SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[notself]

(( Actually, reading some conversion stories of former buddhists would probably give some good hints at this reason or reasons. ))

Conversion stories are useless in supporting any belief system. After all I was born and educated as a Catholic, married in the Church and didn’t leave until my 20’s.

There are conversion stories of Protestants becoming Catholics, Catholics becoming Hindu or Buddhist or Wiccan or Jewish. There are conversion stories of Buddhists becoming, this is hard to believe, Muslim.

It all means nothing except people change their beliefs. Heck, look at Lieberman.

 

[notself]

=CatsAndDogs;4137362] Indeed!

My problem with buddhism is not that it’s claims for “mental/emotional control” are ineffective, which they ARE effective, or that the ethics/morals generally developed by it are entirely perverse, which they CERTAINLY aren’t, but that it makes it’s less-adept (lazy/“luke-warm”) adherents prone to demonic forces (which actually means “prone to incorrect “self”-interpretation of natural law” [thus substituting sinful behavior for correct behavior[).

How is this different than the lazy/luke-warm Catholics adherehents being prone to demonic forces? The lazy and luke warm are always prone to trouble.

I actually believe that most non-Catholic folks, which you are, tend to overwhelmingly (and mostly unconsciously) follow Catholic-borne ethics/morals simply because they are planetarily most prevalent, and hard to get away from.

The Catholic Church would do well to incorporate some of the Buddhist moral and ethical principals. Here are a list of the professions that are considered wrong livelyhood in Buddhism and have always been considered wrong.

Monks, these five trades ought not to be plied by a lay-disciple… Trade in weapons, trade in human beings, trade in flesh, trade in spirits [intoxicants] and trade in poison. – AN 5.177
[/quote]

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Simply saying, “I’m happy, which means I understand that ‘happiness’ means ‘nibbana’!” is a wish for one’s personal oblivion in the dark gray “fog” created by the “machinations” of “whatever variety of buddhism” one operates.

It is all vanity. Vanity of vanities. Look at the claims in that article. It claims absolute control of that which is not humanly controllable, but only humanly forsakeable to God. It is, essentially, attempted “wizardry” (attempted control of the uncontrollable), and thereby foundationally in error.

Please provide sources or links for your statements.

The article claims:
“Nibbana is a state to be attained here and now in this very life and not a state to be attained only after death.”

Is nibbana a state that becomes “eternal” (whatever eternal means to you), and can commence in “this life”?

I claim that the claims of the article are descriptions of “wishful thinking” that “this life” simply does not allow:
(( “In terms of living experience Nibbana can be characterized by four special attributes: happiness, moral perfection, realization, and freedom. We shall take these up for discussion one by one.” ))

• 1. Happiness: “Those who have attained Nibbana live in utter bliss, free from hatred and mental illness amongst those who are hateful and mentally ill.”
• 1. Moral Perfection: “For one who has attained Nibbana, all unwholesome motivational roots such as greed, hatred, and delusion have been fully eradicated with no possibility of their ever becoming active again.”
• 1. Realization: “The arahant realistically understands the nature of sense faculties, sense objects, sense consciousness, sense contact established by the convergence of these three factors, and the resulting sensations of pleasure, pain, and hedonic neutrality. He does not get attached to any of these factors. When he lives without deriving pleasure and without getting attached to perceived sense objects and without being deluded by the process of sense perception, recognizing the evil consequences of sense perception, the five aggregates of grasping or the personality factors do not get built up. They fall apart, as craving which leads to rebirth is totally eliminated.”
• 1. Freedom: “As the arahant has complete mastery over his thoughts, no recurring unhealthy thoughts obsess him.”

This is the very description of “wizardry/sorcery”.

This is trying to manipulate “that-which-created-reality” (ie “the mind” to the buddhist) into giving one the “great bliss”, which can only be described as “hyper-bland abject joy” (aka “the dark gray utterly safe fog”).

That is how it is sorcery, though not claimed AS sorcery because no “spirits/gods” are (seemingly) involved.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The being described in the Old Testament is not omniscient. Omniscience implies enlightenment, and the God of the Old Testament is not enlightened - He kills far too many people, some of them unborn and hence innocent.

Because he is omniscient and omnipotent, and the author of all life, it is His to do with as He sees fit. It is we who lack God’s capacity who wonder at why such things are allowed to happen. Death and destruction in an imperfect and finite world does not disprove the omnipotence of God. On that we certainly disagree.

rossum:

You have not shown that there is any requirement for an omniscient, omnipotent being. A being may be very powerful, powerful enough to create one universe but not powerful enough to create ten universes, and hence not omnipotent. A being may know a great deal, enough to make one universe, but not enough to be enlightened.

From where did the lesser gods derive their capacity for creation? And from what do they create and how did it arrive on the scene? There are questions that arise, which cannot be answered, if one merely stops analyzing the question at the point you seem to be clinging to - lesser powerful beings.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
How have I, or others, been impolite?

The Oprah comment was a bit over the top as well as your comments equating Buddhist beliefs with irrevocable evil. Not exactly the language of polite discourse. Your recent posts are fine.

To me both “Oprahistic Wisheology” and “buddhism” are equivalent in their “wishful thinking” quotient.

Buddhistic beliefs have as their ultimate goal “oblivion”, though adherents call it “bliss”. It is self-described as “utter lack of all emotion”, and “impersonal”, and without a “personal emotional context” the word “bliss” means absolutely nothing.

Oblivion is sought only by the utterly despairing. By those who would prefer “nothing” to continuation of existence. That “impulse” (wanting oblivion) is the goal of irrevocable “evil” (that which is faced with only the two options of being evil [and tortured by that quality] or nonexistence).

When the ULTIMATE goal (not necessarily the intermediate goals) of buddhism and “irrevocable evil” are the same, what does that say?

The intermediate goals of buddhism are actually laudable, in that they are goals of personal control and compassion. The problem is that those goals get “hijacked”, eventually (and inevitably), by “the demons” because buddhism doesn’t have as it’s ultimate “stearing mechanism” divine revelation (via the Church).

 

[notself]

The I claim that the claims of the article are descriptions of “wishful thinking” that “this life” simply does not allow…

This is the very description of “wizardry/sorcery”.

This is trying to manipulate “that-which-created-reality” (ie “the mind” to the buddhist) into giving one the “great bliss”, which can only be described as “hyper-bland abject joy” (aka “the dark gray utterly safe fog”).

That is how it is sorcery, though not claimed AS sorcery because no “spirits/gods” are (seemingly) involved.

You certainly have your opinions.

Never the less the effect of Buddhist meditation on the brain itself has been documented in several studies. Here is another link about the areas of the brain that are affected and a snip of the conclusions. No sorcery, wizardry is involved.

The findings support Davidson and Lutz’s working assumption that through training, people can develop skills that promote happiness and compassion. “People are not just stuck at their respective set points,” he says. “We can take advantage of our brain’s plasticity and train it to enhance these qualities.”

The capacity to cultivate compassion, which involves regulating thoughts and emotions, may also be useful for preventing depression in people who are susceptible to it, Lutz adds.

“Thinking about other people’s suffering and not just your own helps to put everything in perspective,” he says, adding that learning compassion for oneself is a critical first step in compassion meditation.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326204236.htm

The compassion meditation that the scientists are talking about is called Metta Bhavana.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
My source is myself, and is a simple assertion based on my observations of that buddhism has shown me.

Your opinion is noted. What you are arguing aginst is not Buddhism, but your opinion of Buddhism. Those are two different things.

You are actually quite correct.

I believe that unless a “value system” (a religion) is guided by authoritative divine revelation it is prone to “complexifying error”.

In fact, Christianity is prone to the exact same tendency, but only in as much as it (it’s adherent’s) “bucks” it’s divine authority, which so much of Christianity does.

That doesn’t mean that it is utterly worthless. It is worthy in as much as it is congruent with natural law and is affected by peripheral revelation which it accepts for whatever reasons it does.

While “Professed Christians” are prone to ludicrous errors due to DISOBEDIENCE, “Professed buddhists” are prone to ludicrous errors due to overly-enthusiatic OBEDIENCE.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The greatest promoters of suffering are those who merely deny it’s existence.

Possibly so, but what does that have to do with Buddhism? The First Noble Truth of Buddhism deals with suffering:

[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.”

Samyutta Nikaya 56.11

That is not a denial of the existence of suffering. Both Buddhism and Christianity deny the permanence of suffering, because that allows both heaven and nirvana to exist. Neither deny the existence of suffering.

The MEANING of suffering is what is denied in buddhism.

Suffering is a “sickness” to be “gotten over” in buddhism. Suffering is an “opportunity” to contribute to the betterment of self and mankind in Christianity.

Now, that’s a GROSS overstatement! Buddhists are very compassionate to the suffering of others, and DO learn about the true meaning of suffering from the example of their’s and other’s suffering.

But the GOAL of “the buddhist mind” is to escape suffering, and not to embrace suffering.

Quote:
Suffering is to be given (to God), not dodged.

Why would God want our suffering? Surely God has better things to collect?

God allows our suffering because when it is offered to Him in love by us it is our reciprocation, our thanks, for His gifts, and most especially His gift of our existence, and our recognition that existence (even with temporary suffering) is worth more than nonexistence.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
(( Actually, reading some conversion stories of former buddhists would probably give some good hints at this reason or reasons. ))

Conversion stories are useless in supporting any belief system. After all I was born and educated as a Catholic, married in the Church and didn’t leave until my 20’s.

There are conversion stories of Protestants becoming Catholics, Catholics becoming Hindu or Buddhist or Wiccan or Jewish. There are conversion stories of Buddhists becoming, this is hard to believe, Muslim.

It all means nothing except people change their beliefs. Heck, look at Lieberman.

I’m not saying that buddhist-to-Catholic conversion stories would prove that it’s a good idea to convert that way.

I’m saying that those conversion stories might show us some reasons that some people found more value in Christianity (Catholicism) than buddhism.

Conversion stories in the other direction are also very useful, as they show us some reasons for what Catholics might do to make that kind of conversion less attractive.

 

[rossum]

Because he is omniscient and omnipotent, and the author of all life, it is His to do with as He sees fit. It is we who lack God’s capacity who wonder at why such things are allowed to happen. Death and destruction in an imperfect and finite world does not disprove the omnipotence of God. On that we certainly disagree.

God is said to be just. In Numbers 31 He orders the killing of pregnant women (“who have known men”). What crime had those unborn children committed that they deserved death? If they were criminals then why can we not kill any unborn child as a criminal? If they were not criminals then God is not just, merely arbitary. One of the differences between Buddhism and Christianity is that for Buddhists all gods, including the highest, are subject to moral law. Judging by His actions, the OT God was not enlightened.

From where did the lesser gods derive their capacity for creation?

Where did God get His capacity for creation from? You are also stopping your analysis at a convenient point (for you). These questions can easily be extended into an infinite chain of causes. We just pick different points to stop the chain. I choose to stop the chain one step earlier than you; I could equally well choose to extend the chain one step beyond you.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
CatsAndDogs
Indeed!

My problem with buddhism is not that it’s claims for “mental/emotional control” are ineffective, which they ARE effective, or that the ethics/morals generally developed by it are entirely perverse, which they CERTAINLY aren’t, but that it makes it’s less-adept (lazy/“luke-warm”) adherents prone to demonic forces (which actually means “prone to incorrect “self”-interpretation of natural law” [thus substituting sinful behavior for correct behavior[).

How is this different than the lazy/luke-warm Catholics adherehents being prone to demonic forces? The lazy and luke warm are always prone to trouble.

It’s no different at all! You’re quite right that the lazy and luke-warm (and by implication the “malevolent”) are always prone to choosing to sin and being “helped” in sinning by the demons.

Quote:
I actually believe that most non-Catholic folks, which you are, tend to overwhelmingly (and mostly unconsciously) follow Catholic-borne ethics/morals simply because they are planetarily most prevalent, and hard to get away from.

The Catholic Church would do well to incorporate some of the Buddhist moral and ethical principals. Here are a list of the professions that are considered wrong livelyhood in Buddhism and have always been considered wrong.

Monks, these five trades ought not to be plied by a lay-disciple… Trade in weapons, trade in human beings, trade in flesh, trade in spirits [intoxicants] and trade in poison. – AN 5.177

Then why do “buddhistic cultures” have weapons!?

The same reason why “Christian cultures” have murderers!

ALL ethical/moral rules/behaviors, which actually ARE ethical and moral, that buddhists profess ARE Catholic ethics/morals.

Those that are claimed as such, but which aren’t “echoed” by Catholic ethics/morals aren’t actually ethical or moral. They may not be “wrong”, per se, but they aren’t actually “ethical rules” or “moral behaviors”.

 

[notself]

To me both “Oprahistic Wisheology” and “buddhism” are equivalent in their “wishful thinking” quotient.

Buddhistic beliefs have as their ultimate goal “oblivion”, though adherents call it “bliss”. It is self-described as “utter lack of all emotion”, and “impersonal”, and without a “personal emotional context” the word “bliss” means absolutely nothing.

Oblivion is sought only by the utterly despairing. By those who would prefer “nothing” to continuation of existence. That “impulse” (wanting oblivion) is the goal of irrevocable “evil” (that which is faced with only the two options of being evil [and tortured by that quality] or nonexistence).

When the ULTIMATE goal (not necessarily the intermediate goals) of buddhism and “irrevocable evil” are the same, what does that say?

The intermediate goals of buddhism are actually laudable, in that they are goals of personal control and compassion. The problem is that those goals get “hijacked”, eventually (and inevitably), by “the demons” because buddhism doesn’t have as it’s ultimate “stearing mechanism” divine revelation (via the Church).

You obviously have not been reading or have not understood my posts about the goal of Buddhism.

The fact that you believe you must have a divine revelation and I do not hold that belief makes a meeting of the minds on this issue impossible.

Let’s just say that we disagree on what Buddhists believe and leave it at that.

 

[notself]

Then why do “buddhistic cultures” have weapons!?

The same reason why “Christian cultures” have murderers!

ALL ethical/moral rules/behaviors, which actually ARE ethical and moral, that buddhists profess ARE Catholic ethics/morals.

Those that are claimed as such, but which aren’t “echoed” by Catholic ethics/morals aren’t actually ethical or moral. They may not be “wrong”, per se, but they aren’t actually “ethical rules” or “moral behaviors”.

If a Catholic builds or uses weapons (in the military) he can still be considered a skillfully practicing Catholic.

If a Buddhist builds or uses weapons even in the military, he is performing unskillful acts and is creating negative kamma/karma. Although there are Buddhist soldiers, these Buddhists are violating the Buddhist precept to refrain from killing.

One version of the ten commandments even resticts killing to Thou shall not murder.

A Catholic can be a soldier and kill in a war without sinning (performing unskillful act), a Buddhist cannot.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

You obviously have not been reading or have not understood my posts about the goal of Buddhism.

The fact that you believe you must have a divine revelation and I do not hold that belief makes a meeting of the minds on this issue impossible.

Let’s just say that we disagree on what Buddhists believe and leave it at that.

We can certainly agree to disagree about the goal of buddhism.

What IS the basic axiom, the “grounding”, for the ethics and morals of buddhism? It is the belief that you know what is right and wrong because “it just is”!

From NewAdvent: (( also see: “Tranquility or the Cross? The Dangerous Appeal of Buddhism” ))

The fundamental tenets of Buddhism are marked by grave defects that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its inferiority to the religion of Jesus Christ. In the first place, the very foundation on which Buddhism rests—the doctrine of karma with its implied transmigrations—is gratuitous and false. This pretended law of nature, by which the myriads of gods, demons, men, and animals are but the transient forms of rational beings essentially the same, but forced to this diversity in consequence of varying degrees of merit and demerit in former lives, is a huge superstition in flat contradiction to the recognized laws of nature, and hence ignored by men of science. Another basic defect in primitive Buddhism is its failure to recognize man’s dependence on a supreme God. By ignoring God and by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha substituted for the Brahmin religion a cold and colourless system of philosophy. It is entirely lacking in those powerful motives to right conduct, particularly the motive of love, that spring from the consecration of religious men and women to the dependence on a personal all-loving God. Hence it is that Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish utilitarianism. There is no sense of duty, as in the religion of Christ, prompted by reverence for a supreme Lawgiver, by love for a merciful Father, by personal allegiance to a Redeemer. Karma, the basis of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of nature, the observance of which is prompted by prudential considerations. Not infrequently one meets the assertion that Buddha surpassed Jesus in holding out to struggling humanity an end utterly unselfish. This is a mistake. Not to speak of the popular Swarga, or heaven, with its positive, even sensual delights the fact that Nirvana is a negative ideal of bliss does not make it the less an object of interested desire. Far from being an unselfish end, Nirvana is based wholly on the motive of self-love. It thus stands on a much lower level than the Christian ideal, which, being primarily and essentially a union of friendship with God in heaven, appeals to motives of disinterested as well as interested love.

Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature the dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana. Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in consequence does injustice to the individual. All legitimate desires must be repressed. Innocent recreations are condemned. The cultivation of music is forbidden. Researches in natural science are discountenanced. The development of the mind is limited to the memorizing of Buddhist texts and the study of Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value. The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything. How different is the teaching of Him who came that men might have life and have it more abundantly. Again Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family. Marriage is held in contempt and even abhorrence as leading to the procreation of life. In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man, Buddhism betrays its inferiority to Christianity, which recommends virginity but at the same time teaches that marriage is a sacred union and a source of sanctification. Buddhist pessimism likewise does injustice to society. It has set the seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor. Since life is not worth living, to labour for the comforts and refinements of civilized life is a delusion. The perfect man is to subsist not by the labour of his hands but on the alms of inferior men. In the religion of Christ, “the carpenter’s son”, a healthier view prevails. The dignity of labour is upheld, and every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man’s welfare.

etc…

This may be a bit, uh, “overly ungenerous”, as it were, but the basic points are there.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

If a Catholic builds or uses weapons (in the military) he can still be considered a skillfully practicing Catholic.

If a Buddhist builds or uses weapons even in the military, he is performing unskillful acts and is creating negative kamma/karma. Although there are Buddhist soldiers, these Buddhists are violating the Buddhist precept to refrain from killing.

One version of the ten commandments even resticts killing to Thou shall not murder.

A Catholic can be a soldier and kill in a war without sinning (performing unskillful act), a Buddhist cannot.

So, a buddhist refrains from killing (humans) for what reason? Because it’s “illegal”? Why is it illegal? What imposes the “karmic consequences” of such illegality?

How is combatting evil (which is all that a Catholic soldier is allowed to do) a bad thing?

Anyone can CLAIM that abject passivism is the only proper way for men to behave. The question is why they should be believed in that assertion?

 

[notself]

We can certainly agree to disagree about the goal of buddhism.

What IS the basic axiom, the “grounding”, for the ethics and morals of buddhism? It is the belief that you know what is right and wrong because “it just is”!

From NewAdvent: (( also see: “Tranquility or the Cross? The Dangerous Appeal of Buddhism” ))

This may be a bit, uh, “overly ungenerous”, as it were, but the basic points are there.

Golly gee, I should get my information about Catholicism from John Hagee and the other Catholic haters. He is as accurate about Catholicism as New Advent is about Buddhism.

This article in New Advent was taken from another much older Catholic encyclopedia. That article was written in 1910. It is a shame that no one has bothered to do any research or correct some of the glaring misstatements in all that time.

I have stated Buddhist belief as a Buddhist and I have provided you links to actual Buddhist teachers and teachings, but still you cling to this old and poorly researched article that is no more than special pleading for Catholics not to become Buddhists. What a shame. I do not expect you to agree with Buddhist beliefs but I do expect you to get information about Buddhism from Buddhist teachings not some 100 year old screed.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Golly gee, I should get my information about Catholicism from John Hagee and the other Catholic haters. He is as accurate about Catholicism as New Advent is about Buddhism.

You SHOULD get information about the “ills” of the Church (Catholic) from Hagee and other “haters”!

THEN, you can have some GOOD questions to ask the real Catholic experts.

This article in New Advent was taken from another much older Catholic encyclopedia. That article was written in 1910. It is a shame that no one has bothered to do any research or correct some of the glaring misstatements in all that time.

I have stated Buddhist belief as a Buddhist and I have provided you links to actual Buddhist teachers and teachings, but still you cling to this old and poorly researched article that is no more than special pleading for Catholics not to become Buddhists. What a shame. I do not expect you to agree with Buddhist beliefs but I do expect you to get information about Buddhism from Buddhist teachings not some 100 year old screed.

The problem is that buddhists don’t respond to the “at base” (axiomatic) differences between what we know to be true and you claim to be true.

I’m here to show you how buddhism is incompatible with the Church. I’m not here to be converted, nor to convert you!

I believe you believe what you believe! You seem to believe that Catholics can “accept”, as a “new” part of being Catholic, as a “new” part of Catholicism, that YOUR beliefs can be believed by us.

They can’t. They (not all but many) are inherently noxious to Catholicism.

You seem to think that unless we accept your beliefs as believable we are being “unaccepting” of your religion. We accept that your religion is believable to you (because you don’t know any better), but if they were believable to us they’d be Catholic beliefs, which they aren’t!

Perhaps I’m wrong, and you just find it annoying that we have answers to all your “deep truths”? I don’t know. Once again, I’m here to correct what I see as the errors of your religion, which your religion, according to mine, is FULL OF!

It does neither of us any good to walk on eggshells about these very important matters.

Now, do you want to toss out more “buddhistic beliefs” to be evaluated honestly, or not?

 

[notself]

You SHOULD get information about the “ills” of the Church (Catholic) from Hagee and other “haters”!

THEN, you can have some GOOD questions to ask the real Catholic experts.

The problem is that buddhists don’t respond to the “at base” (axiomatic) differences between what we know to be true and you claim to be true.

I’m here to show you how buddhism is incompatible with the Church. I’m not here to be converted, nor to convert you!

I believe you believe what you believe! You seem to believe that Catholics can “accept”, as a “new” part of being Catholic, as a “new” part of Catholicism, that YOUR beliefs can be believed by us.

They can’t. They (not all but many) are inherently noxious to Catholicism.

You seem to think that unless we accept your beliefs as believable we are being “unaccepting” of your religion. We accept that your religion is believable to you (because you don’t know any better), but if they were believable to us they’d be Catholic beliefs, which they aren’t!

Perhaps I’m wrong, and you just find it annoying that we have answers to all your “deep truths”? I don’t know. Once again, I’m here to correct what I see as the errors of your religion, which your religion, according to mine, is FULL OF!

It does neither of us any good to walk on eggshells about these very important matters.

Now, do you want to toss out more “buddhistic beliefs” to be evaluated honestly, or not?

First of all, I have repeatedly said that one cannot be a Catholic and a Buddhist. A Catholic on this thread disagrees with me and said that one could. I never said such a thing and do not believe it to be true.

Second, your “correction” of my belief is based on misinformation. When I have provided you with evidence of what the Buddha actually taught you ignore it completely and respond with more inaccuracies and inventions. I don’t expect you to agree with the teachings nor do I expect you to believe as I believe but I do expect you to accept what I have provided about Buddhist beliefs to be true teachings of the Buddha. Instead you quote non-Buddhists sources to correct me about Buddhism. This just does not make sense.

If you intend to continue this discussion then you need to accept the definitions of my belief that I provide just as I would accept the definitions of your beliefs if I asked for them. To tell you that what you say as a Catholic is not true because I rely on Hagee would be unacceptable to you. And you would be right.

I have no intention, as you say, of tossing out my beliefs for your evaluation. I find the suggestion rude. You have repeatedly attributed quotes to me that I have not said. You have repeatedly put your words in quotes which designate sarcasm in most forums and I read them as such. I have always tried to respond to Catholic posters with courtesy and respect for their religion and their beliefs. Please show the same courtesy to me.

I never asked you to evaluate my beliefs nor have I ever tried to critique or evaluate yours. I am here to answer direct questions about Buddhist beliefs. You can ask for clarification of what I have said if you feel I have not been clear. You can reject the beliefs outright (politely and without sarcasm). But, I do not seek nor require your evaluation nor do I consider what you have said to be honest in that you have repeatedly distorted Buddhist beliefs even when corrected.

If you wish information about Buddhist beliefs I will do my best to explain. If you want to criticize them based on false or distorted information, then our discussion is at an end.

 

[rossum]

From NewAdvent

As notself has pointed out, this article is from 1910 and shows the attitudes of its time. Many Buddhist scriptures had not even been translated then, and the few translations that were available were generally not very good because the technical vocabulary of Buddhism was not well understood yet. At the top of the article you reference is a modern note:To complement this article, which was taken from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent recommends a prayerful reading of “Nostra Aetate” from the Second Vatican Council.
Turning to Nostra Aetate we find:Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.
That shows a very different attitude to Buddhism and is, I suspect, more in tune with the attitude of Rome today.

This may be a bit, uh, “overly ungenerous”, as it were

It is always good to be able to agree on at least one point. Here I do agree with you.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

As notself has pointed out, this article is from 1910 and shows the attitudes of its time. Many Buddhist scriptures had not even been translated then, and the few translations that were available were generally not very good because the technical vocabulary of Buddhism was not well understood yet.

At the top of the article you reference is a modern note:To complement this article, which was taken from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent recommends a prayerful reading of “Nostra Aetate” from the Second Vatican Council.

Turning to Nostra Aetate we find:
Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

That shows a very different attitude to Buddhism and is, I suspect, more in tune with the attitude of Rome today.

From Nostra Aetate (a bit further down in the text):
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”

The basic objections of the Church to buddhism have never changed. The wording of that “old article” is not very PC (at all!) but it still articulates the Church’s objections perfectly well.

As I said, where buddhism is congruent with Catholic dogma it is quite correct. Where it is not, it is simply incorrect, and easily demonstrable as to how so and resultantly consequential (what the consequences are of those errors).

The “more PC” wording of present documents are an attempt to not annoy the buddhist community so that members OF that community will be more open to learning which are the truths of buddhism that might lead them to see the truth (Catholic dogma), which are the errors of buddhism whose resultant consequences would lead them away from buddhism, and which tenets of buddhism are actually dangerously evil and literally imperil them.

Goodness! Have I said TOO MUCH, and let the cat out of the bag!?

At any rate, as buddhist doctrines are posted, expect them to be explained in Catholic terms so that they may be seen in both their positive and negative aspects, so that the inherent preferability of Christianity (Catholic) is made quite clear.