Christianity Vs Buddhism

[Otherright]

I love it when friends try to proselytize me. I had a friend send me a link as to why I should convert to Christianity, or rather re-convert. Here are talking points from the page.

I am a Buddhist, why should I consider becoming a Christian?

First, while both Christianity and Buddhism each have an historical central figure, namely Jesus and Buddha, only Jesus is shown to have risen from the dead.

Second, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration.

Third, Christian ethics has a stronger foundation than Buddhist ethics. Christian ethics is founded in the personal character of God. With Buddhism, karma is the framework for morality. But karma is impersonal.
(I particularly dislike this one).

Fourth, Christianity rightly appreciates "desire." Buddhist ethics seems to have a core difficulty at this point. (But hate this one.)

Fifth is the question "What do you do with your sin?"

Finally, it is only in Christianity that we can know that we are saved.


Anyone, on either side care to discuss these points?

 

[haribol]

I am in a fix about it. I have seen Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism from a close proximity and I always like all these faiths and learned from all. I am not any of them and yet I belong to all. I am at home with Christianity when I church and sit at Mass and pray. I have found an ocean of wisdom in the Bible and Sermons on the Mounts is such a wonderful episode in the Bible that I got moved and absorbed in it through and through. Some stories in the Bible are outstandingly appealing and revealing and they have no compare. In the same vein, I was moved by Buddhism and I am comfortable with a monastic life. Speaking about Hinduism and reading the Vedas, the Upanishads I find them matchlessly majestic, and illuminating. Can you compare the grandness of these ancient books of wisdom with any? This is a great reservoir of spirituality. I enjoyed reading so many Indian scriptures. The Mahabharata is without equal.

Now into Taoism. Lao-tzu' poems or wisdom is staggering and I become totally immersed when I read his maxims. I have read plenty of them and spiritually they are an unequal source.

That is why I do not believe in divisiveness and I feel we can learn from all these great sources. Let us not be in conflict and I am not bound by any particularly school of thought or ideology. I believe in the tradition of sainthood. Mother Teresa was a saint. Ramakrishna was unequaled and so is the Dalai Lama. His regal countenance is an embodiment of peace and harmony.

We are really happy to have all these great beings who rose over and above the rest of mortals and are brilliantly shining in our hearts.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
All enlightened individuals reach a state of oneness and they do so by following a way and this way is nothing but a RELIGION.
RELIGIONS are like paths or ways or ladders which is useless once an individual reaches the state of oneness but till then the mind keeps oscillating between different paths when the important aspect for any individual is REACHING by any path.
Personally find no difference in Jesus or Gautama or any paths they adopted to reach the state.

Love & rgds

 

[Gjallarhorn]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because [thinking] 'the recluse is our teacher'.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

This is one of the main reasons they don't mix.

Another would be:

[/FONT][/FONT]

"A young brahmin called Vasettha once went to see Gotama. "This is the only straight path," he declared, "the path of salvation that leads one who follows it to union with Brahma [God], as is taught by brahmin Pokkharasati!" Gotama asked him whether any brahmin had ever seen Brahma face-to-face. Since God is invisible and unknowable, Vasettha was obliged to reply: "No." In that case, countered Gotama, any claim about a path that leads to union with Brahma must be groundless. "Just as a file of blind men go on, clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the middle sees nothing, and the last one sees nothing, so it is with the talk of these brahmins. Their talk is laughable, mere words, empty and vain."

Bhuridatta Jataka:

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!"

Plus the idea of an eternal being outside the cycle of suffering with a self violates all three of the Buddha's "marks of existence".

The philosophy behind the two religions may be compatible to a degree, but one believes in reason, the other faith. One believes in self-saving, the other believes in devotion to an eternal god.

 

[LuisDantas]

First, while both Christianity and Buddhism each have an historical central figure, namely Jesus and Buddha, only Jesus is shown to have risen from the dead.

Why should anyone care for the historical existence of either Jesus or Buddha, much less on that bit about raising from death?

That is not what religion is about. More to the point, it is simply not important as far as I can see.

Second, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration.

Again, I just don't see it. Their accuracy leaves a lot indeed to be desired. And, again, it wouldn't even be important anyway.

Third, Christian ethics has a stronger foundation than Buddhist ethics. Christian ethics is founded in the personal character of God. With Buddhism, karma is the framework for morality. But karma is impersonal.
(I particularly dislike this one).

So do I. Belief in God may indeed be a good, solid framework for the development of personal ethics... for some people. Quite a few fail at that, some rather spectacularly and often enough in dangerous, destructive ways.

There is an unsaid yet important point in the argument above: it assumes that people need to be pressured into ethics to some extent, which is of course a dangerous and self-limiting assumption. Any good psychologist knows that this just doesn't work at all well. It is a shame that so many people who consider themselves concerned with values refuse to learn that.

Fourth, Christianity rightly appreciates "desire." Buddhist ethics seems to have a core difficulty at this point. (But hate this one.)

Uh? That is not very clear, but surprising anyway.

Fifth is the question "What do you do with your sin?"

I don't know. Disregard such a concept in the first place? It is not like I need it. I'm not sure that Christians who can use the concept constructively even exist.

Finally, it is only in Christianity that we can know that we are saved.

If they say so. Salvation is a rather vague concept, and no one seems to really know anything about it except that some Christians are afraid of not obtaining it.

I'd rather not nurture such an unneeded, vague, pointless fear, thank you very much.

 

[atanu]

Plus the idea of an eternal being outside the cycle of suffering with a self violates all three of the Buddha's "marks of existence".

Just wished to point out that not an idea of an eternal being but a certainty of an eternal unborn is central in Buddhism too.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see entirely different reasons & priorities.
Buddhism appeals because it is very rooted in the practical & material world.
It effectively addresses peoples well being, yet shuns the hubris of belief in absolutes & unverifiable dogma.
I've no plan to join the belief system....just appreciate it.

 

[Otherright]

I would've liked a couple Christians to weigh in on this. To get their views.

 

[Otherright]

Atheist ideas on the subject are welcome also.

 

[Muffled]

I would've liked a couple Christians to weigh in on this. To get their views.

Perhaps Gjallerhorn (hope I spelled it right) has the major distinction: "One believes in self-saving, the other believes in devotion to an eternal god."

Is there a basic goodness in the self? Is a person who commits murder doing so because of this basic goodness. Then again why would the Buddha prescribe right action? Shouldn't the self simply know what is right?

A Christian knows what is right because He has God who is good. The Buddhist must learn to control himself but the Christian can be under the control of God.

However the intrinsic value of Buddhism lies behind the reality. It is a good thing to internalize what is good. ie learning something from words is not as effective as learning something from experience. Thereby the Psalmist says, "taste and see that God is good." It is a good thing to have self control. It is a good thing when my wife tells me to clean up my messes in the kitchen but it is even better if my own self will is to clean up messes.

 

[Engyo]

Hi, OR -

From my perspective, the 3 Seals of the Dharma are fundamentally incompatible with Christian viewpoints on these subjects. That said, I will try to address your points.

First, while both Christianity and Buddhism each have an historical central figure, namely Jesus and Buddha, only Jesus is shown to have risen from the dead.

The question of Jesus arising is exactly that, a question. No one else has duplicated this to date if one believes it to have happened in the first place.

Second, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration.

OK, and the same is true of Buddhist scriptures. Doesn't tip the balance in either direction.

Third, Christian ethics has a stronger foundation than Buddhist ethics. Christian ethics is founded in the personal character of God. With Buddhism, karma is the framework for morality. But karma is impersonal.
(I particularly dislike this one).

How is 'stronger' being judged? Shouldn't the judgement of the strength of an ethical system be in the implementation of those ethics by believers?

Fourth, Christianity rightly appreciates "desire." Buddhist ethics seems to have a core difficulty at this point. (But hate this one.)

Which of the widely varying Buddhist viewpoints on desire are we discussing? For that matter, I don't really 'get' the 'Christian appreciation of desire' either. What exactly does that mean, if giving in to ones' desires constitutes sinning in most cases?

Fifth is the question "What do you do with your sin?"

Sin? What exactly is sin in Buddhism anyway? Buddhists aren't born as sinners, and we can expiate or 'work off' any karmic negative effects we may generate.

Finally, it is only in Christianity that we can know that we are saved.

How do we know that? Because it is written in scripture? If so, then Buddhists can also know they are saved, by the same criterion.

 

[Tristesse]

Perhaps Gjallerhorn (hope I spelled it right) has the major distinction: "One believes in self-saving, the other believes in devotion to an eternal god."

Is there a basic goodness in the self? Is a person who commits murder doing so because of this basic goodness. Then again why would the Buddha prescribe right action? Shouldn't the self simply know what is right?

A Christian knows what is right because He has God who is good. The Buddhist must learn to control himself but the Christian can be under the control of God.

However the intrinsic value of Buddhism lies behind the reality. It is a good thing to internalize what is good. ie learning something from words is not as effective as learning something from experience. Thereby the Psalmist says, "taste and see that God is good." It is a good thing to have self control. It is a good thing when my wife tells me to clean up my messes in the kitchen but it is even better if my own self will is to clean up messes.

If someone murders because god told them too, are they good because they have god?

 

[idav]

First, while both Christianity and Buddhism each have an historical central figure, namely Jesus and Buddha, only Jesus is shown to have risen from the dead.

Only Jesus has followers that fabricate miracles to deify this "historical" figure.

Second, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration.

So are the writings coming from disciples of Buddha.

Third, Christian ethics has a stronger foundation than Buddhist ethics. Christian ethics is founded in the personal character of God. With Buddhism, karma is the framework for morality. But karma is impersonal.
(I particularly dislike this one).

That is wrong actually Karma isn't the framework for morality in Buddhism.

Fourth, Christianity rightly appreciates "desire." Buddhist ethics seems to have a core difficulty at this point. (But hate this one.)

No Christianity is taught to be not of this world and to not desire this material realm just as buddhism.

Fifth is the question "What do you do with your sin?"

Try not to do it anymore.

Finally, it is only in Christianity that we can know that we are saved.

Haha, thats a funny joke. I love how Christians misinterpret the word 'know'.