Religion combinations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s an odd topic maybe, but I’ve encountered a few people who stand by 2 beliefs and will not/cannot decide over which they will stick to.
Sometimes this works; sometimes it doesn’t. It depends on the religion. Different religions operate within incredibly different philosophical and cultural frameworks.

Religions of the Far East are far more genuinely amenable to this sort of thing than the Abrahamic faiths.
At college I had a friend who claimed to be both Christian and Muslim.
That definitely doesn’t work. Such a person is neither Christian nor Muslim.

You’re not a Christian if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord, and the Son of God, and God made flesh. But this belief is completely unacceptable in Islam, whose Qur’an explicitly teaches that God has no Son.

Likewise you’re not Muslim if you don’t acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet of God, indeed the Seal of the Prophets. But the Christian belief is that in every sense, Jesus Christ is the climax, fullness, and culmination of revelation from God. So in Christianity, believing that Muhammad is a prophet is completely unacceptable.

These two religions are the only major ones that believe in evangelizing and converting others. You simply cannot be both.
3 years ago at work I had a colleague who claimed she was both Catholic and Buddhist.
While this combination is not self-evidently impossible, like combining Christianity and Islam, it’s still probably impossible nonetheless. On the surface, many Buddhist teachings and techniques might seem useful in Christianity, while Christian teachings don’t seem to contradict Buddhist dharma.

But if you’re going to dig deeper and truly try to practice each religion in its fullness, you’re going to find unavoidable incompatibilities.

Ultimately, the goal of Buddhism is incompatible with the Christian journey of discipleship: your main objective can’t be to eliminate your suffering if you’re going to willingly “take up your cross” and follow Jesus through it; likewise, you aren’t willingly taking up your cross if you’re making it your main objective to eliminate suffering.
How does this happen? Any similar experiences you’ve had?
I think it’s an unfortunate consequence of sometimes admirable, sometimes problematic American attitudes of pluralism and multiculturalism. People want to have it all, or at least render different religions equal in some way.

This just doesn’t work, though. I think most often such people, in attempting to practice multiple religions, ultimately end up failing to do justice to either of them.
The problem here is we are making general statements about all religions. This would be fine if all religions were as extensively defined as Christianity (Catholic or otherwise). The problem is some religions aren’t; some religions are designed to be parallel to other belief systems. Wicca is an example of a relatively simple religion in its belief structure. So why do you say you couldn’t be a Wiccan and Buddhist?
Perhaps one could; I don’t really know enough about Wicca to answer that question. To what extent do Wiccans do magic? Buddhism, like most mainstream world religions, frowns on witchcraft.

But I agree with you in principle, Taestron: it depends on the combination. One can, for instance, be Taoist and Confucianist, or even Taoist, Confucianist, and Buddhist. This is common in China.

Or one can combine Shinto and Buddhism, as do most Japanese who are also religious (which is not the majority of the Japanese population today).

Hinduism as well is an extraordinarily flexible religion.

Too often what you get, though, are western people - often Americans - trying to combine one or more of these faiths with Christianity or Islam, or one of their offshoots. That’s just not going to work.
I understand that religions tend to contradict one another, but picking one belief over another when that contradiction happens shouldn’t preclude someone for being an adherent to both religions.
I think there are two problems with this approach, though. In ascending order of importance:

(1) This practice by necessity makes the believer out to be the final authority. In this case you’re not relying on the wisdom, insights, and fruits of a religion’s great teachers and sages, who are surely more knowledgeable than you, but are instead acting as though you are uniquely qualified to work out where these far more religiously advanced men and women than you went wrong. If I’m going to explore Buddhism, I should be learning from the Buddha and his disciples, not learning from them while critiquing their beliefs. If I’m going to explore Christianity, I should be learning from the saints and fathers, not learning from them while I critique their beliefs.

I don’t think anyone can truly learn in that manner; you’re always second-guessing those whose experiences and wisdom are greater than yours in the first place.

(2) And more importantly, some contradictions concern things that one can’t throw away lightly. If you’re exploring Christianity and Islam, for instance, you can’t just say, “Well, I’ll have to decide for myself if I think Jesus is the Son of God, and go from there.” No, that is the point of no return: what you decide will either preclude your being Muslim or your being Christian.
There’s an endless debate among Pagans over whether it’s possible to be a Christo-Pagan. My experience has been that Christo-Pagans do their own thing and don’t really worry about disapproval from either camp.
What is a Christo-Pagan?
 
However one can hold to a belief that “resurrection” and “reincarnation” are two sides of the same coin…BOTH are an attempt…a very human attempt…to seek to understand how our lives NOW effect our place in the “afterlife”. Both are religious explanations that seek to understand the justice and mercy of God.

BOTH cannot be “true”…but BOTH ideas and beliefs CAN be used as vehicles to seek Truth.
Big problem here. The resurrection is a revealed truth from God and is certainly not “a very human attempt” to seek truth. Reincarnation is man’s attempt at explaining our lives and that is why it falls short. There simply is no equivalence between the two. One is from God, the other from man.
 
Big problem here. The resurrection is a revealed truth from God and is certainly not “a very human attempt” to seek truth. Reincarnation is man’s attempt at explaining our lives and that is why it falls short. There simply is no equivalence between the two. One is from God, the other from man.
As I stated…“both cannot be true”…however BOTH can be explored to seek to gain a better understanding of the Eternal.

If you find no value in exploring both…great…but not everyone holds your beliefs…and some of us are life long Seekers after Truth…some of us believe that God and His Mysteries cannot be fully explained in our frail languages…some of us have this need to explore and seek a deeper understanding to quiet this longing inside us that the creeds and faith statements of our respective organized faith traditions just don’t seem to meet.

If they meet your needs…again…I rejoice with you in your certainty…I do not find the need for “certainty” to be so overwhelming that I cannot find value in other faith traditions.
 
What is a Christo-Pagan?
Someone who attempts to combine some form of Christianity with some form of Paganism (usually Wicca). There are Christian Wiccans (who specifically combine Christianity with a form of Wicca) as well as Christian witches (small “w”) who practice witchcraft (which is not tied to any specific belief system) that I’ve heard of.

The Religious Education forum has a section on Christian Wicca: religiousforums.com/forum/christian-wicca-dir/

There’s also the book ChristoPaganism: An Inclusive Path by Joyce and River Higginbotham: amazon.ca/ChristoPaganism-Inclusive-Path-River-Higginbotham/dp/0738714674/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343848305&sr=8-1

I’ve also heard of “IndoPagans” (who combine modern Paganism with Hinduism) and Jewitches/Judeo-Pagans (who combine aspects of Judaism with some form of Paganism).
 
As I stated…“both cannot be true”…however BOTH can be explored to seek to gain a better understanding of the Eternal.

If you find no value in exploring both…great…but not everyone holds your beliefs…and some of us are life long Seekers after Truth…some of us believe that God and His Mysteries cannot be fully explained in our frail languages…some of us have this need to explore and seek a deeper understanding to quiet this longing inside us that the creeds and faith statements of our respective organized faith traditions just don’t seem to meet.

If they meet your needs…again…I rejoice with you in your certainty…I do not find the need for “certainty” to be so overwhelming that I cannot find value in other faith traditions.
Well I don’t think I have ever stated that I cannot find value in other faith traditions. Other than Satanism, I believe that all faith traditions outside of the Catholic Church contain at least elements of truth and therefore have value. The way of life of a Buddhist has much to offer and much of it can be and is embraced by Christianity. The same could be said for Hinduism, Bahai, Islam, Judahism and and other “isms” out there as well as all Christians regardless of denomination. The problem is that error is also present; error which leads one away from Truth.

I believe in the Catholic Church. I believe that it alone posseses the fullness of revealed truth and that it is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. That is the definition of infallability. The fact is that all non-Christian religions, while possessing the seeds of truth, have fallen into error. We cannot ultimately be lead to error by a religion that posesses some truth. So no, the good that the others have to offer is already in the posession of the Catholic Church, but it can have nothing to do with the error that manifests itself in the foundational belliefs of other religions. And we most certainly cannot pretend to hold two opposing views simultaneously and call them both “truth”.
 
Well I don’t think I have ever stated that I cannot find value in other faith traditions. Other than Satanism, I believe that all faith traditions outside of the Catholic Church contain at least elements of truth and therefore have value. The way of life of a Buddhist has much to offer and much of it can be and is embraced by Christianity. The same could be said for Hinduism, Bahai, Islam, Judahism and and other “isms” out there as well as all Christians regardless of denomination. The problem is that error is also present; error which leads one away from Truth.

I believe in the Catholic Church. I believe that it alone posseses the fullness of revealed truth and that it is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. That is the definition of infallability. The fact is that all non-Christian religions, while possessing the seeds of truth, have fallen into error. We cannot ultimately be lead to error by a religion that posesses some truth. So no, the good that the others have to offer is already in the posession of the Catholic Church, but it can have nothing to do with the error that manifests itself in the foundational belliefs of other religions**. And we most certainly cannot pretend to hold two opposing views simultaneously and call them both “truth”**.****/QUOTE]

I don’t think I equated them both as “truth”…but as vehicles of truth…so if you find no value in examining other faith tradtiions…great…wonderful…fantastic…but some of us are not as certain as you are in what constitutes Truth…for some of us, it is a life-long search…but then…we find the value in the Journey…not the destination.🙂
 
Well I don’t think I have ever stated that I cannot find value in other faith traditions. Other than Satanism, I believe that all faith traditions outside of the Catholic Church contain at least elements of truth and therefore have value. The way of life of a Buddhist has much to offer and much of it can be and is embraced by Christianity. The same could be said for Hinduism, Bahai, Islam, Judahism and and other “isms” out there as well as all Christians regardless of denomination. The problem is that error is also present; error which leads one away from Truth.

I believe in the Catholic Church. I believe that it alone posseses the fullness of revealed truth and that it is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. That is the definition of infallability. The fact is that all non-Christian religions, while possessing the seeds of truth, have fallen into error. We cannot ultimately be lead to error by a religion that posesses some truth. So no, the good that the others have to offer is already in the posession of the Catholic Church, but it can have nothing to do with the error that manifests itself in the foundational belliefs of other religions.** And we most certainly cannot pretend to hold two opposing views simultaneously and call them both “truth**”.
I don’t think I equated them both as “truth”…did I…but as vehicles of truth…so if you find no value in examining other faith tradtiions…great…wonderful…fantastic…but some of us are not as certain as you are in what constitutes Truth…for some of us, it is a life-long Search…but then…we find the value in the Journey…not the destination. For some of us we just don’t believe our “finger” that points to the “moon”…is the “moon”.
🙂
 
I don’t think I equated them both as “truth”…did I…but as vehicles of truth…so if you find no value in examining other faith tradtiions…great…wonderful…fantastic…but some of us are not as certain as you are in what constitutes Truth…for some of us, it is a life-long Search…but then…we find the value in the Journey…not the destination. For some of us we just don’t believe our “finger” that points to the “moon”…is the “moon”.
🙂
One more time. There is great value in examining other faiths for a multitude of reasons. There may be, however, no value in following what they teach. I am sorry that you are still searching for the truth. I find other religions very interesting but if I believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fulness of truth, what need is there in following any other path? I’m not sure what you were trying to imply with your last statement but I would just say that most Catholics are very certain that the moon is the moon and that our finger is simply our finger.
 
As I stated…“both cannot be true”…however BOTH can be explored to seek to gain a better understanding of the Eternal.
If one is false, how does exploring a falsehood lead to a better understanding of the Eternal? It may very well mislead one into a fatal error.
 
If one is false, how does exploring a falsehood lead to a better understanding of the Eternal? It may very well mislead one into a fatal error.
As I also said…if you find no value in seeking to explore the HOW…that’s great…I do find value in seeking to understand how other’s view the Eternal…while they may hold some beliefs I believe are in error…I don’t dismiss EVERYTHING they believe…if you feel a “fatal error” is lurking in the wings…by all means…don’t explore.🙂
 
Given a choic between seeking to better understand one’s brother and sitting in judgment and contempt of one’s brother, which should a Christian choose?
 
One more time. There is great value in examining other faiths for a multitude of reasons. There may be, however, no value in following what they teach. I am sorry that you are still searching for the truth. I find other religions very interesting but if I believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fulness of truth, what need is there in following any other path? I’m not sure what you were trying to imply with your last statement but I would just say that most Catholics are very certain that the moon is the moon and that our finger is simply our finger.
No need to be sorry friend…the Journey and the Search are what I find rewarding…not the “certainty” that I have attained the Truth…

There is a Buddhist proverb to the effect that “the finger pointing at the moon…is not the moon.”

The Christian version I believe would be…“We see thru a glass darkly…” I don’t believe any of us…even "you’ in your “certainty” will ever attain Truth This Side…“but then…face to face I will know…”

I rejoice with you friend in your certainty.
 
No need to be sorry friend…the Journey and the Search are what I find rewarding…not the “certainty” that I have attained the Truth…

There is a Buddhist proverb to the effect that “the finger pointing at the moon…is not the moon.”

The Christian version I believe would be…“We see thru a glass darkly…” I don’t believe any of us…even "you’ in your “certainty” will ever attain Truth This Side…“but then…face to face I will know…”

I rejoice with you friend in your certainty.
It is only certainlty in Christ; in what he did, and in what he said.
 
It is only certainlty in Christ; in what he did, and in what he said.
On this we agree…my “certainty” is in the love, grace and mercy of God thru Christ…He is our Sabbath Rest and in Him we alone trust…where I lack…it is His astounding grace I rely on…I don’t have to know all Truth as I am held in the Everlasting Arms…and that is the best place to be.
 
On this we agree…my “certainty” is in the love, grace and mercy of God thru Christ…He is our Sabbath Rest and in Him we alone trust…where I lack…it is His astounding grace I rely on…I don’t have to know all Truth as I am held in the Everlasting Arms…and that is the best place to be.
Publisher, you must be human with a finite mind like all the rest of us here and like every other human on earth. 🙂 Thanks btw for the information about Friends meetings. I wasn’t scared to learn about another faith tradition. It didn’t cause me to run out and become a Quaker. 😉 But now I know a bit about your faith’s meetings. Peace
 
It’s an odd topic maybe, but I’ve encountered a few people who stand by 2 beliefs and will not/cannot decide over which they will stick to.

At college I had a friend who claimed to be both Christian and Muslim. 3 years ago at work I had a colleague who claimed she was both Catholic and Buddhist.

How does this happen? Any similar experiences you’ve had?

I apologize if this is placed in the wrong forum.
It does happen that people sometimes say these things. Generally what it really means is that they don’t truly understand either religion and aren’t really a member of either one. And in fact, they’re often secularists, picking up “novelties” from religions in much the same way you might pick up “novelties” at the dollar store for something to do or ideals to play with.

Don’t get me wrong: There’s nothing wrong with understanding the religions of others as a matter of intellectual knowledge. However, that’s different from adopting a view as a belief system of one’s own. For instance, you can understand the things that Mormons teach in a book sense, without being a Mormon.

When it comes to adopting a religion as one’s own, a person just can’t hold two contradictory world views at the same time without contradicting themselves. And that’s a very serious problem. It means either:
  1. that only parts of the views are being used, and the views are being shopped for “pieces and parts” OR
  2. that one or both views are only getting lip service and the real deep-down view of the person is really something else entirely.
 
BTW, sometimes people bring up the penchant of the East for adopting “pieces and parts” in this manner. What they’re really doing in most cases is called syncretism, which is generally considered to be more acceptable in Eastern cultures than in Western ones. This is because the place religion is believed to hold in an individual’s life is different from West to East.

This syncretism as practiced in the East is sort of like collecting lucky charms to ward off evil (the more the better), or collecting pretty things to decorate your apartment. I think we’ve all seen Japanese Christmas which is a great example. seiyaku.com/customs/christmas.html
 
It does happen that people sometimes say these things. Generally what it really means is that they don’t truly understand either religion and aren’t really a member of either one. And in fact, they’re often secularists, picking up “novelties” from religions in much the same way you might pick up “novelties” at the dollar store for something to do or ideals to play with.

Don’t get me wrong: There’s nothing wrong with understanding the religions of others as a matter of intellectual knowledge. However, that’s different from adopting a view as a belief system of one’s own and carrying that out throughout your life Catholic style. For instance, you can understand the things that Mormons teach in a book sense, without being a Mormon.

When it comes to adopting a religion as one’s own, a person just can’t hold two contradictory world views at the same time without contradicting themselves. And that’s a very serious problem. It means either:
  1. that only parts of the views are being used, and the views are being shopped for “pieces and parts” OR
  2. that one or both views are only getting lip service and the real deep-down view of the person is really something else entirely.
 
It’s an odd topic maybe, but I’ve encountered a few people who stand by 2 beliefs and will not/cannot decide over which they will stick to.

At college I had a friend who claimed to be both Christian and Muslim. 3 years ago at work I had a colleague who claimed she was both Catholic and Buddhist.

How does this happen? Any similar experiences you’ve had?

I apologize if this is placed in the wrong forum.
I don’t see the Christian & Muslim claim being possible, except for one who is ignorant of the theology

However, the Christian/Buddhist claim doesn’t seem odd in the least since Buddhism is not well defined. In practice I find it to be a phlosophy towards life rather than a religion.

Siddhartha was deeply spiritual, but he did not claim to be God or even know God.

Teachings or beliefs in karma, reincarnation, practicing yoga or such mystic powers predated buddhism and were not taught by Gautama. I believe the beliefs merged over time to create the modern branches of buddhism…

In a different time and place, he might have become a renowned Carmelite Monk
 
I don’t see the Christian & Muslim claim being possible, except for one who is ignorant of the theology

However, the Christian/Buddhist claim doesn’t seem odd in the least since Buddhism is not well defined. In practice I find it to be a phlosophy towards life rather than a religion.

Siddhartha was deeply spiritual, but he did not claim to be God or even know God.

Teachings or beliefs in karma, reincarnation, practicing yoga or such mystic powers predated buddhism and were not taught by Gautama. I believe the beliefs merged over time to create the modern branches of buddhism…

In a different time and place, he might have become a renowned Carmelite Monk
Real Buddhists (as opposed to pretend-buddhists) believe staunchly in reincarnation. That is basically and categorically opposed to Christian theology from the get-go.

Buddhists also don’t believe in the trinity and a lot of the other indispensable parts of the Deposit of Faith that constitute Christian theology and faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top