Can a Christian be a Buddhist? Vice-versa?

[weepingforloman]

weepingforloman, maybe in college you'll be ready to read zarathustra because you definitely didn't understand it the first time around.

I didn't offer an opinion or analysis, other than to say he was "anti-God." You won't deny that, seeing as how he claimed God is dead?

Let's reconsider that belief, that nature and storms are subhuman. Nature extends - nature includes the universe. I mean planets, stars, galaxies, all those are included in nature. Do you really mean nature is subhuman? Humans are a part of nature, and if they are greater than nature, you're saying they're greater than themselves, which doesn't make sense.

Again, non-conscious doesn't mean sub-conscious. Eastern wisdom tells us that the path of growth, of spiritual enlightenment takes us on a path, where we begin and end non-conscious. As an infant, we are not conscious, and there's no difference between the infant and the world around it. To make it short, then there's different levels of the ego, until we eventually transcend it all. (No Boundary, and The Atman Project, by Ken Wilber) At least that is the goal. On one end is an infant, on the other end is the enlightened individual, that perceives the truth, etc.

This fact is what leads people like me to try for a reconciliation of beliefs, and encourages people to expand their minds and learn and grow and experiment and all those things. It's because I've seen glimpes of very rich and beautiful knowledge in lots of different places, it's what makes me open to new things as well.

As you probably know, I was raised Christian, Presbyterian, which was my mother's faith. My father has always been atheist and never lied to me about that. I used to have full faith and at some point I realized I was faking my belief, and became atheist. I won't recount all the twists for you, but like I've said, I've seen many beautiful glimpses along the way. At some point I studied Buddhism, then later the Bhagavad-Gita, and eventually decided I could reconcile the (yes, personal) God of YHWA with other faiths. Eventually I realized that even atheism was compatible with other isms, and I'll argue that with you if you like, it is the topic of this thread.

As to what you were saying, regardless of whether it is good or not, I would like to hear what you meant. I mean, the earth - subhuman? I can't think of any value system that would support this except one that says humans are greater than things that aren't human. Anyway, forget about the conscious thing. As someone once said, "Without comparing, beauty is everywhere."

But surely that gets too zen for you. As with most people. I'm not trying to be personal, just slightly provocative.

As for Nietzsche, I'll ask you how much of him you read. I've only read the first two books and part of the third of Thus Spake Zarathustra, and I am a person that loves him. How much of him have you read - who holds him in such low esteem? And if that's all you've seen of his, then I really suggest you don't read anything else, you really won't like it.

Okay, cheers, have a good day, Namaste.

Also, everything has a purpose. Especially time - to illustrate how life goes. Each day and each minute are building to something, and all of our past is building up to the present, always. That is what meditation is good for. And if we have fallacious beliefs, I truly believe humans have the capability to be openminded and learn and arrive at the truth.

You and I start, naturally enough, with differing views of humanity. I, being Christian, believe that humanity is partly spirit, and partly flesh, making mankind somewhat above and beyond nature. We are intended to be the priest and even the Christ of nature... Do you really think infants are entirely unconscious? I would disagree there... And, I would say, non-consciousness does equal subconsciousness. After all, what you have there is a positive thing and a lack of that positive thing.

[blazeofglory]

This is something that's very interesting to me, and I'd love to have some intelligent conversations about it on here, surely with people of various faiths.

It's something I'm not sure I've often met with agreement on. There is one person I know however, who first told me he belonged to different faiths. A man in a Buddhist monastery who was there for an interfaith community organization meeting, who told me he was Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, as well as others. I'm the same way as him, except I'm only mainly Christian, Buddhist and Rastafarian.

Can a Christian be Buddhist? I've been told adamently, almost vehemently, no, and just thought I'd see what others think. I'm posting this thread because I realized I was talking about it on other threads where it was off-topic...

*sigh* It's a question of labels...

One can identify oneself with many identities at the same time. To be a Buddhist is also an identity, and so is to be a Hindu, and so is a Muslim.

A single man can be a doctor, a writer, an activist, a community worker at the same time, why not a Hindu, a Chrishtian, a Muslim, a Buddhist at the same time.

To be a Hindu means to live like a Hindu, the same goes with when it comes to be a Christian, a Buddhist and the like.

But if you follow a particular religion with a closed mind, being biased to the rest of other religions problems multiply. If you are open to or have respect for others' religions, or for others' customs of living,then you can harmonize yourself with all of them or if not even within the same religion also you can not live in harmony. For example, even within even in Christianity also there are sects, and if you can not live integrally you can not be a true Christian.

[Demian]

Ther are some scholars who looked at the striking similarities between the sayings of Jesus and Buddha and concluded that Jesus may have borrowed heavily from a Buddhist/Hindu influence in the Middle East during his day. Marcus Borg put out a book in which their sayings are compared, with Jesus' words on one page and Buddha's on the facing page. There are many striking comparisons between the two. I would say their biggest rift is in their fundamental (a priori) belief and that is in the existence of God, since Buddha did not believe in Brahma. In a sense he was the first existentialist, because he thought that even if God does exist it's up to you to pull yourself out of the mud.

[blazeofglory]

Ther are some scholars who looked at the striking similarities between the sayings of Jesus and Buddha and concluded that Jesus may have borrowed heavily from a Buddhist/Hindu influence in the Middle East during his day. Marcus Borg put out a book in which their sayings are compared, with Jesus' words on one page and Buddha's on the facing page. There are many striking comparisons between the two. I would say their biggest rift is in their fundamental (a priori) belief and that is in the existence of God, since Buddha did not believe in Brahma. In a sense he was the first existentialist, because he thought that even if God does exist it's up to you to pull yourself out of the mud.

There were many great saints and the Buddha and Christ both were saints in fact. Whether they were Gods is a matter of discussion and all of us living at this epoch in history can not in point of fact subscribe to the very existence of God. Even if one believes in the existence of God it is something to be kept to onelsef privately.

Yes the Buddha was honest and he did not say what he too was unsure of. Whereas people worship him as a God, ironically he never spoke of the existence of God. How will our world be wonderful if no one makes a pretension or a thing of falsification.

Maybe the Buddha did not speak about the existence of God, for he might have thought that this would be a subject man might find out of his comprehension. That is why he made a recommendation of courses of living. Maybe he said if only we walk on the course he recommended we might slowly we could fathom the meaning of life and the existence pf something that sets everything in order.

Christ and the Buddha subscribe to one thing in common, that is non violence.

[Granny5]

Why would you say that we must keep our belief in God to ourself? I think most people are very vocal about their belief or disbelief in God. Even here on LitNet, most people offer their opinions. I don't understand what you mean by
"Even if one believes in the existence of God it is something to be kept to onelsef privately."

[Noisms]

Ther are some scholars who looked at the striking similarities between the sayings of Jesus and Buddha and concluded that Jesus may have borrowed heavily from a Buddhist/Hindu influence in the Middle East during his day. Marcus Borg put out a book in which their sayings are compared, with Jesus' words on one page and Buddha's on the facing page. There are many striking comparisons between the two. I would say their biggest rift is in their fundamental (a priori) belief and that is in the existence of God, since Buddha did not believe in Brahma. In a sense he was the first existentialist, because he thought that even if God does exist it's up to you to pull yourself out of the mud.

I'd say that a bigger rift was that Christ claimed divinity for himself!

The similarities seem very superficial to me. Treat your neighbour as you would treat yourself; all religions teach that. The two faiths' metaphysical aspects in fact couldn't be more different.

[Dark Star]

All religions teach that?

You're painting with a bit of a broad brush...

[Ananda]

Remember that Buddhists believe in no-self and Mind Only. Every thing is dependent on cause and effect. Therefore, every sound, taste, touch, sound, smell, is depending on another thing. As such, every sound, etc. is empty. There is no you, no self, in Buddhism. There is no soul, per se. These are all things that your mind creates to distinguish between "you" and "me," "us" and "them." The universal truth, however, is that there is no difference between you and me. The mind's grasping of the duality of things is what keeps people in the cycle of birth and re-birth, letting go of that duality leads to Nirvana.

That said, Christianity believes in the self. It teaches that there is a "me" that has a final destination, heaven or hell, and that it will be judged according to what it does separate from other people. Then you will wind up in a one of the good or bad places for all eternity. Yet in Buddhism there is no such thing as an unchanging thing. Everything is impermanent. Christianity says, however, that God is unchanging and permanent, and that once we get to heaven we're there for good.

Yes there are many ideas that Christianity and Buddhism share in common. They booth believe in the ideas of loving your neighbor as well as your enemy. Who can argue with the Sermon on the Mount, or with the idea that suffering in this live is caused by our attachment to things? But one religion is static and the other is not. One should also keep in mind that where Buddhism does not even believe in a God, if there were a God in Buddhism, he/she would be subject to change.

These two systems of thinking are so different that the question, "Can one be a Christan and Buddhist," is like asking whether a fish can also be a sound. Like Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity still have not been reconciled, these two religions are founded on fundamentally different principles of perception.

[email protected]

[Pendragon]

Without any intent to stir up trouble, wouldn't it be a controdiction in terms?

[amalia1985]

Perhaps, if we put all the metaphysics and clearly religious themes aside, we can view the two religions, not as "religions" with the literal sense of the word, but as a way of life. In that case, I will agree with blazeofglory. Peace, brotherhood, and love are the key words, here. What more can we want in terms of living?

[amanda_isabel]

well, i find that religion is baically about being a better person, so i don't see why someone can't be of different religions in this aspect. but when it comes down to it, like restrictions socially, physically, etc., there has to be one dominant religion. so being both christian and buddhist is alright but i'd have to say that one has to be more dominant in a person.

[Redzeppelin]

Christ and the Buddha subscribe to one thing in common, that is non violence.

Then how do you account for Christ's forceful clearing of the temple (Matt 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46) especially in John 2:15: "There He dound seated in the temple dealers in cattle, sheep, and pigeons; also money-changers; so, making a whip out of cords, He drove them all out of the temple...poured out the money-changers' coins and overturned the tables." I think that qualifies as "violence."

well, i find that religion is baically about being a better person, so i don't see why someone can't be of different religions in this aspect. but when it comes down to it, like restrictions socially, physically, etc., there has to be one dominant religion. so being both christian and buddhist is alright but i'd have to say that one has to be more dominant in a person.

"Being a better person" is one of the benefits of religion, but that is not its total value - if so, than any moral code would suffice; religion's true value is that it offers an eternal life in the presence of our Creator. "Being good" is fine, but it's not the sole object. There will actually be people in heaven who - for the most part - probably did not live lives that we would call "good."

[NikolaiI]

Without any intent to stir up trouble, wouldn't it be a controdiction in terms?

The biggest difference between the two for me is that the Buddha was more scientific, which I find to be more useful. The Buddha's talks, for instance, like the one on Mindfulness, which begins: Mind is the forerunner of all actions. Like he was interested in explaining what the world was, in philosophy, as well as being a moral preacher.

I think, in Buddhism, ultimately, it is considered ignorant to think of one thing as Buddhist, and one thing as Christian, when the "things" aren't even "things" in themselves. There seems to be more absolutism in Christianity. I was taught these words, gosh darnit, and they reflect reality. A tree is a TREE, and you can see it with your own eyes!

My own interpretation of Christianity is that it should be almost identical to Buddhism. Yes, there are the holy scriptures, but they are misunderstood often as the Word of God. The "Word" is more like the Source, or the fundamental base of being. I'm not sure if this is Presbyterian ideas, or what. Anyway, yes there is some of the Word in the bible, but the Word is wordless, for one, and timeless...all of that- so it should not be ABOUT words!

I am probably influenced some by a book I read by Henri Nouwen called "The Way of the Heart." It talks about silence, solitude and prayer, with the example of the desert fathers (St. Anthony and others)- written to Christian ministers; anyway, it's all very mystical...I loved it. So it's not about words. Not at all.

Then, of course, we have the big distinction of how some Christians believe only Christians go to heaven, while other believe that people from other faiths go as well...so we can't put all Christians in one side or the other. Some say that worshipping Allah is just another way of worship, while others say that Christ is the one, true path. Obviously it's very arrogant to presume knowledge of who goes to heaven- as well as assuming knowledge of the ultimate good and evil, which we do so whimsically?

So, I think Christianity should be interpreted to be more like Buddhism, more about God, and the Word, and not about politics or divisions, and I think in Buddhism, correct understanding shows we are not separate from other people, so the divisions are all illusion. A contradiction of terms doesn't mean anything in the eyes of God or the universe, because all our terminology doesn't amount to squat; it's just us laying terms on things (not to say that we made everything up!)

[Starving Buddha]

I have come to understand that there is only one spiritual message that is spread through all the different faiths. They all teach the same thing, so it really doesn't matter what belief system you adhere to. Jesus taught Buddhism. The same archetypal symbols present in any religion are found in all religions. It is only because we seek to maintain our own traditions and hang on to folk ideas that we fail to see that other religions have the same elements. God is universal no matter how you consider the concept.

[NikolaiI]

I have come to understand that there is only one spiritual message that is spread through all the different faiths. They all teach the same thing, so it really doesn't matter what belief system you adhere to. Jesus taught Buddhism. The same archetypal symbols present in any religion are found in all religions. It is only because we seek to maintain our own traditions and hang on to folk ideas that we fail to see that other religions have the same elements. God is universal no matter how you consider the concept.

Welcome to the forum, Starving. I saw you join, and I was actually wondering where'd you post first I hope you stay with us a long time.
Nik