus did supposedly instruct His followers to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). But certainly the Christian message doesn’t claim to exhaustively explain every aspect of the divine or even of reality - as if such a thing were possible! But the limited scope that Christian teaching covers
does seem, from the gospels, to be intended for all people.
Jesus often shared His teachings with people outside His immediate faith tradition: teaching the Samaritan woman that He is the Living Water, and even responding positively to the faith of Gentiles like the woman in Matt. 15 (whose daughter Jesus healed after His initial rejection of her petition) and the centurion in Matt. 8.
Everyone comes to God in the way they are given. God doesn’t make one group of His people suffer being lost until some other group comes to save them with a particular message. They all have their own way. Christianity is just one of the religions that feels that they have the only way.
Well, Christianity doesn’t so much regard
itself - in the sense of a visible, organized, institutional structure - as the only way, but rather
Christ as the only way.
That doesn’t mean Christian teaching regards all those who have never heard of Christ as utterly and hopelessly lost. Because we believe that Christ is also God the Son - a divine Person of the Holy Trinity and therefore of one substance with the One True God - that means that in the Christian understanding, He and the pre-Incarnate
Logos of John 1 are one and the same Person. Not everyone may know Jesus of Nazareth as an historic figure, but everyone knows Jesus to some extent because everyone knows the
Logos through “natural revelation.”
Even St. Paul taught this precise truth when he wrote that “what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made” (Romans 1:19-20).
Their views were formed mostly by Paul and others who formed that faith. When you look at what Jesus Himself said, it could be taken to be much different. And I have said many time that I am very suspicious of Paul.
Your friend
Sufjon
Fair enough. In my personal experience, I’ve found that what Paul teaches is indeed most consistent with the teachings and actions recorded in the canonical gospels - not surprising, since he was accepted as a leader after his conversion by the community that eventually produced those gospels.
For instance, Jesus often emphasizes following the Commandments and judgment based on deeds, while Paul prefers to emphasize salvation by faith. Even so, there are plenty of places where Jesus says things like, “The work of God is this: that you believe in the One He has sent” (John 6), and where Paul emphasizes (like Jesus) that our faith must produce good fruit (goodness, good works) or it will not ultimately save us.
That’s just one example of where the teachings of Jesus seem to differ from those of St. Paul, yet where both definitely operate as a whole consistent with each of its parts.
Hi Fone Bone 2001,
I also typed: Panentheism-a valid way of seeing GOD into the search function and it brought it up.
Xuan
Okay, I’ll run a search - thanks, Xuan!
