Buddhism related to Christianity/Catholicism?

1 Samuel 10:7
Do whatever you think is best, for God will be with you.

Isnt that what youre saying?

 

Personally I feel that all religions have the same basic core. The mystical traditions of all religions share much, much more in common than they have differences. I've heard it described as a wheel, with each religion as a spoke. The closer to the center, the hub, the closer all the spokes get to each other and the less distinct they become. Thus, though it's not impossible, you don't need to have Jesus jorneying to India for enlightenment (there is record of Buddhist monks traveling in Egypt and Babylon around his time, so maybe the ideas came to him). All he needed was to journey to his own heart. Notice, he got baptized as a normal man, then immediately spent 40 days in the desert, fasting and meditating. At the END of that period, he dueled with, and won against, Satan (ego?). "Then the angels came and ministered unto him" could mean "he was now enlightened." He found his godhood.

I mean, what do people think he was doing in the desert, if not this?

Also, I don't understand why one would say Buddhism and Catholicism are incompatible. That makes no sense to me. Firstly, I've heard of many Catholic priests and monks who have incorporated Zen or Buddhism into their ministry. Secondly, as I said, the core of every religion is the same. I suppose, for the dogmaticly minded, they cannot work together. But for the spiritually minded, every religion looks the same. Many Catholics are able to see past the bullshit that's been piled on over the centuries as more of a tradition than a truth. It really just depends on how dogmatic you are.

 

organized religion, though helpful (??possibly??) is like the kindergarten of spiritual evolution. its very restricting.
every man whose ever found "god" has found his own path to god...there is no one path. run away from any group who tells you otherwise. all that matters is whats in your heart.

 

That's completely taken out of context.

1 Samuel 10

10:5 After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy:
10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
10:7 And let it be, when these signs are come unto thee, that thou do as occasion serve thee; for God is with thee.
10:8 And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and, behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do.

There are so many "DOs" and "DO NOTs" in the Bible, that you can't possibly justify "you can do anything you think is right because God is with you."

After all, what if you think that sin is right? Humans make lots of mistakes like that.

 

if you dont believe an act you commit is a sin...but some other man does, whos opinion holds more weight in your reality??? i dont care what kind of fancy holy clothes he adorns his body with. only you, living and expiriencing your personal reality can determine right or wrong, and its not so specific that "morals" can be applied to everyone in every situation. all that determines a good or bad action is your intentions behind the action, the act itself is neutral in almost every case. imo

some "holy" men will tell you things like "smoking pot is a sin" others will say the opposite, i say if it dosent feel like a sin than it isnt, if it does than it is.

 

Well considering that we're talking about the Bible, here, whose opinion holds the most weight? God's, supposedly. I, of course, don't believe in such, but if someone is going to quote the Bible regarding morality, I'm going to use the morality of the infallable Word of God to show the contradiction. Not a mere mortal's concept of morality. You think I'd settle for something as fallible as that?

 

Well if you count Gnosticism as being a credible branch of Christianity, it is ridiculously similar to Buddhist teachings. Although it does differ in a few ways, the basis of Gnosticism was heavily copied from Buddhist perspectives. Jesus was a wise man, too bad the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in the 60's and not thousand years earlier.

 

I don't think I would call gnosticism Christianity. Christianity has been quite bastardized over the recent millennia. I would call Christianity a queer, perverted (that is -- altered for the worse) descendent of gnosticism.

 

Yea I'd agree. I think people praise Jesus more than they praise his message. Plus the fact that uptight bishops and corrupt kings changed the Bible at the Council of Nicea, and the fact that whenever Gnosticism is mentioned the church propoganda just bells off the story of the Cathars. It's a shame Christianity flooded the world without having knowledge of the Nag Hammadi Library. I picture a society based off buddhism, not necessarily as individual as buddhism or as enlightening, but a lot more logical, ethical, as well as peaceful. Maybe then there would have been no need for the crusades and the destruction of Islam.

 

i'm not sure if the Gnostics would have been much more peaceful or open. They were really a very tightly closed society who hated the world. You're right that they were focused more on (only on) the spiritual side of life, where they rejected the material world and just tried to get enlightened. But, it was still a layered group, so only the highest members has the gnosis, while the rest were still on the outer circle. With such closed ranks both within and without their group, coupled with hate for the material world and the evil they saw in it, I can see the potential for a very destructive religion. Which, when you think about it, may actually be what happened.

Not that I have an entierly dim view of the gnostics; in many ways they're way better than Christianity, except I don't agree that the material world is evil and to be shunned (suicide anyone?), and I don't like the tight heirarchy. Jesus taught gnosis for all, not just the inner circle. But at least the gnostics discuss this gnosis at all, unlike the Christians who simply talk about belief.

 

theres only a few thou shalt not's in the bible...everything else is alegory up for interpretation.

btw...the bible dosent hold more weight than my own opinion that has stemmed from my own personal expirience. that book has been mis-translated and re-written more than any other book in history. it was never the word of god...just scholors claiming to be gods mouthpeice. the spirit is a funny thing though, even its messeges will be interpreted differently by different ears, because god dosent come down from the sky and speak english to us when he wants us to learn somthing...the way god "speaks" to us is through the "mirror" that is our surroundings. and we are only able to hear what we are willing and ready to hear at the time. there is much to learn from a wiser mans words...but its never as powerful
so i value no mans interpretations of the spirit over my own, and to be honest i thinks its foolish to give your power away by doing so.

 

It does to Christians. And that's who I'm talking to.

When talking with people who believe in the Infallible Word of God, if you want to show a contradition in the Infallible Word of God, you have to USE the Infallible Word of God to show the contradiction.