To Zen or not ?

[Ahimsa]

Can we agree so far that there exist in zen and christianity some similar truths; but to state that they are the same or both seek the same goal is folly.

I wouldn’t say that such a statement is “folly”, but I would say that it is not demonstrably obvious to all observers.

It has been my observation that Western people, particularly Americans, who practice zen after growing up Christian or Jewish are springing off the board of their previous faith, no matter how hard they try to empty.

True, but I think that would be true of whatever culture Buddhism, or Christianity even, enters into.

Zen practitioners, please help me here with your view, but I see that in Christianity there is a striving to empty our egos (through prayer, acts, love) and to give ourselves up as a channel of God’s love, but if we fail in a conscious attempt at this form of expression we are still loved and may be called to serve God in a zillion other ways…
I do not know if any of this difference would also apply to zen but my decision to return to Christianity was clinched by the simple statement: “Buddha closed his eyes to shut out suffering; Jesus opened his eyes to take it all in.” (Wish I could quote the author) With all due respect to a sincere and wise zen practitioner, that view showed me how strong and transcendant Christian practice is designed to be.

I think this is where “time” plays a key role. Buddhism is very new, historically, on the American scene. Americans tend to think that Buddhism is solely about entering into Nirvana, come hell or high-water, by any means possible (possibly posing with a machine gun, gunning for Mara roaming the streets!), and as soon as possible – Enlightenment by microwave! No more slow, messy oven. American Buddhism will have to divest itself of that accompanying attitude before a more sane, traditional sort of Buddhism can grow. Whatever the problems occurring within Asian Buddhism, at least it knows that Buddhism isn’t limited to hard-core monasticism, but includes all aspects of life, all life-ways, from birth to the grave and beyond, sorrow and joy, tears and laughter, love and hate.

I think this is where a greater awareness of the lives of the Bodhisattva (the lives before the Buddha became the Buddha) can come into play. In his previous lifetimes, according to the Theravada, the Buddha was all sorts of people – kings, priests, merchants, married and unmarried, rich and poor. But in all of these manifestations, he kept his promise to cultivate wisdom and activate compassion. And in the Mahayana, of course, the Bodhisattvas and the Buddhas become beings whose love can be felt even if they are not physically present, even to the point that praying with faith to Amida Buddha, can be the only spiritual practice some Buddhists do, and that’s not merely OK, but cause for celebration:thumbsup:. Indeed, even in the Theravada, you’ll find the story of the boy whose mere faith in the words of the Buddha, was enough to take him to heaven.

So, I think that the current American Buddhist emphasis upon meditation really reflects an elitist attitude toward spirituality that defeats the real purpose of Buddhism, which is to meet people where they are, not add to their list of frustrations.

 

[notself]

Ahimsa,

Well said.

I would say that meditation is very important in order to make progress. I beleive westerners may approach meditation as a relaxation techique rather than a tool for understanding.

Auntie A,

I do not know if any of this difference would also apply to zen but my decision to return to Christianity was clinched by the simple statement: “Buddha closed his eyes to shut out suffering; Jesus opened his eyes to take it all in.” (Wish I could quote the author).

I wish you could quote the author as well. The author could not be more mistaken. The Buddha taught that to overcome suffering, one must face it head on and search for its causes. Buddhism is about analysis not hiding. Meditation is the tool for doing that whether one closes her eyes or not.

Earlier in you post you say that you never practiced Zen and didn’t know much about it. Why would this quote about Buddhism (incorrect though it may be) influence you to return to Christianity if you were not practicing Buddhism? I am confused.

 

[Bennie_P]

.

I **do **agree with the premise of your link. Christianity and Buddhism have some things in common, but one cannot be both a Christian and a Buddhist. Some have tried, but in my opinion, these people are just dabbling.

Well, I believe you know that you can google buddhism and get 100s of buddhist sites that will not agree on the history and philosophy of buddhism. As a Catholic for me that is troubling. I respect people enough to give them the space and option to seek out whatever they think is right for them, though I may debate or attempt to envangelize what I see as truth in and through Jesus Christ, in end of the discussion it is their choice and not mine, but I still have love and respect for them. But I do have trouble with people that try to tell me what I know the Church says is different - it is a fact if one claims to be a Catholic then they cannot also claim to be Buddhist. I am not expert on buddhism, nor Christianity, maybe I know more then some, but for sure a whole lot less then others. But being Catholic, for me to Zen is to sin. Peace to you notself.

 

[Bennie_P]

stop trying to reorient the question. if a buddist does not believe in a personal god does not mean that all buddist do not.
your implication that the dali lama speaks for anyone but himself is absurd. the is not the pope and he is not infalliable in matters of faith. by attempting to beg the question you are showing disrespect for everyone in the dicussion. if you don’t know what begging a question, find a logic text and look it up

Well, I need guidance and authority, that is one of the reasons why I became Catholic, God left us a shepherd and in many, if not most instances he does speak for me.
God bless my German Shepard - PB XVI

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/primi_piani/images/prevs/prev15.jpg
I have no clue in what you mean by “don’t beg the question”, what question?

 

[notself]

Peace to you notself.

And, to you.

 

[notself]

Well, I need guidance and authority, that is one of the reasons why I became Catholic, God left us a shepherd and in many, if not most instances he does speak for me.
God bless my German Shepard - PB XVI

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/primi_piani/images/prevs/prev15.jpg

You bring up a very good point, Bennie P. Each person has specific spiritual needs. That is why there are so many types of Christians, so many types of Buddhism, so many types of other religious beliefs. It is the effort to lead a moral life and the effort to find the truth that is important.

You have found this truth in Catholicism. I have found it in Theravada Buddhism. May we both be well and happy; free from anger and ill will; with our hearts filled with loving kindness.

 

[reh12345]

Well, I need guidance and authority, that is one of the reasons why I became Catholic, God left us a shepherd and in many, if not most instances he does speak for me.
God bless my German Shepard - PB XVI

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/primi_piani/images/prevs/prev15.jpg
I have no clue in what you mean by “don’t beg the question”, what question?

In logic, begging the question describes a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises [1]. Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: “If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most case-iron rigor”.[1] In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.

your arguement simply boils down to: zen is not catholism therefore zen is false. cor. 13 a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol

 

[Auntie_A]

QUOTE The Buddha taught that to overcome suffering, one must face it head on and search for its causes. Buddhism is about analysis not hiding. Meditation is the tool for doing that whether one closes her eyes or not. QUOTE

Let me clarify:
The words I used in my previous thread: “Buddha closed his eyes to shut out suffering and Jesus kept his eyes open to take it all in” were a symbolic culmination of my decision in faith, based on much reading and encounters with various Buddhists, of the East and West, as well as interactions with Christians, particularly Catholic Christians. My decision to return to Catholicism was also based on some very personal reasons centered on the need for that personal, both internal and external God. That was a very important part of my decision.

And, by the way, analysis can be a form of hiding. You can get stuck in the head.

QUOTE [Earlier in you post you say that you never practiced Zen and didn’t know much about it. Why would this quote about Buddhism (incorrect though it may be) influence you to return to Christianity if you were not practicing Buddhism? I am confused.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say that I didn’t know much about it. I just believe that a zen Buddhist should probably speak from their own experience, as I speak from mine. My family background has three generations of Buddhists. I live in an area where there are many Buddhists by birth or conversion. Many Buddhist concepts and practices have been well assimilated into the educational system. I work in healthcare where my continuing education class bulletins list “Buddhism and stress” “Buddhism and therapy” “Buddhism and nutrition” “Zen and breathing” “Zen and healing”, “Zen and dying”. My local culture is flooded with zen and Buddhist perspective. I realize that a portion of this is commercialization (Jesus has had more than his share of that)
but it all creates a large amount of Buddhist dialogue and influence. I have probably had more exposure to Buddhist proselytizing and thought than Christian in my entire adult years.

I do not believe my quote to be incorrect although you may see a different slant.

To explain further, my belief up to that point was a kind of relativistic, my faith/your faith/all one/all equal, wearetheworldwearethechildren point of view. I wanted to believe that all truths, including Buddhist, were equal because I believe that all people are equal (based on the fact that we are all God’s creations). But believing that all people are equal in God’s eyes does not create the anguish and confusion that the belief “all truths are equal” does. All truths are not equal. Some are smaller. Some are not even true. Essentially I came to the realization that truth is one (a much different concept) and not all paths lead to God. God was and is my goal. I am not sure you will want to or be able to understand this.

I respect people’s rights to their beliefs; I just don’t always respect their beliefs.

 

[rossum]

Well, I believe you know that you can google buddhism and get 100s of buddhist sites that will not agree on the history and philosophy of buddhism.

And if you google “Christianity” you will also get hundreds of Christian sites that will not agree on the history and philosophy of Christianity.

Buddhism covers a wide range of beliefs as does Christianity. If you want to get a more consistent range of responses than google for a strand within Buddhism, such as Theravada, just as you will get a more consistent response from google if you look for “Catholic” instead of “Christian”.

rossum

 

[Bennie_P]

In logic, begging the question describes a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises [1]. Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: “If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most case-iron rigor”.[1] In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.

your arguement simply boils down to: zen is not catholism therefore zen is false. cor. 13 a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol

No my argument is Zen is a religion based on one finding salvation through oneself (or losing oneself), but salvation may only be provided by God and can only be accepted as a free gift not something earned nor deserved. And the conduit from which that gift (Grace) flows is from God manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ, born of a virgin. God came to earth as one of us and he lived, died and rose from the dead. So all that believe in Him may have a personal relationship with him and one day also rise from the dead and live with Him as sons and daughters. Not for what we do but because of His love. Our simple trust and faith is all we have to offer, but only by His Grace will we be able to become Holy. The fullness of God’s love is found within the Church, which Christ founded – His love cannot be found neither within one’s self nor non-self.

So how is that begging the question?

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. **
Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. **
Mark 12:31 And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said to him: Well, Master, thou hast said in truth that there is one God and there is no other besides him.
Mark 12:33 And that he should be loved with the whole heart and with the whole understanding and with the whole soul and with the whole strength. And to love one’s neighbour as one’s self is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices.
Mark 12:34 And Jesus seeing that he had answered wisely, said to him: Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

And if you google “Christianity” you will also get hundreds of Christian sites that will not agree on the history and philosophy of Christianity.

Buddhism covers a wide range of beliefs as does Christianity. If you want to get a more consistent range of responses than google for a strand within Buddhism, such as Theravada, just as you will get a more consistent response from google if you look for “Catholic” instead of “Christian”.

rossum

But if you are Catholic you need not to “Google” and take a chance. All you need to do is type in www.vatican.va and you have the truth and the authority of the truth. buddhist have no such freedom, nor security.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

 

[notself]

But if you are Catholic you need not to “Google” and take a chance. All you need to do is type in www.vatican.va and you have the truth and the authority of the truth. buddhist have no such freedom, nor security.

If you are Theravadan all you have to do is Google “Access to Insight” and you will get the online source for the Tipitaka (the Buddha’s teachings) as well as commentaries and audio lectures by highly respected monks and nuns. Once stop shopping for Theravada Buddhists.

The Buddha, before he died, had the opportunity to name a successor. He did not. He said, “Let the Dhamma be your island.” It is the Dhamma (teaching) that is the safety and authority for Theravada Buddhists.
.

 

[rossum]

The first block of text you quoted was from reh12345, not me.

No my argument is Zen is a religion based on one finding salvation through oneself (or losing oneself), but salvation may only be provided by God and can only be accepted as a free gift not something earned nor deserved.

Let’s have a close look at what you are saying: “salvation may only be provided by God and can only be accepted as a free gift not something earned nor deserved”. Now that is obviously Christianity, and by making that argument you are implicitly assuming that Christianity is right and Buddhism is wrong (because it disagrees with Christianity). So your argument boils down to:
P1 Christianity is right.
P2 Buddhism disagrees with Christianity.
C Christianity is right.
You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

I could rephrase: Christianity is a religion based on gaining enlightenment from God, but enlightenment cannot be provided by God, it has to be earned by oneself. Hence Christianity is wrong and Buddhism is right. If I assume that Buddhism is right then it is easy to show that other religions are wrong. However it is a faulty argument because I am assuming what I have to prove. You were doing the same thing.

So how is that begging the question?

You assumed what you had to prove.

But if you are Catholic you need not to “Google” and take a chance. All you need to do is type in www.vatican.va and you have the truth and the authority of the truth. buddhist have no such freedom, nor security.

You are not comparing like with like. Buddhism is a religion with many schools just as Christianity is a religion with many schools. I can get more consistency by looking for “Catholic” instead of “Christian”, I can also get more consistency by looking for “Theravada” than by looking for “Buddhism”. My point was that there is not real difference here. There are better ways to show the differences.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

(Dhammapada 20 vv 5-7)

rossum

 

[Bennie_P]

You are not comparing like with like. Buddhism is a religion with many schools just as Christianity is a religion with many schools. I can get more consistency by looking for “Catholic” instead of “Christian”, I can also get more consistency by looking for “Theravada” than by looking for “Buddhism”. My point was that there is not real difference here. There are better ways to show the differences.

I am a Christian and Catholic. There is no other way for me to compare, for me to be a Christian I must be Catholic. There is only one Chruch that Christ insitituted and that Church is the Catholic Church. Now are you telling me that “Theravada” is the only way to follow Buddha? There are many differences, but as a buddhist you are trying to say that faith is relative and there are many paths to God. I’m saying their is only one way and that is through Christ. That is another problem with Buddhism, you try to use logic, yet you think everything is relative, but relative to what. To your whim? to the whim of your master? which master?

Let me ask you a few other questions.

Do you believe God created everything?

Do you believe God came into this world born of a virgin?

Do you believe Jesus is God yet also human?

Do you believe you must pay for your sins?

Do you believe there is a final judgement?

Do you believe some will be saved for eternal life?

Do you believe some will be eternally punished?

Do you believe in a resurection of body and soul?

Do you believe Jesus Christ died and rose and went back to be with the God the Father?

---

Do you believe in the sanctity of life?

Do you believe that a women has the right to have an abortion?

Do you believe that Same Sex Marriage should be allowed?

Do you believe in assisted suicide?

Do you believe God is in everything?

Do you believe everything together is God?

Do you worship the creator?
or
Do you worship the created? or creatures?

Are your parents’ Buddhist?

It is not up to me to prove to you that I’m right and your wrong, that is God’s job. I just have to state what I believe, to the best of my ability.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day.

 

[Bennie_P]

The first block of text you quoted was from reh12345, not me.

I appoligize:blush: I got you two mixed up. Please forgive me.:blushing:

 

[reh12345]

i think we must be very careful when we start slinging words like “truth” around. did ptolemy’s truth of a geocentic universe stand up as truth? no. did newton’s, no. i sincerely doubt that the current relativistic universe is a universal truth.

what the church did to Galileo was a blot on the record of faith.
Cardinal Bellerman et al thought they knew an absolute truth: the earth was the center of the universe.
The church has grown since then and given the apology which was owed
take a lesson: use the rock of faith rather than the quick sand of “truth” upon which to found your religious life

 

[Ahimsa]

To explain further, my belief up to that point was a kind of relativistic…All truths are not equal. Some are smaller. Some are not even true.

Auntie A, you raise a good point here. Certainly, in American interpretations of Zen, there is this focus on that part of Zen teaching that goes “all truth is equal”. In fact, you see this sort of statement within many meditative and contemplative (dare I say it, even “mystical”) traditions.

From my perspective, this part of Zen proved very attractive to the generation that came of age in the '50s, and '60s, who were trying to break away from the restrictions of their parents, into a freedom unbeknownst before. However, Zen is more than that, or at least Buddhism is more than that. And you see this quite clearly in the Theravada, where the Buddha quite clearly states “this is false; that is false” regarding the various ideologies and philosophies floating around 500 BCE India.

This more rigorous aspect of Buddhism is still quite hidden from most Americans, who see Buddhism as a “any goes” religion. Again, I think this is a generational issue, and as knowledge of Buddhism becomes more a part of the American landscape, people will become more aware, and more appreciative, of the really rigorous (dare I say it, even “exclusive”) aspects of Buddhism.

 

[Melchior]

stop begging the question. nobody said christ was a zen buddist

if you went to a jesuit university you must have gotten some smattering of logic, please don’t insult our intelligence with sophistry

I went to a jesuit university? That’s news to me. Sweet!

There is no sohistry. Christ was Jew through and through, his teachings and conduct were informed and backdropped by the Hebrew/Old Testament scriptures and culture. A basic understanding of the context of His Incarnation reveals a very Hebrew thinker. One who compares Hebraic thought with far Eastern will find nothing in common foundationally. Sure there are certain concepts of charity and conduct that can easily be compared (one can do this with most cultures and religions anyway - all truth is God’s truth). But foundationally Christ’s teaching begin and end with and external selfless focus. Love of God and out neighbor FIRST, as grateful recipients of gifts from God to us. The Eastern model is introspective, navel gazing that starts with man looking inwardly, fidning internal light as opposed to externally from God. It starts with emptiness and it’s goal is impersonal oblivion. The Hebrew mindet of Jesus is nearly the opposite. He teaches man to look to Him as the source of light. Not to look inside oneself. The differences could not be more stark. You will find a first century Jewish, and later Jewish follwers of the Way had little in common with far eastern thought.

Btw, which jesuit school did I go to and what was my degree in? Please tell me I have a Ph.D.!

Mel

 

[Bennie_P]

i think we must be very careful when we start slinging words like “truth” around. did ptolemy’s truth of a geocentic universe stand up as truth? no. did newton’s, no. i sincerely doubt that the current relativistic universe is a universal truth.

what the church did to Galileo was a blot on the record of faith.
Cardinal Bellerman et al thought they knew an absolute truth: the earth was the center of the universe.
The church has grown since then and given the apology which was owed
take a lesson: use the rock of faith rather than the quick sand of “truth” upon which to found your religious life

So you support Buddhism because of what the Church did to Galileo? (does rc refer to you being Catholic?)
Then perhaps you need to learn more about the “truth”
about Galileo? Or am I reading you wrong on what you saying?
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html

But at the same time–and here the secular media tuned out–the Holy Father pointed out that “the Galileo case has been a sort of ‘myth,’ in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from the reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church’s supposed rejection of scientific progress.” Galileo’s run-in with the Church, according to the Pope, involved a “tragic mutual incomprehension” in which both sides were at fault. It was a conflict that ought never to have occurred, because faith and science, properly understood, can never be at odds. Since the Galileo case is one of the historical bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church–the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition–it is important that Catholics understand exactly what happened between the Church and that very great scientist. A close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend.

The trial of Galileo is most often portrayed in terms that it clearly was not: Galileo the scientist arguing the supremacy of reason and science over faith; the tribunal judges demanding that reason abjure to faith. The trial was neither. Galileo and the tribunal judges shared a common view that science and the Bible could not stand in contradiction. If there appeared to be a contradiction, such a contradiction resulted from either weak science, or poor interpretation of Scripture. This was clearly understood by Cardinal Bellarmine. The mistakes that were made came from Galileo’s own personality and acerbic style, the personal umbrage of the Holy Father, jealous competitive scientists, and tribunal judges who erroneously believed that the universe revolved around a motionless earth and that the Bible confirmed such a belief.

 

[rossum]

I am a Christian and Catholic. There is no other way for me to compare, for me to be a Christian I must be Catholic. There is only one Chruch that Christ insitituted and that Church is the Catholic Church.

That is what you believe, but when arguing with non-Catholics you cannot start your argument by assuming that the Catholic Chrrch is correct. You will not win many arguments that way.

There are many differences, but as a buddhist you are trying to say that faith is relative and there are many paths to God.

Nothing to do with God. There are many paths to enlightenment, one of which God will have to follow Himself.

Do you believe God created everything?

Not relevant to the religious path. Personally no, but that is a personal position not a Buddhist one.

Do you believe God came into this world born of a virgin?

Jesus of Nazareth existed, but not all the claims about him are correct.

Do you believe Jesus is God yet also human?

No. Jesus seems to me to have been a high order Bodhisattva, close to full enlightenment.

Do you believe you must pay for your sins?

Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. I believe that all actions have consequences:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

(Dhammapada 1 vv 1-2)

Do you believe there is a final judgement?

No. Karma operates continually so there is a continual interaction between ourselves and the consequences of our previous actions.

Do you believe some will be saved for eternal life?

I hope not. To a Buddhist the point is to avoid eternal life:What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

Source: Assu sutta SN 15.3

All living beings will eventually attain nirvana.

Do you believe some will be eternally punished?

No. There is finite punishment in the hells or other unpleasant rebirths, but neither eternal punishment nor eternal reward.

Do you believe in a resurection of body and soul?

There is no soul. There is rebirth until enlightenment, after that nirvana.

Do you believe Jesus Christ died and rose and went back to be with the God the Father?

Jesus died and was reborn. He will attain nirvana eventually.

Do you believe in the sanctity of life?

I would not use the word “sanctity”. All injury to living things is wrong.

Do you believe that a women has the right to have an abortion?

She is responsible for her own actions.

Do you believe that Same Sex Marriage should be allowed?

Buddhism does not have a marriage ceremony, marriage is a matter for the civil power. As to same sex relationships, Buddhism has the same conservative-liberal split as Christianity.

Do you believe in assisted suicide?

I believe it happens, yes. All persons are responsible for their own actions.

Do you believe God is in everything?

No. God is irrelevant to the religious path.

Do you believe everything together is God?

No.

Do you worship the creator? or Do you worship the created? or creatures?

None of the above. I respect the Buddha who showed us the path, and I do my best to follow the path he showed.

Are your parents’ Buddhist?

No. I was brought up Christian and converted to Buddhism.

rossum

 

[Bennie_P]

That is what you believe, but when arguing with non-Catholics you cannot start your argument by assuming that the Catholic Chrrch is correct. You will not win many arguments that way.

No. I was brought up Christian and converted to Buddhism.

rossum

What else can I assume? But the fact I believe my belief in Jesus Christ is correct and non-Christians also believe thier beliefs are correct? I’m not trying to win an argument, an assumption on your part. I’m stating what I believe. As I stated earlier, It is not up to me to prove to you that I’m right and your wrong, that is God’s job. I just have to state what I believe, to the best of my ability with the help of the Holy Spirit. As to being a witness on how my belief shapes my life, you would need to observe me on a day to day basis, though it is my faith and beliefs I express in words, it is my actions which are my witness. Actions I surely fall short in performing, and which good only comes from them by the Grace of God.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day.

Thank you for answering my other questions they confirm some of the other points I have expressed in other post concerning the difference in Buddhist belief and Christian belief. May God bless you.