Christianity for Buddhists

[Gnosis]

I would agree that it is not realistic to think that every truth can be discovered by one person in his single lifetime, as we are limited persons. Which is why scripture is always important. But I would disagree that the nature of God is something that can be discovered through revelation alone. I have a serious issue with the idea of historic revelation, which basically amounts to the claim that the sacred writings of one culture are written by God to the exclusion of all others. The nature of God should not be something hidden from us, something that God has to reveal to us. We are made in the very image of God himself, therefore to see God one only has to look within, in introspection. We look to the self to see God and to discern his nature. There is really little about the Bible that can earn it the title as “the unique revelation of the one God”. The indigenous stories of the creation and their “wild gods” are certainly as legitimate as the creation story treasured by the Christian and Jewish tradition, as all are myths intended to convey a truth that is outside of history. The Christian story is as wild as any other: woman is created out of a man’s rib, man is created out of the dust of the earth, they are placed in an eternal paradise with a tree that bears the fruit of immortality. Within the garden there is a tree that contains the fruit of knowledge. There is no death, no decay, no suffering. Yet a talking snake with legs deceives them and causes humanity to go against God. These are very common mythical elements, and basically stem from the Babylonian culture that pre-dated the Hebrews. They took these myths and changed them to fit into monotheism.
Why would God rely on historical revelation instead of writing this “revelation” on our hearts? Secondly, why would God reveal this to only one culture to the exclusion of all others? It seems rather odd that God makes a covenant with Israel alone and reveals his true nature to only a fraction of the world’s populace while allowing the rest of the earth to speculate and “invent” their own ideas about God. In addition, this so called revelation from God often contradicts the human experience of the world. This is essential in eastern thought, because experience is key. While we do revere scriptures, we do not confine our experience to what scripture says our experience of God has to be. I am sure you will say that experience is “subjective” and that many factors cloud our judgments so that we can not discern what is authentic and what is not….which leads to the idea that only scripture can confirm it. While this is a neat and tidy notion, it fails in its practical application. Far too many spiritual experiences step outside the box that scripture has drawn. Are these all simply false? Is one way of knowing God right and all others wrong? Or are they all different ways of perceiving the same reality? Which is why eastern thought is quick to affirm the validity of the western experience, but the west will no do the same. Eastern thought recognizes that our experience of what many have come to call “God” are as diverse as the world, and that this reality, “God”, is experienced within a context through which he can be understood. (continued)

 

[Gnosis]

Every religion tends to see the “denial of oneself” as an ideal or as a key component Jesus said “he who wishes to follow me must take up his cross, and deny himself”. He said we must “love our neighbor as our self”. To me, this affirms the truth that the eternal self is an illusion, a basic truth discovered by even Christ, though he may not have worded it so, his teachings point to it. As the saying goes “no man is an island”, likewise a human being can not survive alone. Buddha would have called this “dependence arising”, saying that everything that exists rises out of dependence on something else, so that all partake in single unity and, though they may appear to be separate, are one in their most profound nature. Why does God teach us to love another? Why does he tell us to “deny our self” or to “love someone as though they are us?”. Is there any practical use to such a command? Why “deny the self” if the self is an absolute, unchanging and eternal entity? Why should we be compassionate? Eastern thought says because it is conductive to our own happiness. To deny others and uphold the self increases suffering for it is out of step with reality. There is a practical application to it. But in the Western sense, I see no practical application, it seems to be only a distant ideal, which people seek to attain for no other purpose than because they have been commanded to. I think we need to ask ourselves “why does our happiness depend on the happiness of others?” does this not imply an inherent connection between me and others? Western thought says “love others because God has told you so”. For me personally, this is not enough. I want to know why God has told us to love others. The only answer I can see is that human beings are human through our interactions, through our relationships, that our existence does not depend on ourselves but others. With such notions, the idea of existing eternally as “me” simply dissolves.

I asked you to define yourself, I asked what about you is distinct that will forever endure. You responded:

. We are corporeal spirits. We are a unique composite of soul and body. When these two separate we call that death. Furthermore, as revealed by Christ, we are invited and inclined to live in communion with God which explains why at every age man is preoccupied with religion (most attempts are failures because the assumptions are mistaken). We are made in the image and likeness of God. The more we live up to this original dignity, the happier and truer we become. “

Unfortunately your definition is ambiguous and vague and could apply to everyone. There is nothing unique about this definition. You have said you are unique, but how so? I love to do creative writing, I play the piano, I enjoy movies. I am generally compassionate, but also insecure, I am lazy at times, but also witty and intelligent. I’m a homosexual, I’m 6’3, weigh 150 pounds and have green eyes. All these things are part of my identity, what help make up what I conceive myself to be. Yet remove me from this earth, make me “perfect” and “flawless” without “sin”…I will no longer be me. I will be someone wholly different. The ways I interact with people will change. (continued)

 

[Gnosis]

You wrote about heaven:

”Heaven? As St. Thomas wrote extensively about the beatific vision, God granted him a peek. After which he said that what he has written is like straw.”

Interestingly, Buddha would have described nirvana in a similar way. For those of us who have not reached nirvana, no words can convey what it is, so attempts are pretty much useless. Many Hindus would likely describe the final union of Atman with Brahman in a similar way.

I think the concept of heaven needs to be seriously analyzed. You assert that we will retain our individuality, yet we will not exist in an eternal state of boredom. I can’t see how this is possible. The world that we live in now has its excitement and pace because of the reality of human suffering and death. To me, death and pain, while we often fear them, are essential to our humanity. An artist uses shadowing to give his drawing depth and realism, likewise, death and suffering shadow over our lives, doing the same. Not to suggest we should increase our suffering or not try to decrease the suffering of others. Eternal paradise is boring. Look at Adam and Eve ( the blue print for humanity). They stood around naked all day talking to God, eating fruit, playing with animals. Sure, sounds like a nice vacation, but I’d go mad after a week or two.

You were curious about my definition of human kind. I think our existences all flow, as from a fountain, from this reality that we have named God. He is inherent in everything that is, or perhaps we can even say he is what is…which is why I love when God says “I am”.

This will sound very strange, but “we are God…we just don’t know it”. To a Catholic, I am sure this must be absurd, and you really have to bend your mind around it to understand that it is in no way an egotistical statement. It is our selfish desires that fuel the illusion that we are separated or apart from God. If we can learn to quell these desires, like extinguishing a candle flame, then we will enter what Buddha called nirvana. I suppose it is not even transferring from one state to another…it is simply the realization of what always has been. Again I return to my most fundamental spiritual experience that was standing alone watching the snow fall in a forest. I saw myself extend beyond myself, so that what I was also watching me…which leads to “me” not being at all. Its really hard to explain…

I think we are saying very similar things. You are saying that heaven is an eternal state of existence in which we are united with God as we were always meant to be. It is so glorious that it is beyond the grasp of human comprehension. Eastern thought similarly asserts that it is a state of union beyond description. The primary difference is that you assert we will retain individuality…but you just can’t describe in what sense we will still be individuals. That’s why I can not accept the Western position.

Wow. I know this is long. I appreciate your feedback, and I enjoy this discussion.

 

[Ahimsa]

Neithan:

I was just thinking how terribly sad it is that there is no distinct east Orient rite in the Church. This could have beautifully ‘baptised’ the traditions of the Far East, much like the Roman and Byzantine rites with the Greco-Roman traditions. You can read an interesting history here in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (see esp. “THE QUESTION OF RITES”).

What an opportunity lost! I think this is in part the fault of the excessive Chinese persecution of Christianity (to the point of extinction in the early centuries), as well as the overreaction of Popes during the Jesuit missions to Chinese practices which could possibly have led to heresy. Instead of abolishing their distinct practices entirely and enforcing the standard Roman rite, it would have been much better to simply weed out or correct what was not orthodox. If left to the Jesuits this could have been accomplished as they were much in favour of a native rite, but unfortunately the Emperors were executing them.
What do the Chinese Orthodox use? The Byzantine rite?

Well, the Buddha was once a saint in the Catholic Church, so maybe all is not lost.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Gnosis:

TY again.

You are right, many of what we’re saying are similar. The main things that I have worked through when I was younger are syncretism and relativism…both of which I actually leaned towards. But after studying further into philosophy and theology, I came to the realization that these two positions are not logical and ultimately not real.

I see that you are at the present time really into the yin and yang of good and evil to create a dynamic movement or excitement as you mentioned. I would challenge that oriental image with what we know of the Holy Trinity. Frank Sheed in Theology and Sanity explain this far more than I can type. If you ever find a Catholic bookstore it should be there. I completely disagree with the notion of the necessity of evil. Evil has no properties of its own, it can only lie about the truth, vandalize and make ugly the beautiful and turn virtues into vice. Good can exist on its own without evil you see. Evil is dependent on the good so it can ruin something.

Lastly, you say that we are all God, this stems from the drop of water joining the ocean. Pantheism is not a working worldview either. If we are all God then I should be able to answer all the questions of metaphysics. Did you create yourself? Can you trace every aota of your being from whence it came? But I hardly can even recall being 2 years old! We do however have a soul which is a spirit which is created by God.

God bless.

in XT.

 

[Gnosis]

Actually I do not subscribe to the dualistic philosophy of ying and yang, that good and evil are mutually interdependent entities, or that evil is required for good to exist. In fact, I do not believe in “good” or “evil”. The concepts of good and evil have arisen out of our conscious response the reality that we live in, they are simply labels used to deal with that which affects us. This is not to say that there is a problem in labeling certain acts as “good” or as “evil”. I would say that help a starving child is good and that to kill a human being is in fact an act of “evil”. I can understand good and evil in the moral sense (rather than theological), that we can say our actions are good or evil, but such labels are relative in how they affect us as human beings, whether or not they affect us negatively or positively. I do not think however, we can label certain natural processes themselves to be inherently evil nor good, for neither exists outside of humanity. For example, to the rabbit being eaten is evil, but to the wolf eating the rabbit is good.
In no way do I see death or suffering to be evil. Jesus even said “Such things must come, but Woe to he through whom they come.” When people cause suffering, that is certainly not good on their part, but as Christ said, such things must come. Suffering, again, is part of the natural process, part of change. The aim is to understand how to harness our sufferings in a beneficial manner, to understand which sufferings arise out of necessity and which one’s do not. When we confront our suffering and understand it, then we are saved from it. I think Christ was an example of the freedom that comes through suffering. Likewise, Buddha taught that we must seek to understand suffering, and paradoxically, understanding it leads to freedom from it.
Secondly I do not see death in any way as evil. It is not a parasite upon life, nor does it feed off what it is good. Death is part of life, it is tied to it, essential to it. Something can not change, can not be fluid, can not be living unless it progresses towards death, for death is simply another change… Life and death, as Buddhism would say, are two sides of the same coin.
You have a linear view of the world, where as I have cyclical. I see no beginning nor any end. There is only the appearance of beginning and end. The root cause of our human suffering, or the feeling that something is amiss, is that we have this impulse to look for permanence where there is only impermanence, for solidity where there is only fluidity. We cling to our self, our ever changing, constantly moving identity that is never the same, and we find only dissatisfaction for we are out of step with reality. Buddhism has us confront the reality of the impermanence of the self, and we find peace in letting ourselves go, in surrendering to the thoroughness of impermanence and the reality of dependence arising.
We may say that a tree begins and ends. But what is a tree besides the label we have given to a natural process? When does the tree “begin”? As the potential within another tree that will produce a seed? As the seed? As a sprout in the earth? As a sapling? When does it end? When it decomposes, returning to the soil where it will be used to sustain the life of another plant? My point is, what we have labeled as a tree is not a distinct and separate entity from everything else. We have pointed out a specific stage of a process, and emphasized it, conceptualized it. A tree is composed of so many things, that when we really break it down, it is a product, a synthesis. I suppose this is what you mean by syncretism?
A Zen Buddhist once described a piece of bread in such a way: We see it, and call it a piece of bread. In our mind, it is distinct and apart from everything else. In reality, its very existence is dependent upon millions of other factors, which make the bread connected to everything else. In this piece of bread, we can see the universe. The bread is composed of wheat, the wheat depends upon the soil, depends upon the sun, depends upon the rain, the rain upon the clouds, the soil and sun both depend upon countless other factors. The wheat gathers its nutrients from the sun, the rain, the soil, the nutrients coming from other plants that have decomposed, that have been recycled, so that the piece of bread comes to contain the entire universe inside it, every given object is but the product or appearance of the connectedness of everything. There is nothing which we can find that does not depend upon something else. Nature recycles, this is observable. Matter is not created, matter is not destroyed, only the appearance of something is. I can take the bread, I can eat it, tear it apart, throw it away. Its appearance will be altered, but what composed that bread will never be gone. (continued)

 

[Gnosis]

I often wonder about this notion of the human soul? When do we receive our soul? How is that our soul is created, received? We say that God creates us, yet what creates us is a perfectly observable natural process. So he does not create us directly. But we assert, he crafts and forms our soul. Now is our soul our body? Does our body reflect the soul? Does God decide if we are born crippled? For perfectly observable natural processes determine disabilities. Are the soul and the body tied together? When do we receive this soul? And how do we receive it? Does it start in heaven and flow to earth? If you say that everything that “begins” must end then how can our soul have a beginning? How can something that is “eternal” be created? How can we have an eternal self? Is our personality our soul? Does the semen or egg that will grow to form us contain this soul? Is the soul received at conception? Does a clump of cells have a soul? If so, what happens if a woman miscarries? What defines that person, that soul? Does it go to heaven? Will it rise with the dead? What will it rise as? A clump of cells? How is a clump of cells judged? How can it relate to people? How can its body be related to its identity? Christ was raised with wounds of his crucifixion, which implies that our bodies have divine significance, yet what of an embryo that possesses a soul? What our bodies, yours and mine? Our bodies are made up of atoms, composed of atoms which at one point, made up something else, made up other people even. If our physical bodies are of some significance, what then of this dilemma? That my body is made up of what once composed others? How will the dead rise if their bodies have composed others?

To say that we are God is perhaps somewhat misleading. Again, when I say such a thing I am saying so with such notions of “me” and “God” having already dissolved. Our very existence flows from God as from a fountain. There is no created nor creator, for there is no beginning nor end. This is not say we are embodiments of the Divine Consciousness. To look to Hinduism, Lord Krishna, who is the Godhead incarnate, says “By Me is all this world pervaded through my non-manifest form. All beings abide in me, but I do not abide in them”. Divine consciousness (I have not decided if I believe in such a thing) is not contained by existence. We separate ourselves from God through the very illusion of our apartness, when we surrender our apartness, when we quell the selfish desires that ultimately fuel our existence, then we have attained nirvana or moksha, in which individuality is no more.

Thanks for your time,
In the love that is Christ,
Jordan

 

[Neithan]

Gnosis… wow, you’re all over the place man. I would reply to your posts but I don’t even know where to begin. If you are sincere about pursuing the truth, you need to focus your mind and proceed methodically. What you’re doing is called the ‘Suicide of Thought’ (I recommend reading the book ‘Orthodoxy’ by G.K. Chesterton).
Pick a specific concept and ask critical questions.
** Logic** is a necessary skill in order to curb that tendency of the human mind to engage in self-destructive skepticism.

Firstly: nothing can be knowable beyond any doubt. To believe or accept anything starts with faith. The first act of faith is that you can generally trust your own senses–something which eastern mysticism (hinduism, buddhism etc.) doubts right up front. Saying that this world is merely an illusion (including ourselves) kills the search for truth before it ever has a chance to get out of your own mind.

Keep searching! That’s the most important part. The drive to find the truth. First you have to accept that there *is *truth, and that it is knowable–otherwise you may as well despair of ever knowing anything.

 

[Gnosis]

I don’t understand where I am not being logical. My post mainly consists of observations within the natural world.

When I say that the self is an illusion, I am saying that the idea that there is a permanent, fixed “me” is simply not true. Again, this rises out of a natural observation of the world.

 

[Neithan]

Gnosis:

I don’t understand where I am not being logical. My post mainly consists of observations within the natural world.

I was just mentioning the usefulness of deductive formal logic. As in specific premises and conclusions, rather than a pure stream-of-consciousness with a myriad of general questions followed by speculative hypotheses. Of course, if one subscribes to a Hindu/Buddhist outlook on life, then logic is completely pointless.

When I say that the self is an illusion, I am saying that the idea that there is a permanent, fixed “me” is simply not true. Again, this rises out of a natural observation of the world.

If the self is an illusion how can you observe anything or accept anything that you observe? What you’re stating is contrary to my personal experience, as I have a distinct notion of ‘self.’ So therefore it must be subjective. This is what eastern mysticism is all about–subjective experiences. But if everything is subjective than how can anyone agree on anything? Nothing is.

That’s essentially the first step of our existential reality. We can separate your thinking from mine, Hindu-Buddhist from Judeo-Christian, with the simple question:

‘What is?’

**1.) **In Hindu-Buddhism, the essential first assertion is to say: “Nothing is.”
Thinking that you yourself do not really exist is the suicide of thought. You have no right to think, let alone observe, least of all draw conclusions and string together theories based on ideas none of which exist or have any meaning whatsoever.

**2.) **The very first ‘leap of faith’ required in the Judeo-Christian worldview is simply to say: “Something is.”
To admit that we ourselves truly exist, that our experiences are real, and that what we observe is outside of us and exists on its own, for its own sake.

I would categorise these two worldviews, Judeo-Christian and Hindu-Buddhist, with two simple words:
*Hope *and Despair, respectively.
Taking away the negative connotations attached to the latter, what I mean essentially is that in the Hindu-Buddhist worldview–nothing matters. Nothing at all matters. It doesn’t matter how one lives their life because in the end, existence simply isn’t. Whereas in the Judeo-Christian worldview, what we do shapes our eternal (‘aeveternal’, since we have a beginning) destiny. What one does, matters.
This ties in closely with the linear/cyclical views of time. While a Christian admits that there are cycles of time, they are within an ultimately linear arrangement, but a Brahmin will say that time is ultimately cyclical. With an ultimately cyclical time, nothing matters. This is true despair.

See, Jews and Christans, we call our God HE WHO IS. That’s His name to us. That perfectly demonstrates the absolutely fundamental belief of Judeo-Christianity: Is. “There IS [something].” Summed up most perfectly by the latin word Ens.

Any honest Christian apologist will tell you that if someone rejects the idea of Ens, it is impossible to argue against them. The Hindu-Buddhist despair, the acceptance of an illusionary world, is the one great rival to Judeo-Christian hope.
One must simply choose between the two.

Tying this in again with the OP to stay at least somewhat on topic: the fact that the ultimate existential statement of Buddhism and Christianity are fundamentally opposed (“Nothing is” vs. “Something is”) demonstrates succinctly why these two religious worldviews are absolutely irreconcilable.

 

[Gnosis]

Actually, you are somewhat misrepresenting what I am saying, as well as various schools of eastern thought. There are indeed some schools that assert this world is an ‘illusion’.

I am not denying that we are conscious beings, nor the reality of the world. What I am saying is that this seperate conscious being is 1) in total dependence upon other factors and 2) in a constant state of flux and change and will, at one point, cease to exist.

I too have a distinct sense of self. Buddhism acknowledges two gates 1) that everything is separate in its appearance and that 2) everything on the most profound level is one.

Eastern mysticism is not ALL about subjective experience, it is about seperating the views which arise out of our experience of the world from reality. We are limited beings, and our limitations trap and and confine our persepective. However, if we can seperate our self from the experience of reality, then we can be more in tune with what reality is.

“The first assertion of Hindu-Buddhism is that nothing is”

Thats not a very accurate portrayal. You are taking two distinct religions and generalizing based on what some schools of thought might assert.

In fact, I don’t see how we can say ‘nothing is’ for nothing is the opposite of what is, “nothing is not”. Buddhism does not deny reality, it seeks to further reveal it.

And secondly, Buddhism and Hinduism do have a system of morality. Again, you are misrepresenting. We seek liberation, our morality rises out of this quest. Since the reality is that everything partakes in the Whole, it is counter-productive to the goal of liberation to treat others negatively. Selfishness is a DENIAL OF WHAT IS, a denial of reality.

I would also prefer that you return to my post before this one and confront my arguments directly about “beginning and end”, the “universe in a piece of bread” and problems with the soul.

 

[Neithan]

Gnosis:

I would also prefer that you return to my post before this one and confront my arguments directly about “beginning and end”, the “universe in a piece of bread” and problems with the soul.

I could address these questions from my own worldview–but if you and I do not share the same presuppositions, than my answers will not satisfy you.

Thats not a very accurate portrayal. You are taking two distinct religions and generalizing based on what some schools of thought might assert

I am neither Hindu nor Buddhist so I am always open to correction; however, I would rather not overcomplicate something which I am already not particularly familiar with–so I stick with ‘Buddhist’ and ‘Hindu’ (and their common ancestor ‘Brahmin’) in order to get at the fundamental comparisons with Judeo-Christian thought. Involving individual schools or denominations is futile because the differences are much more basic.

In fact, I don’t see how we can say ‘nothing is’ for nothing is the opposite of what is, “nothing is not”. Buddhism does not deny reality, it seeks to further reveal it.

What is ‘reality’ to the Buddhist? Is it all in his own mind? Does his mind exist apart from anything else?
I still see the primal difference being the denial of self vs. the assertion of self. ‘Nothing’ vs. ‘Something’; ‘Is not’ vs. ‘Is.’

We seek liberation, our morality rises out of this quest.

Liberation from what, exactly? And why?

Since the reality is that everything partakes in the Whole, it is counter-productive to the goal of liberation to treat others negatively.

Hmm… this is confusing. What are the consequences of treating others negatively? Non-liberation from the illusion of self? How do you measure ‘positive’ vs. ‘negative’? What do they mean and in relation to what?

Isn’t it equally as counter-productive to treat others positively? If you really love someone, doesn’t this only serve to perpetuate your self-illusion and theirs?

Selfishness is a DENIAL OF WHAT IS, a denial of reality

How do I discover reality?

If you’ve answered any of these questions in your above posts, please point me to which one… or quote

 

[AquinasXVI]

Syncretism is the philosophical equivalent of Frankenstein. It is both fiction and unnatural.

in XT.

 

[Neithan]

It’s difficult to argue with Buddhists and Hindus because they see all faiths as truth; there is no objective truth to the exclusion of all others. This is why eastern thinking is becoming so popular in the west these days–because it’s relativistic. You can be a Hindu and beleive whatever the heck you want, it doesn’t really matter, as long as you never say that anyone else is wrong. Of course this is ironic because they will freely tell Catholics that we are wrong to think Jesus is the only way

For a Buddhist or Hindu there is no way to effectively evangelise except to insist on the reality of the Resurrection. There is no greater ‘assertion of self,’ or affirmation of the good, the reality in our individual existences than Christ’s triumph over death, and ascension into heaven.
I can also think of no better counter to pantheism than the Trinity. That God is 3-in-1 affirms the perfection of unity in diversity! Individual personal existence but one divine nature!
I reckon that is somewhat akin to how we will exist in the blessedness of the beatific vision—we will be one communion, one ‘body’, yet each with his own self, his own personal, individual identity intact.

 

[Gnosis]

I will take the time to try and clarify and to answer your questions to the best of my ability. But I would also like to note that you have not constructively confronted my arguments a few posts ago, which I consider to pose strong complications to traditional western philosophy.

To deny the self is not to deny reality. Christ himself said “He who follows me must deny his self and lift up his cross”.

We do not need a ‘soul’ or a ‘permanent self’ to experience reality. If that was so, then how do animals experience reality? Animals are conscious, albeit, primitive, and instinctive creatures, but they have a consciousness. Having a consciousness does not neccessitate a soul.

I will get back to you in time, thanks.

 

[Neithan]

Gnosis:

To deny the self is not to deny reality. Christ himself said “He who follows me must deny his self and lift up his cross”.

Not sure if you’re aware of it, but you’re confusing the definitions of the words to extract a completely different meaning than the one implied by the text.
Christ does not mean that we should deny the entire reality of our existence–this is clearly obvious by the fact that he tells us to lift up our cross. He is saying that we should act selflessly, we should do everything not for our own good, but for God, the ultimate good. The way of the cross is accepting suffering for others’ sake in Christ’s example.
Embracing one’s cross is an emphatic affirmation of self-identity but denying the selfish desires. ‘Self’ obviously exists or embracing one’s cross would be meaningless. Any commandment or teaching would be meaningless, for that matter. In fact, to ‘take up one’s cross’ is a radical acceptance of self and the sufferings of our existence.
You see, Christianity embraces suffering, whereas Buddhism escapes it. Totally different.

We do not need a ‘soul’ or a ‘permanent self’ to experience reality. If that was so, then how do animals experience reality? Animals are conscious, albeit, primitive, and instinctive creatures, but they have a consciousness. Having a consciousness does not neccessitate a soul.

I’m unsure how to answer this because I suspect that your assumptions and the meanings you attach to these words are completely different from mine.

In Christianity, a ‘soul’ is simply a life-force. If something is alive, it has a ‘soul.’ Plants have plant souls. Animals have animal souls. Rocks do not have souls. A dead plant has no soul, and likewise neither does a dead animal.

The idea of a perpetual ‘self’ is called a spirit. This is the Christian belief in a self-consciousness and free will. Animals do not have spirits, no ‘self.’ They have no distinct self-identity nor free-will. Thus, they cannot ‘experience reality’ like humans (or angels) do. They do not reflect on themselves or their surroundings. They simply live, they exist but are a part of nature. Death is not evil to them (which you noted in some post above); but this is because it does not cause a rift between their bodies and souls. Their souls dissipate with their bodies.

A spirit is required to ‘experience reality’ because only a spirit can reflect on its experiences. Only spirits have a consciousness capable of separating itself from the rest of existence, which is necessary to ‘experience.’

Death is evil for humans because it destroys their bodies–an essential part of their existence. Death subjects us to the natural fate of animals but contrary to our spiritual ‘selves.’ The human body is meant to perpetually exist along with the spiritual ‘self.’

It is a dogma of our faith that once a spirit comes into existence, it cannot cease to exist. Once a ‘self’ ‘is,’ it is. It images God in that it is of the simplest sort of ‘being’ and cannot cease to ‘be’.
This is the concept of aeveternity. This differs from eternity in that we all have a beginning (conception) but will not have an end. We exist now and always will, but we are not like God, we did not *always *exist.

The significance of Jesus Christ is that he brought the answer to the problem which plagued humanity from the beginning, death, in the resurrection. The resurrection restores our bodies to our disembodied ‘selves’ in a spiritually renewed state so that we can exist fully according to our nature. God–who is a pure spirit–voluntarily incarnated one of His ‘selves’ (He has three) into a human body in order to accomplish this for us. Naturally, only our creator could fix what we had broken–our original harmony between spirit and body.

 

[Neithan]

Neithan:

In Christianity, a ‘soul’ is simply a life-force. If something is alive, it has a ‘soul.’

I should probably add–to avoid confusion–that ‘soul’ can often mean a living human being: the union of a spirit and body. It can also refer to the spirit itself. Somewhat confusing. But properly designated, the ‘soul’ is simply the life-principle and the ‘spirit’ is the self-identity.

 

[Gnosis]

Okay, many issues have been brought forward here, so it is impossible to be able to answer them all at once, but I will try to get to each point.

Firstly, it was said: It’s difficult to argue with Buddhists and Hindus because they see all faiths as truth; there is no objective truth to the exclusion of all others. This is why eastern thinking is becoming so popular in the west these days–because it’s relativistic

The idea of ‘moral relativism’ is, in part, an attempt by many to slander those who transcend religious boundaries. Moral relativism, contrary to popular Christian notion, is not rampant in society. You will find very few people who will say that if you gather pleasure from raping someone, then that is good to you because it brings you pleasure.

What many “relativists” are actually saying is quite different than “truth is subjective”. We have a much broader and more encompassing defintion of God and religion than do exclusivists, not based on the desire to be ‘politically correct’, but based on our obersvations of people. We look at the different religions and see how they are all unique expressionso of humanity and its relation to the Divine. We see a certain amount of arrogance in the claim that any one faith is “delivered by God himself”, for it seems contrary to the nature of God to deliver a perfected faith to only one people and not make the effort to reveal this to all. The different religions are all different attempts to understand God and to understand the nature of our existence. By claiming that most religions are legitimate we recognize that all religions have flaws, but that their truth and essence does not reside in speculation or dogma,but rather in their end goal, what some call liberation or others salvation. They are paths, diverse and many, but leading to the same place. A sufi mystic once said “There are many paths up to the mountain peak, but at the top the view is the same”.
Surely the follower of one faith believes his path to be more accurate, or closer in reality to what we call God. Otherwise he would not follow his religion. The Dalai Lama surely feels that Buddhism is the most accurate expression he can find. He surely thinks that there are aspects of other religions that are not right.But this does not exclude the validity nor beauty of another faith, nor the fact that we can learn from all.

We all relate to God differently, and I believe God comes to us in a way in which we can understand. For every religion, we see miracles that occur. A Muslim sees the shahhadah miraculously written when he slices open a piece of fruit, a Catholic sees tears coming from the Virgin, a Hindu sees the statue of Ganesha drinking milk. All are the miracles of one religion true, and all the other false? Or what of when we are dying? A Hindu may see the Lord Krishna in a near death experience, a Christian may instead see Jesus at the “end of that tunnel”. Why is each persons supernatural encounter with the divine relative to his own culture and his own understanding of God? Why doesn’t a Hindu, after being clinically dead for several seconds, claim to have seen Christ? Or a Protestant claim to have encountered a vision of Mary?

And why, when we gather some of the most spiritual people on the planet together, do they seem to all have that same quality of inner peace and tranquility? Why do they all seem to have that same overriding sense of compassion and love? Has only one found the “truth”, and all the others lost in delusion? Or is the truth not found in “the fruits that once produces”. We can claim that our theology is the most accurate, that our Church is the best, that our religion alone offers salvation until we are blue in the face.

But in the end, the evidence lies not in the claims we make, but in the people we become. Not in the way we percieve God, but in how that perception of him changes who we are. Religion is not about concepts that we affirm to be true, rather its about a living, breathing spirituality that helps us to transcend limits that we never thought could be crossed. To become what we never thought we could be.

 

[Gnosis]

Okay, this is proabably a lot to read, but I will continue:

I feel as if I have to again return to the notion of the self. Buddhism denies any permanent, enduring self. This is not to say that you are an illusion per se…but that there is a general disparity between the way our senses lead us to perceive the world and the way things actually are. The self is the most cited example of this disparity. We are ever-chaning, thouroughly pervaded by impermanence. The self in every moment is a new, is different, yet the change is so consistent that it appears as though there is no change at all. This is akin to a lightbulb which gives the appearance of a solid source of light. It does not look as though the light is changing, when in fact, the light is flickering at such a speed that it looks as though it is not moving at all. This does not deny the reality of our existence, but it denies the notion of a soul, or “spirit” as you called it. You said that an animal does not have a spirit, and then you assert that to deny the spirit of a human is to deny our existence. If an animal does not have a spirit, then by your own argument, you are denying that that animal actually exists.

Now I will refer to some of your positions:
*
Embracing one’s cross is an emphatic affirmation of self-identity but denying the selfish desires. ‘Self’ obviously exists or embracing one’s cross would be meaningless*

I am very aware that Jesus did not deny the “self” in the Buddhist sense. However, to say one must embrace their cross is not an affirmation of the spirit. I think you have gone too far with mental imagery when you read my descriptions about the “lack of self”, and have imagined that I am saying that the substance of you and I are not present. The inaccuracy lies in that we imagine our substances to posess some kind of unique identity that forever separates me from you. But these substances that compose us are very real, it is only our consciosuness that forms the notion of these substances being independent that is the illusion.

Quote: *The idea of a perpetual ‘self’ is called a spirit. This is the Christian belief in a self-consciousness and free will. Animals do not have spirits, no ‘self.’ They have no distinct self-identity nor free-will. Thus, they cannot ‘experience reality’ like humans (or angels) do. They do not reflect on themselves or their surroundings. They simply live, they exist but are a part of nature. Death is not evil to them (which you noted in some post above); but this is because it does not cause a rift between their bodies and souls. Their souls dissipate with their bodies.

A spirit is required to ‘experience reality’ because only a spirit can reflect on its experiences. Only spirits have a consciousness capable of separating itself from the rest of existence, which is necessary to ‘experience.’*

You are essentially denying evolution here, which takes us into another realm of debate. Evolution holds that human beings have developed from animals, and that we are as much a part of the natural world as anything else. You are making an essential distinction between animals and humans based on a theological conception, not an observable reality or fact. Science would postulate that animals do indeed experience reality, but have a limited mental capacity and can not do so to the same extent of humans, resulting in a much more limited experiecne. To say that an animal is not aware of their surroundings is inaccurate. Jane Goodall, for example, observed that a certain species of apes she was studying learned how to use sticks from the ground as tools to get to the ants they were eating more efficently. Secondly, we know that we can teach animals things. The dogs that I own have learned not to cross the street, for fear of being punished, they have made the connection that if they cross the road they will be punished. If we walk by and see them across the street their tails go between their legs and they hide. They are not ruled purely by instincts, but are only ruled more so by their instincts than are human beings. Their perception of reality is only more limited than ours because of their limited intelligence. It does not suggest that human beings have a perpeptual self, whilst animals do not.

*Death is evil for humans because it destroys their bodies–an essential part of their existence. *

While it is true that the way in which our bodies are composed may be unique, what composes them is not unique to us. The atoms that formed our bodies once formed many other things, including stars and even other people. If our body is essential to our perpetual identiy, than how can the atoms that form our body have, at one point, been the atoms that formed other human beings?

 

[Neithan]

Let me first say that your posts Gnosis are very well thought out and excellently articulated. I’ll respond to some key points which stand out to me:

Gnosis:

it seems contrary to the nature of God to deliver a perfected faith to only one people and not make the effort to reveal this to all.

We see Christianity as God’s final revelation to mankind, whereas ancient Judaism was his special revelation to a chosen people. This is because of His Incarnation. If God is going to have one incarnation–and because we don’t accept reincarnation He can only have one incarnation–then He is going to favour one people, one place etc. in which to incarnate Himself. Christianity is exactly God’s effort to reveal Himself to all people, but prepared by His chosen people.

By claiming that most religions are legitimate we recognize that all religions have flaws, but that their truth and essence does not reside in speculation or dogma,but rather in their end goal, what some call liberation or others salvation.

See, we Christians see it as contrary to the nature of God not to fully reveal Himself to us–not to give us one sure way of knowing Him. If all religions contain falsity then God is either a deceiver or does not care enough about us to show us the way.

The Dalai Lama surely feels that Buddhism is the most accurate expression he can find. He surely thinks that there are aspects of other religions that are not right.But this does not exclude the validity nor beauty of another faith, nor the fact that we can learn from all.

I completely agree that many religions contain aspects of the truth; however, when falsity is mixed with truth, one can no longer say that it is ‘true.’ Something is either true or false, and ‘partly true’ is of logical necessity false. Truth must be pure. If no religion is wholly true, then all are false.

We all relate to God differently, and I believe God comes to us in a way in which we can understand …]

Excellent points. First I would say that no religion should be believed based on new supernatural or preternatural private testimony. In Catholicism, no reported revelation of God after the last Apostle died (John the Evangelist in 100 CE) has the ‘force of faith’ behind it. One need not believe in apparitions of Mary. The Church even judges which apparitions are certainly false and which may be cautiously accepted, but only after a rigorous process of scientific and theological investigation.
Second, in Christianity we believe that angels and demons also have the capability of producing preternatural wonders, so a seemingly miraculous event (hindu statues drinking milk) does not necessarily mean that this is God’s stamp of approval.
Third, ‘near death experiences’ cannot be trusted to actually be a ‘visit to the other side.’ In Christianity we believe that no one has come back from the dead except Jesus Christ, and so any ‘visions’ which one recalls after recovery from a brief brain-dead state is probably best left to neurological explanations. A vision of Krishna or Mary would occur because that it what the person firmly believes would occur. Hallucination would probably be a better description.

Again I think it would be contrary to the nature of God if he revealed Himself in contradictory ways, which would be the case if He supported fundamentally different religions. Reincarnation and resurrection simply cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Krishna or Christ, ya just can’t have em both.