Can a Christian be a Buddhist? Vice-versa?

[Countess]

I could counter with articles to the contrary, but it's a moot point. People who look for similiarities will find them. People who look for differences will find them. I look for ways to relate to others, rather than ways to ostrasize them.

[hyperborean]

True, but by definition these two religions are opposites. In Buddhism the goal is to glorify man, and in Christianity the goal is glorify god.

[Countess]

Yes. Christians most glorify God when they become like Christ, which represents the perfection of man. We reflect the image and glory of God to the universe. Both Buddhists and Christians strive for perfection, but for different reasons.

[NikolaiI]

The two cannot be mixed. Nietzsche says it best here:

"Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism) --It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase,beyond good and evil." -Nietzsche (Anti-Christ)

I love Nietzsche, but I have to disagree with a couple of points in this quote. While it doesn't use the word sin, the 'struggle with suffering' is conquered when you conquer yourself, and it is not a struggle for you to do the right thing. When your mind is transformed, etc. We suffer because we are attached, to habits of discursive thinking, and patterns of unwholesome behavior, etc., most of all to our ideas about these things. It's always been my idea that our main problem is overestimating the problem, and underestimating ourselves. I guess negative attitude. About smoking, and everything else.

I just don't disagree with him that Christianity is so negative. Nietzsche says it is based on the contemptible emotion of pity, but there is more of that in Christianity than Buddhism? If he means pity on someone because they are going to hell, and not heaven, as I realize now, then yeah that's a problem. But supposedly that is a curse of pretentious people, not anything else.

Maybe I don't know what moral concepts are, but Buddha talked a lot about wisdom, compassion, generosity, kindness, and purity of mind. At least kindness seems to be moral. I do agree it is beyond good and evil, because it views these things from a height.

I disagree with a lot of things that article says, though. It was almost amusing to see it say that the two religions are as irreconcilable as East and West, since what is the difference between East and West?

"In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then beleive them to be true. "

And I disagree with the article's conclusion that to practice both religions is to do a disservice to them both. This doesn't seem to be based on logic, as a lot of the rest of it. It seems more just opinion.

About Nietzsche, there are other things he's said that would support my argument. For instance, there is no thing. If there is no such thing as a thing, would it then be accurate to label it as a Christian or Atheist or Hindu or Buddhist? I just love that quote by Nietzsche because it resembles Eastern thought. And I know saying that won't convince anyone, for instance, who says that the two are incompatible.

There are some wonderful Buddha quotes on this website...http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha.html check it out.

Anyway, thank you everyone for your opnion on this. I look forward to your posts.

Alex.

[linz]

Psalm 23 "The Lord is my sheppard, I shall not want." The Buddha considered desire a prime path to suffering. Christ spoke of the meek and poor in spirit as blessed. Notice Christ didn't say modesty, he said meekness; This is a rare thing, as opinion is so front and center nowadays. Maybe heaven or nirvana's attributes are neither positive or negative with nothing to lose or gain?

[weepingforloman]

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...

I'd love to use the "enlightened modern" answer and say yes, but Scripture weighs against it. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through me," said Christ. If you claim to believe in Christ, I'd say that pretty clearly prevents you from attempting any other means to salvation (the Eightfold Path). Additionally, I would say that Christianity requires belief in the imperfection of mankind, and Buddhism is dependent on the individual's attainment of perfection... No go, bud... But some people would definitely say yes.

[NikolaiI]

Nobody says yes. That alone almost makes it perfect. I think Jesus would say yes. Haha, blasphemy for you, eh?

However, it's not something to fight for.

[tulysg1982]

why not, if anybody whether h\she is influenced by the Buddha's 4 noble truths as well as the circle of rebirth also if one thinks that all our suffering is for birth and if one is attracted by Buddha's state of extreme tranquility and obtain the humanistic approach of buddhism then i m sure everybody has a chance to get attached by buddhism remaining in his or her own baptized religion .

[weepingforloman]

Nobody says yes. That alone almost makes it perfect. I think Jesus would say yes. Haha, blasphemy for you, eh?

However, it's not something to fight for.

I personally think Christ's words (which I quoted) speak for themselves. However, I don't think it's quite blasphemy... People overuse that word. And of course it's nothing to fight for. Hardly anything is.

[JGL57]

Anything is possible, because words can be defined as each individual wishes - if the rest of the world disagrees, so what? E.g., defined in a certain way, it is possible for a person to be a Nazi Quaker, a virgin AND a prostitute, or for a rock to be conscious, etc.

[weepingforloman]

Anything is possible, because words can be defined as each individual wishes - if the rest of the world disagrees, so what? E.g., defined in a certain way, it is possible for a person to be a Nazi Quaker, a virgin AND a prostitute, or for a rock to be conscious, etc.

That's true, but, generally speaking, we use words because we agree on their meaning, which is a representation of reality. If we all accept the meaning of the words, there is such a thing as contradiction. If we accept the meanings the words "Buddhist" and "Christian" are intended to convey, we must also accept the contradiction inherent in being both.

[JGL57]

That's true, but, generally speaking, we use words because we agree on their meaning, which is a representation of reality. If we all accept the meaning of the words, there is such a thing as contradiction. If we accept the meanings the words "Buddhist" and "Christian" are intended to convey, we must also accept the contradiction inherent in being both.

Really? I would be happy if everyone could agree on the definitions of "god" and "religion".

I will not be holding my breath until that happens.

[weepingforloman]

God is too complex to be defined; you cannot define a person, so how could you possibly define the source of all personhood? Religion does have an agreed upon meaning... Do you mean all people should agree on which religion to follow? I agree with that as well, and I think it should be Christianity.

[NikolaiI]

The famous reply of Franklin Bond to Arslan, a terrorist who had taken over the world, in answer to what was wrong with the world, is "I think it's too little Christianity." - From a novel my grandmother wrote.

Pascal said God was a hidden, concealed God. He said not knowing God was not proof of his inexistence because that was one of the tenants of Christianity, that God was unknowable.

My definition of God is the link between us all. But that's not going deep enough. God is more simple, and more basic than that. He's the link between all atoms. He's infinite, as Pascal says, a point that is in all other points simultaneously, traveling at infinite velocity around the universe. But I think that belies the static nature of God - God is energy and life.

But in that sense we can know God. God is the deepest sense of life. Anyway.

[weepingforloman]

I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be? But, yes, God does hold together the universe, but that is not His only action.

Your grandmother's writing reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton (a theologian, long dead) wrote: a British magazine wrote to various writers with the question "What is wrong with the world?" Chesterton replied, "Dear Sirs, I am." And that was all.