Who is my neighbour? (in different religions)

[Montalban]

In Judaism…
Leviticus. 19:18
" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Neighbour here seems to be as ‘one of your people’

Which is why Jesus broadened the scope.

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

Jesus was asked who does he mean by neighbour

Luke 10:29
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus went on to explain the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In Islam they revert to a more restrictive notion of whom we should love
“Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
ISLAM: Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi

There is no Koranic verse that I am aware of that says ‘turn the other cheek’. As to ‘love thy neighbour’…
Muhammad urges people to look after their brothers; by this he means other Muslims.
In the Hadith, Muhammad urges…
“Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
ISLAM: Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi
But the question would be ‘who then is my brother’?
The next mention of the word ‘brother’ in that Hadith might give you a clue…
“Do not envy one another; do not inflate prices one to another; do not hate one another; do not turn away from one another; and do not undercut one another, but be you, O servants of Allah, brothers.”
That is, a brother, is one who is a co-religionist. This is much more a restricted use then ‘neighbour’ is in the Judeo-Christian sense, where Jesus says ALL men are my brother, not just those that believe as I do.
Again, the next use of the word ‘brother’
“Do not envy one another; do not inflate prices one to another; do not hate one another; do not turn away from one another; and do not undercut one another, but be you, O servants of Allah, brothers. A muslim is the brother of a muslim: he neither oppresses him nor does he fail him, he neither lies to him nor does he hold him in contempt. Piety is right here-and he pointed to his breast three times. It is evil enough for a man to hold his brother muslim in contempt. The whole of a muslim for another muslim is inviolable: his blood, his property, and his honor.”
So, there is no universal in the sense that Jesus used, therefore I am correct in saying that the Muslims do not have the same sense of it.
All Islamic quotes from mac.abc.se/home/onesr/ez/hdth/40h-naw_e.html

 

[rossum]

Buddhism: “Love others as you love yourself” Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91. In the case of Buddhism, “others” will include all sentient beings: animals, humans and gods.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

Buddhism: “Love others as you love yourself” Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91. In the case of Buddhism, “others” will include all sentient beings: animals, humans and gods.

rossum

Cool I assume this even means your enemies?

 

[notself]

Cool I assume this even means your enemies?

It most definitely means love your enemies. The practice of Metta Bhavana begins with wishing that you may be well and happy; free from anger and ill will and be filled with loving kindness. After meditating on these things for yourself, you then go on to wish these things for family, friends, acquaintances, enemies, and finally for all sentient beings in the universe.

By wishing that your enemies are well and happy with hearts at peace and filled with loving kindness you increase your compassion of their suffering. It is this suffering that makes them hateful, angry, and filled with ill will.

It is a completely different approach than that of Psalm 139

21 Do I not hate, LORD, those who hate you? Those who rise against you, do I not loathe?
22 With fierce hatred I hate them, enemies I count as my own.

 

[Montalban]

It most definitely means love your enemies. The practice of Metta Bhavana begins with wishing that you may be well and happy; free from anger and ill will and be filled with loving kindness. After meditating on these things for yourself, you then go on to wish these things for family, friends, acquaintances, enemies, and finally for all sentient beings in the universe.

By wishing that your enemies are well and happy with hearts at peace and filled with loving kindness you increase your compassion of their suffering. It is this suffering that makes them hateful, angry, and filled with ill will.

It is a completely different approach than that of Psalm 139

Note in the OP how Jesus (whom we follow) taught us.

 

[JRKH]

The next mention of the word ‘brother’ in that Hadith might give you a clue…
“Do not envy one another; do not inflate prices one to another; do not hate one another; do not turn away from one another; and do not undercut one another, but be you, O servants of Allah, brothers.”

As practiced in today’s world, I would say that neither Christians, Jews or Muslims attach Jesus definition to the term “brother”.

That being said, I don’t necessarily see that the verse cited above has to be interpreted as only Muslims.
The term Allah, is the Arabic term for God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
Mohammed worshiped the God of Abraham. The single, omnipotent Creator of all things. The same God of the Jews and Christians.
We know that Mohammed had great respect for Jesus and saw him as a great prophet and favored of God. He also held Christians in general in high regard even though he felt that their were problems with the NT writings and and with the Christian Church Dogma.

Therefore it is reasonable to deduce that “Servants of Allah”, as stated in the above verse would include all Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

James

 

[notself]

Note in the OP how Jesus (whom we follow) taught us.

I thought Chrisitans followed both the Old and the New Testaments.

I do agree that it would be better if only the New Testament was followed. There would be less scriptural support for hatred, anger and ill will.

 

[De_Maria]

It most definitely means love your enemies. The practice of Metta Bhavana begins with wishing that you may be well and happy; free from anger and ill will and be filled with loving kindness. After meditating on these things for yourself, you then go on to wish these things for family, friends, acquaintances, enemies, and finally for all sentient beings in the universe.

By wishing that your enemies are well and happy with hearts at peace and filled with loving kindness you increase your compassion of their suffering. It is this suffering that makes them hateful, angry, and filled with ill will.

It is a completely different approach than that of Psalm 139

First we see that the Psalmist is cncerned for the welfare of God’s people:
*16 Thy eyes did see my imperfect being, and in thy book all shall be written: days shall be formed, and no one in them. *17 But to me thy friends, O God, are made exceedingly honourable: their principality is exceedingly strengthened. 18 I will number them, and they shall be multiplied above the sand: I rose up and am still with thee.

This why he longs that God may be rid of the wicked.
*19 If thou wilt kill the wicked, O God: ye men of blood, depart from me:
*
And this is inline with the Teaching that vengeance is God’s.

Deuteronomy 32
35 Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time, that their foot may slide: the day of destruction is at hand, and the time makes haste to come.

So, although he hates those who hate God, he does not take their lives into his own hands.
21 Do I not hate, LORD, those who hate you? Those who rise against you, do I not loathe?
22 With fierce hatred I hate them, enemies I count as my own.

Now, it is also a difference in Buddhism that Biblical revelation has been progressive.

However, I know little if anything about Buddha. But if what you say is true, then it would seem that too much of anything is not good. To say that even the animals are treated with the dignity of mankind is to say that one has crossed the line.

According to our faith, man is the pinnacle of Creation. And the animals were created for man. And even though man is the pinnacle of creation, they are still God’s creatures and God giveth and taketh away. God commands whether man will live or die and God may give this authority to mankind, as in the case of court authorized death sentence for capital crimes.

So, although killing an innocent man for no reason is the crime of murder, killing a man is not necessarily a sin. .

Apparently, from your except, Buddhism does not believe in God. But perhaps you just didn’t mention it. However, if Buddhism does not teach the existence of God. FWhere did sentience come from?

%between%Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[notself]

The Metta Bhavana came from the teachings of a man named Siddhartha Gotama known as the one who is awake or The Buddha. He taught of four sublime states, loving kindness (metta), compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.

Buddhist do their best to refrain from killing any living being. Buddhists are truly pro life. They are against abortion, capital punishment and war.

Christians appear to believe that violence can solve problems. I find that sad since Christ spoke out against violence as a solution.

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (5:9), “You have heard that it had been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (5:38), and “You have heard that it had been said: You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44), and he commanded his disciples saying: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (10:16).

 

[porkscratchings]

Apparently, from your except, Buddhism does not believe in God. But perhaps you just didn’t mention it. However, if Buddhism does not teach the existence of God. FWhere did sentience come from?

Buddhism does not have to teach the existence of God, to come up with the command to love others as u love yourself. ‘Others’ - have a wider meaning than in Christianity to include other people’s gods. E.g. U worship a cow and I worship a tree. A buddhist would love both of us, and include that love and respect to the things we worship.

The concept of treating others the same as we treat ourselves predate both Christianity and Buddhism.
Confucius: ‘That which is repugnant to u, impose not on others’ Analects XV.24 (479-221 BC). It is also mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, albeit indirectly.

The Koran also has something similar:“those who show their affection to such as came to them for refuge and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves” (Surah 59:9).

 

[Kadaveri]

God does not forbid you regarding those who do not fight against you on account of your faith and drive you out from your homes, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Verily God loves the just. (Sura 60:8)

 

[De_Maria]

The Metta Bhavana came from the teachings of a man named Siddhartha Gotama known as the one who is awake or The Buddha.

Is he considered “Eternal God”, the Creator of all?
If not, where does Buddhism teach that sentience came from?

He taught of four sublime states

Are these states of mind, states of being or some other plane of reality?

, loving kindness (metta), compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.

The Church teaches that man was created in a state of Original Justice in which state man was in harmony with all creation and with God. However, man rejected that gift and is now subject to a fallen state of being. In this fallen state of being, man is prone to sin. But man should strive for harmony with God. This state of harmony is called unity with God and is characterized by love for God and all God’s children.

Buddhist do their best to refrain from killing any living being.

You mean “animals”? Or do you consider that plants also live?

Christians are permitted to kill other living things, be it plant or animal, in order to survive. Although, some of our saints (St. Francis Assisi, St. Martin de Porres) have acquried a love for animal life whereby they will not even kill an insect unnecessarily. However, I have not heard that they will refuse the God’s gift of meat and fish for nutritional purposes.

Buddhists are truly pro life. They are against abortion, capital punishment and war.

So are true Christians.

Christians appear to believe that violence can solve problems find that sad since Christ spoke out against violence as a solution.

No, but we do believe in defending innocent life. Do Buddhists beliefe in self defense? Popular movies always depict Buddhist monks kicking everybody’s butt in some form of martial art, are they believers in what you are describing?

Any Christians who have resorted to war for personal gain or to resolve political problems which do not have anything to do with the defense of innocent life have done so in spite of Christian doctrine, not because of it.

Are you a Buddhist or just a student of the religion?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Buddhism does not have to teach the existence of God, to come up with the command to love others as u love yourself.

That is true. But then, if Buddha is not God, nor revealing a message from God, he is just a nice man telling everyone to be kind.

‘Others’ - have a wider meaning than in Christianity to include other people’s gods. E.g. U worship a cow and I worship a tree. A buddhist would love both of us, and include that love and respect to the things we worship.

Although I don’t know much about Buddhism, I did study it a bit when I was still atheist and I found that it could not, to my satisfaction, explain the mystery of suffering in the world. So, I didn’t delve any deeper. As for me, Catholicism explains the true nature of love and the true meaning of suffering in a manner with which I agree. Now if others prefer to love other things without consideration as to why they should and if they want to suffer in this world, since no one is excempt from suffering, without knowing that suffering expiates sin and we may unite our sufferings to God, then so be it.

The concept of treating others the same as we treat ourselves predate both Christianity and Buddhism.
Confucius: ‘That which is repugnant to u, impose not on others’ Analects XV.24 (479-221 BC). It is also mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, albeit indirectly.

The Koran also has something similar:“those who show their affection to such as came to them for refuge and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves” (Surah 59:9).

That is my point. They explained it as a form of human wisdom, but only Jesus explained the supernatural dimension of it.

In addition, Jesus turned it around just a bit. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is abit different than That which is repugnant to u, impose not on others. Let me explain. It would be repugnant of me to kick who has fallen in the street. If I were to walk by without helping him I would impose nothing repugnant upon him. But if I were to help him, then I would be doing unto him as I would have him do to me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

God does not forbid you regarding those who do not fight against you on account of your faith and drive you out from your homes, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Verily God loves the just. (Sura 60:8)

Its a shame that Muslims have rarely put this into practice historically but especially today.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[porkscratchings]

That is my point. They explained it as a form of human wisdom, but only Jesus explained the supernatural dimension of it.

I don’t think something is less valuable because it is human wisdom and not wisdom attributed to some deity. As an atheist, I think all wisdom is man-made, except that some people want to insert more authority to their sayings by claiming they come from God, rather than man.

I prefer the honesty of an author who states ‘I, ordinary joe bloggs, wrote this’, than ’ you must obey all of this because God, not i, wrote this’.

In addition, Jesus turned it around just a bit. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is abit different than That which is repugnant to u, impose not on others. Let me explain. It would be repugnant of me to kick who has fallen in the street. If I were to walk by without helping him I would impose nothing repugnant upon him. But if I were to help him, then I would be doing unto him as I would have him do to me.

This is interesting. I happen to have the opposite view. I think that ‘do unto others as u would have them do unto u’ is limited in that if someone is a Christian, he would not object to imposing Christianity on someone else on the basis that the Christian wouldn’t mind being made to be what he already is: a christian. This leads to all sorts of people feeling it is ok to force people to accept their views, politics, etc (ie. because they like it, the other person should like it, too).

‘That which is repugnant to u, impose not on others’ is better because it makes u think a bit more on what someone else might consider to be repugnant, rather than limit it from the 1st person opinion of what is good and bad. To use the example u’'ve given - it would actually be repugnant to walk by without helping the other person, because if u fell over, would it not be repugnant to u if others walked by without helping u?

The taoist version emphasises not just what we personally feel to be good and bad, but also what is takes into account the other person’s views on good and bad. This the in the word ‘impose’. Using the example of the Christian, the NT ‘do unto others’ would allow him to impose his religion on others on the grounds he would be happy to have his religion imposed on him. The taoist version says no, on the grounds that since u would not like someone to force you to convert to their faith, ergo u cannot force them to convert to yours.

To me, the Christian version is closer to the Muslim belief that what their adherants inflict on non-believers is good, but when non-believers inflict the same thing on them, it is wrong. Good is defined only from the point of view of the 1st person, the person on the receiving end is never considered. The taost version says needs of the person on the receiving end of your action needs to be considered.

 

[porkscratchings]

God does not forbid you regarding those who do not fight against you on account of your faith and drive you out from your homes, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Verily God loves the just. (Sura 60:8)

The problem with this is that it is not ‘treat thy neighbour as yourself’ but my neighbour must treat me better than I treat him. To deserve good treatment, unbelievers must not persecute muslims, but muslims don’t have to observe the same for non-believers.

 

[notself]

De Maria;2787814]Is he considered “Eternal God”, the Creator of all?
If not, where does Buddhism teach that sentience came from?

Are these states of mind, states of being or some other plane of reality?

The Buddha was a man who through his own efforts became awake or enlightened to things as they really are. He taught that there is suffering, a reason for suffering, a way to end suffering and that it was within our power to end it.

Metta and the other sublime states are stated of mind that have influence over one’s actions and therefore influence how one responds to the actions of others.

There is no creation story in Buddhism. It is unimportant when it comes to ending suffering. Just as Christians consider that God always existed, Buddhist consider that existence always was. There is no first cause.

do you mean “animals”? Or do you consider that plants also live?

Plants are not considered sentient although all other living beings whether seen or unseen are.

Christians are permitted to kill other living things, be it plant or animal, in order to survive. Although, some of our saints (St. Francis Assisi, St. Martin de Porres) have acquried a love for animal life whereby they will not even kill an insect unnecessarily. However, I have not heard that they will refuse the God’s gift of meat and fish for nutritional purposes.

I don’t believe that St. Francis killed animals or fish. He may have eaten animals or fish killed by others and given to him. The Buddha instructed the monks and nuns that they could eat meat and fish as long as the animal was not killed for them. In other words if someone was having meat for dinner and gave some to a monk or nun, they could eat it.

As a Buddhist I have developed skill in capture and transport of flies, mosquitoes, spiders and other creepy crawlies that I find in the house. I do my best to avoid intentionally killing any creature. You should try it. It is a wonderful feeling to release a moth that is fluttering in fear in your hand. It opens your heart and fills it with compassion.

No, but we do believe in defending innocent life. Do Buddhists beliefe in self defense? Popular movies always depict Buddhist monks kicking everybody’s butt in some form of martial art, are they believers in what you are describing?

Kicking someone’s butt is different from killing someone. The martial arts were developed by Buddhist monks in China that were regularly being killed by bandits. It was developed as non lethal self defense. Self defense is Ok if there is no other way and killing is not involved. Running way is better. Christians should feel free to kill in those same situations where Jesus Christ killed.

Any Christians who have resorted to war for personal gain or to resolve political problems which do not have anything to do with the defense of innocent life have done so in spite of Christian doctrine, not because of it.

I wish more ministers and priests would come out against war and demonstrate against it as the monks and nuns of Burma are doing at great risk to their own lives.

Are you a Buddhist or just a student of the religion?
Sincerely,

De Maria

I am a Theravadan Buddhist, the same tradition as those in Burma.

 

[Montalban]

I thought Chrisitans followed both the Old and the New Testaments.

That’s right, we’re forbidden to eat pork - NOT!

 

[Montalban]

Buddhism does not have to teach the existence of God, to come up with the command to love others as u love yourself. ‘Others’ - have a wider meaning than in Christianity to include other people’s gods.

But why is it ‘good’? There are deemed positive consequences for you if you do this. How did they become ‘good’?

 

[porkscratchings]

But why is it ‘good’? There are deemed positive consequences for you if you do this. How did they become ‘good’?

U get to escape the cycle of birth and death, and reach nirvana. U develop compassion for all. U serve society and mankind. U serve your neighbour. All these are good, just like what the buddhist monks are doing in Burma - doing the greatest good by their faith.