I’ve been here long enough. I know non-Catholics are welcome here.
Vatican II is at variance with much of traditional Church teaching and attitude, but that’s another matter…
I’m defining “argument” as “fighting”.
Same here.
The “Catholic position” (ie, Church position) was already stated above
What’s a religion?
When you define “religion” I’ll know whether to agree or disagree with that statement.
You are disagreeing with aicirt there. I was responding to an argument that *did *appeal to Jewish law in order to argue that Jesus wouldn’t have “kept a statue of Buddha.”
Not all Catholic devotions to saints limit themselves to asking explicitly for the prayers of the saints. (See the Memorare for instance.)
So for you the actual nature of the act isn’t the point–the point is whether the being who is venerated is seen as an intercessor with the Christian God or not?
And whereas Buddhists don’t think that anything is “of its own origin.”
Edwin, you state you’re an Episcopalian but you ask “what is religion?” What does your church teach? I’ve given an example of an idol…statue of Buddha.
Nothing about a general concept of “religion.” Why would it?
Circular. A statue of Buddha is bad because it’s an idol. What’s an idol? Something like a statue of Buddha.
Because these terms are not obvious. Your comparison to Bill Clinton is not an argument and does not relieve you of the need to define your terms.
What is difficult is that Buddhists are quite explicit about the fact that Buddha is not a god. The phrase “have no other gods” meant something specific in the ANE context. You want to apply it not only to other beings who might be called gods in other cultural context (even there I would have some questions), but to a being (Buddha) who is not in fact called a god. You defend this by saying he is “treated like a god,” but can’t explain what this actually means. I give two possible points of comparison: with patriotic ritual (which I think may actually be idolatrous) and with the veneration of the saints (which I agree with Catholics is not idolatrous). You don’t take me up on either one. Instead you want to dismiss my desire to use language clearly and fairly as some sort of irresponsible quibble. It isn’t. If you have ever had Protestants accuse you of idolatry (most Catholics in the U.S. have) you ought to know that.
I’ve only read your answers or questions to me because you write a lot.
No, you cannot be. If you’re a Catholic, why would you want to be a Buddhist? That makes no sense. Remain a Catholic.
Our use of images and icons is not as universal or as prominent as in your Communion. (Indeed, low-church Anglicans hold the Reformed view of these things, while Anglo-Catholics hold the Catholic view and most Anglicans are probably more like the Lutherans.)
Actually, you have been very coy in explaining your view on any of the matters on which I’ve requested a clarification.
Insofar as we have one, I accept it. The 1979 Prayer Book paraphrases the Second Commandment (which for you and the Lutherans is part of the First Commandment) as “to put nothing in the place of God.” And I think that’s an excellent paraphrase.
“I accept the destinction between dulia and latria. What Buddists offer to Buddha is dulia not latria. This is a point you have repeatedly evaded.”
You might want to review the original topic (which actually comes from another thread). The question was not and has never been whether Buddhist images belong in a Christian church, but whether an image of Buddha should be regarded in the same way that early Christians would regard, say, a statue of Zeus, or ancient Hebrews an image of Baal.
Does Knitter really argue that? What is his definition of “religion”?
The Buddhist see Buddha as a saint not as a god. Do I have that right? So because he’s considered a saint (holy person) by another religion it is okay for Catholics to have his statue because he’s not considered a god by his followers. Is that coherent? But Buddha doesn’t believe in a god but he did consider there might be many gods who are struggling still to reach their own Nirvana. Correct or not?
I don’t think it’s possible to be both, frankly; there are too many mutually incompatible elements in the two religions for that to be possible. For instance, Buddhists don’t believe in a God who is an active participant in human history, whereas Christians obviously do. I don’t think it’s true to say that Buddhists (or Hindus, for that matter) don’t believe in God or gods. I think it’s more accurate to say they believe in a divine principle, but that it is not a personal God as we know him to be, but rather a passive, impersonal being or force that exists outside and beyond the material universe. If I’m wrong I’m happy to be corrected by people more knowledgable about Buddhism.
Mariah,
Entry for “religion” on dictionary.com
Why not? God has no problem defining what a religion is, and furthermore what the right religion is. Therefore, in obedience to the Lord, we should have no problem, either.
Patriotism is not the same as a religion, so there is no conflict. Patriotism merely refers to temporal allegiance to a temporal entity (one’s nation) and contains within it no notion of supplanting any god with nationalism.
I am not disagreeing with aicirt, I am disagreeing with you and responding to your own words.
Actually, that reads quite simply as just that, asking for Mary’s help, along with some respectful language thrown in.
I don’t need to; the argument is that dabbling in Buddhism is wrong because Buddhism is wrong. Making distinctions between different kinds of veneration and the different Buddhist schools is irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. I am merely stating facts.
I am aware of that; I have been Catholic for over thirty years.
I am aware of that. I am speaking in general terms, not referring to Buddhist teachings but rather to pagan impressions of pagan gods. That was obvious.
Scroll up. The anti-Buddhist “side” has been quite clear on our position and the reasons why.
The condemnation has been defined, and repeatedly. That it is not good enough to assuage your pride on the matter is not important.
Amen, MW! A succinct and accurate answer.
No.
There are eight different definitions of “religion” (counting the archaic one and not counting the popular one) at that link.
Then why did you give a link to a definition based solely on common human usage–a link that lists eight different definitions anyway?
Did God write the definition at the link to which you referred me? Which of the eight definitions is divinely inspired?
So you say, but the link to which you appeal refutes you. The United States fits definition 3 easily. American nationalism is certainly something many Americans believe in and follow devotedly, and patriotism is a matter of ethics and conscience for many people (definition 6). And the Constitution and other founding documents of the United States appear to appeal to a fundamental set of beliefs (definitions 1 and 2), and set forth a fundamental set of practices on which Americans are expected to agree (definition 2). Note that definition 1 only brings in the supernatural with the qualifier “especially.” In other words, the core of definition can apply to non-supernatural sets of beliefs about the nature of the universe.
Then why do the media act so surprised when Muslims say that being Muslim is more important to them than being American, and why are so many Christians unwilling to say that being Christian is more important to them than being American?
I don’t know what you may mean by “game,” but if you are implying that I’m engaging in some kind of frivolous or insincere course of action, I assure you that I am entirely serious in all of the issues I have raised. I think that this discussion has shown that most folks have no idea what a religion is, or what an idol is, and feel very uncomfortable when the question is raised.
Nothing in the prayer indicates that Mary is expected simply to pray for the petitioner. She is asked directly for her help.
Yes, but you have signally failed to provide an argument showing this. You just keep saying it, over and over.
But since we are talking about Buddhism, your remarks were irrelevant unless they applied to Buddhism.
It boils down to “Buddhism is wrong because it is wrong because it is wrong.” You haven’t gotten more specific than that (except for pointing out that Buddhism doesn’t involve God, which if anything works against your argument that Buddhism is a “religion” which is thus more incompatible with Christianity than nationalism is).
Where? And where can I find the arguments supporting this position? Arguments that go beyond “Buddhism is something which we can’t define called a religion, and Buddha is treated in some way that we can’t describe but which we know to be identical to the way ancient pagans treated what they called gods even though Buddhists don’t call Buddha a god and we can’t point to any specific in how Buddha is treated that goes beyond what Christians have traditionally called dulia,” and so on.
I have certainly yet to see evidence that he is worshiped with latria, although I’m open to the possibility that this is true in Mahayana.
You certainly cannot argue from anything the Bible says about “other gods” to a conclusion about how Christians should regard Buddha until you have shown (from a Catholic perspective) that Buddha is worshiped with latria. Of course this is much easier for Protestants. But both of us accept the dulia/latria distinction, so I’m approaching the matter on those terms.
Right.
Sigh. I think we’re getting somewhere and you go right back to square one. Considered by whom? At least one scholar of Japanese culture has concluded that the concept of “religion” just doesn’t work well to describe that particular Asian (and partially Buddhist) culture. Paul Griffiths, a Catholic theologian and scholar of Buddhism, wrote an article in *First Things *some years ago in which he argues that there is no neutral, “objective” sense of “religion.”
Can you explain the chain of theological reasoning that leads you to this conclusion? Noting, again, that you have still not defined “religion,” and that when Lycorth cited a definition it was really eight different definitions, a number of which apply to nationalism/patriotism and other secular ideologies just as well.
But it is not just unkind and uncharitable–it is sloppy and presumptuous–to condemn something as an error before you have made proper inquiry into its nature.