Buddhism vs Christianity

Why do you say it isn't a religion? It has the four C's: creed, code, cultus and community. All it lacks is god(s), but religious studies scholars can live with that.

 

All is present in buddhism.

 

Both are different religions.

 

Neither can help me. And that's the
Truth.

 

There was no slander intended, and I believe it would take an exceptionally perverse mentality to interpret it that way. All religious faiths have their embarrassments. You might note that I was asking a question when I made the observation I did. Looking at history, I think it is often- but not always- difficult to separate the religious nature of wars from ethnic or national aspirations that are masked by religious differences.

Your example of the Crusades is highly misleading. In broad historical terms, the Christian world was assaulted by the forces of Islam for four centuries before it finally struck back. The Sermon on the Mount not withstanding, while I see Christianity as a religion that fosters peace, I do not see it as a completely pacifist one- it is not a suicide pact. Islam has as part of its DNA the subjugation and enslavement of the infidel. Despite the corruption endemic in the Byzantine Empire, Christian & Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa did not abandon their faiths because of a perceived doctrinal superiority of Islam.

I think we agree that many historical expressions of Christianity cannot be defended. In the best of circumstances, I think it is beyond human capability to live up completely to the Christian ideal. In the less than ideal circumstances- well, we are risen apes, not fallen angels.



A subsequent comment of yours seems to put it in a better perspective.

 

I'm not saying there's a creator God in buddhism, I was going along with how you worded it (quite right and nuanced):

All present.

 

The popularly accepted definition by lay people, maybe. Scholars in the field of comparative religion take a broader view and tend think of religion in functional terms, as a cluster or family of attributes.Mark Berekson, Cultural Literacy for Religion ; Stepehn Prothro,God is Not One; Huston Smith, The World Religions;
Leonard Sidler and Paul Mojzes, The Study of Religion in an Age of Global Dialogue:
"Religion is an explanation of the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly; based on a notion of the Transcendent. Normally it contains the four "C's": Creed, Code, Cult, Community-structure. CREED refers To The cognitive aspect of a religion; it is everything that goes into the "explanation" of the ultimate meaning of life. CODE OF BEHAVIOR, or ethics, includes all the rules and customs of action that somehow follow from one aspect or another of the Creed. CULT means all the ritual activities that relate the follower to one aspect or another of the Transcendent, either directly or indirectly, prayer being an example of the former and certain formal behavior toward representatives of the Transcendent, such as priests, of the latter. COMMUNITY-STRUCTURE refers To The relationships among the followers; this can vary widely, from a very egalitarian relationship, As among Quakers, through a "republican" structure as Presbyterians have, To a monarchical one, As with some Hasidic Jews have with their Rebbe. THE TRANSCENDENT, As the roots of the word indicate, means "that which goes beyond" the everyday, The ordinary, The surface experience of reality. it can mean spirits, gods, a Personal God, An Impersonal God, Emptiness, etc." That's why students usually encounter Buddhism, along with Daoism, in textbooks on world religions.

Other formulations. A religion is:
--" a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." [Religion is] "the self-validation of a society by means of myth and ritual." (Émile Durkeim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life)
--""the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary, and a concern that in itself provides the answer to the question of the meaning of our existence." (Paul Tillich)
--"a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations.... by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." (Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System)

As for "the Boy Scouts, the military, political parties, fan clubs, etc.", I don't think they would meet enough of the criteria to qualify--unless a particular subgroup is really gung ho! But it's useful to understand how some secular movements, while falling short of the full criteria, can take on quasi-religious attributes: extreme nationalism, Communism, etc., have verged on secular religion. We now even have atheist megachurches.

 

Do you mean a "creator god" or just "gods"? If the former, I don't think that's accurate. Jains, for example, don't believe in a creator. They think the universe and its constituents have always existed. (Of course, we could then debate whether or not they're a "true" religion, but they certainly meet all the criteria in my previous post.) Plenty of civilizations believe(d) in a creator god who didn't play much of a role in their religion--that being the function of livelier deities. As for gods, I'd disagree that without them there's nothing deserving devotion or special reverence--unless we're using the term "god " tautologically to mean anything that is the object of devotion or special reverence. If we're talking about supernatural beings, I disagree. If you've ever been in a Thai temple and watched ordinary worshipers in action, you realize that their reverence and devotion can be quite intense in a godless religion. I imagine that for Buddhists like Sam Harris, not so much--but then, that would be true of some Christians, as well.

 

Happy to oblige, MeAgain. But I urge you to read the entire bloody book of hate yourself: a good half of it refers to what Allah, or his faithful, will or are doing to the Kafir. It is not pretty.

All translations from the Koran are bolded and are from quran.com using the Sahih International translation (not the most forceful of the various English translations- Yousef Ali is often preferred by Moslems on that account).

Religion is only "for Allah", implying that the justification for violence against others is mere unbelief.
8.39 And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

In other words, the Kafir must pay a special tax- the jizya- both willingly and while they are humbled. Moslems have figured out imaginative ways to ensure they are humbled). I would call that "subjugation and enslavement". By the way, while slavery on earth is perhaps tolerated in the canon of Christianity, it is explicitly endorsed in Islam. Sex slaves are highly regarded, particularly if they have blue eyes.

9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Now as you may know, the Koran is a maddening jumble (almost a stream of consciousness thing), so disorganized that it really cannot stand on its own as a religious, ethical, or legal guide. That is what the hadiths are for. So, pertinent to 9.29, I offer this, from Sahih Muslim 4294:

Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war ... when you meet your enemies who are polythesists [because of the concept of the Trinity, that often includes Christians] invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it an withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam .... if they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, sekk Allah's help and fight them.

Note the punishment is in this world, as well as the next.
3.56 And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers.

Those who do not share an Islamic faith are necessarily enemies. The attitude described here may have something to do with the murder of non-Moslems by Moslems in the West.
4:101 And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy.

If you want to be safe from Moslems, it's best to convert. By the way, this well-known "verse of the sword" quite undermines that happy narrative that the Koran only inspires violence for defensive purposes, as the Moslems to whom it was written were not under attack (had they been under attack, there would have been no waiting period, as other verses make it clear it is a duty to fight in self-defense even during the "sacred months"). But even if it were in the context of a battle, the prescription "wherever you find them" is quite open ended.
9.5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.


thereligionofpeace.com is a pretty good source of insight into Islam. I used its section on the Koran to inform my own response to you.

I could easily go on, MeAgain, but what is the point? That you ask this question tells me you have not studied the Koran or Islamic teachings. Perhaps you have learned at the feet of some imam or Islamic apologist skilled in the taqiyya (or maybe kidman, or the various other forms of deception that are so variously described in the canon of Islam). I can only speculate on your motives for asking the question you did, and I'm better off not going there. But I think, given all that has been written on this subject in the past twenty years, you simply do not wish to know.

 

Fine. I hope you recognize, though, from the sources I quoted that my usage isn't idiosyncratic. Like most religions, Buddhism comes in several varieties. On the one hand, there is Theravada and on the other Mahayana--and then there are Vajrayana, Nichiren, and Zen. There is also, as in most religions, a gap between the religion of the theologians and the religion of ordinary adherents.

Transcendence means "beyond or above the range of normal human experience". Prajna (discernment, insight, wisdom, enlightenment), at the heart of Buddhism, is a form of transcendence of self and worldly concerns. Wisdom will emerge if your mind is pure and calm. The enlightened realm of bodhisattva is about a form of transcendence in losing self and connecting with the rest of existence. Some Buddhists aren't afraid to use the label for Buddhism. Transcendent Life Condition Buddhism Creeds are simply core beliefs. While Buddhism is against dogma and is far less adamant about creeds than Christianity, it has core beliefs nonetheless: anatta (no self), dharma (cosmic principles), karma(n (moral causality), the Three Marks of Existence, the Four Noble Truths, the five Precepts, the Eightfold Path--to my knowledge there is no school of Buddhism that lacks these or rejects any of them. Rituals which are "only used as a means to attain truth" are still rituals. Belief in transcendental beings is not required of religion, although the bodhisattvas of Mahayana Buddhism come close--and of course Vajrayana has its (temporary) hells (naraka, some 18-108 of them, I believe) and devils. Although many Buddhist scholars teach these are states of mind (e.g, Vasubandhu, in the Vimasatika), Turell Wylie reports that ordinary Tibetans think they're real places.

 

Yes, there is one huge and main difference between Buddhism and Christianity. In Christianity Jesus claims to be the Son of God and you must believe in Him to be forgiven of your sins and have eternal life. Buddhism is nothing like that. Although it seems they both value kindness and compassion.

 

Normal human experience is dukka.The notion that there is no self is a belief, regardless of how Buddhists think of it.

What are they then? Facts? Mere hypotheses?

You seem to equate belief with doctrine. A statement or direction for attaining knowledge is a belief if it is accepted. Most Buddhists accept these things. Therefore they are shared beliefs. Namaste.

 

Of course Karma is a belief. That's all you ever hear "I believe in karma, do you believe in karma? Who here believes in Karma." you literally only believe or don't believe in Karma. 

Not once in this universe had anybody ever said "what do you think of the principals and philosophy in the idea of karma?" not once ever, you're lying.

You believe it or not. That's the rules.

 

I suppose you're aware there are also passages in the Bible, even the New Testament, which, if read out of context, suggest that Christianity is a religion of war.
Matthew 10:34 — “Do not think I come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”
And more:
Old Testament:
Classic: The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses | Cracked.com
And New Testament:
New Testament Cruelty
(BTW, I'm definitely not endorsing those views, just showing how the Bible can be taken out of context and portrayed as a violent, warlike book.

Like those passages from the Bible, the verses you quote from the Qu'an are best understood in historical context. They refer to situations in which Islam was under attack, through direct military aggression or persecution, and allow only defensive warfare. Aggressive wars are prohibited (Qur’an, 2:190).

8.39 And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.
Here ‘fitna’ means persecution, or oppression--of Muslims. So Muslims are allowed to fight until their enemies stop persecuting them.

9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
This passage addresses action against the Byzantine (Roman) empire, who mobilized troops to attack the Muslims. Taken in historical context, it authorizes Muslims to fight in self defense against the infidel until they are defeated and pay tribute.

3.56 And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers.
This passage says that God will punish those who disbelieve. Disbelief is mental rejection of something as untrue, in this case, the word of God. That may seem harsh to you, but I think it is also standard Judeo-Christian doctrine. (John 14:6;John 3:36; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 5:12; Acts 4:12). Many theolgians interpreting these passages think they aren't quite as sweeping as a casual literal reading would suggest. Same goes for Sura 3.56). The word kaffir means to be in denial, to be arrogant and ungrateful, not to be a non-Muslim per se. The terms kaffir (deniers) and mushrikeen (idolators) originally referred to Meccan Arabs who were persecuting the Muslims. Christians and Jews, People of the Book can attain salvation by following the teachings of their sacred scriptures which were revealed by God's prophets. “O followers of the Bible! You have no valid ground for your beliefs unless you observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you by your Sustainer!” (5:65,66,68) “Come to a common principle between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no equals with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.” (3:64)

4:101 And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy.
What is the problem here? It seems but common sense that when Muslims are traveling throughout the land at a time when they are being persecued they can shorten prayers to avoid being attacked. And were not the kaffir who had been attacking them their clear enemy.

9.5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Ah, yes. The sword verse. Does this passage approve the killing of non-Muslims anywhere at any time? Take another look. First of all, who are the polytheists? Certainly not Christians and Jews. The verse referred to those Meccan aggressors again. Taken in the context of the preceding verses, starting at 9.1., it addresses a treaty and pertains only to those who broke it. "9:2 So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers." And it explicitly states that if they repent, establish prayer, and give alms they should be allowed to go on their way peaceably. What's so bad about that?