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.”
My objective in this thread is to try to get you and other “anti-Buddhists” to name specific beliefs and practices that are incompatible with Christianity, and point out the specific incompatibilities. You all seem extremely coy about doing that. I suspect this is because you recognize that once you start doing that, you open the possibility that some parts of Buddhism *may *turn out to be compatible with Christianity.
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.
I’m not that interested in the question of owning a statue of Buddha in itself. I do not own such a statue and have no plans to acquire one. But your attitude to this question rests on the assumption that Buddha is theologically equivalent to the pagan gods described in the Bible, and hence that Buddhism should be regarded as essentially idolatrous and fundamentally opposed to Christianity without the need to examine its particular beliefs and practices. That’s the view I’m criticizing. I’m arguing that as with any set of beliefs and practices that are *not *conventionally labeled “religious,” one has to look at Buddhism piece by piece, rejecting what we find to be false or bad, accepting what we find to be clearly good and compatible with the truth revealed to us, and reserving judgment on the rest.
Edwin
