7
   

Buddhisms similary to Christianity.

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 12:52 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
It's very useful when condemning what someone else says to restate what they've said in a manner conducive to one's argument. The argument here is a weak one, so the misstatement is all the more crucial. The point, which is evident in what i posted, is not that there is no "excellency" in Buddhism, but that it is no greater than the excellency of any other religious group, and that this can be seen in that Buddhism does not prevent venality or criminality in its adherents any more than does any other religion. The problem i have with the prattling of Buddhists is not that they tout it's excellence, but that in so doing they ignore that the practice of Buddhism does not guarantee exemplary behavior among its adherents, any more than is the case for any other religion. Therefore, i see no basis upon which Buddhists can assert the superiority of their doctrine. No such superiority is evident in the behavior of the adherents, which doesn't differ from the behavior of the adherents of any other religious confession.

As my objection is based upon the assertion of the superiority of Buddhism by some practitioners, that there may be "excellencies" is not at issue, rather, whether or not there is evidence that those excellencies warrant asserting that it is superior. In fact, although Fil is either not honest enough or not bright enough to see it, it is plain (as clear as water) in what i posted that i am simply denying that Buddhism is spiritually superior--not that it has no excellencies.

So, in fact, whether or not Buddhism has merit is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is any justification in asserting that it is superior. Pointing out that the adherents of any belief set will assert the superiority of their point of view is not relevant, since the point of departure is not whether or not they do, but whether or not it is justified. Therefore, if one wishes to divorce Buddhism from the behavior of its adherents, to exculpate it, without a sound evidentiary basis, one can no more (and no less) do so than with any other religion.

The issue was never whether or not Buddhism is good or bad, but rather, whether or not it is better. I see no evidence presented to substantiate such a claim. It is, sadly, no surprise to me that that distinction is lost on Fil or igm. The response of igm was to demand a "debate" on whether or not Buddhism and Christianity are similar, for which he offered an argument that they are not identical, rather than whether or not they are similar.

A pathetic performance all around.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 01:03 am
@igm,
Whether or not you are wrong, you have certainly expended a lot of energy in asserting my bad character. The subject of my remarks was an allegation of spiritual superiority on the part of Buddhism. It seems that you were willing to discuss many things, but not that. I'd love to see your statistical evidence. You are only marginally more coherent than Fil when you write things such as that.

In fact, when you began prating about whether or not Buddhism or Christianity are similar, i pointed out that i was responding to another post (which i quoted). Rather than acknowledge that, you responded in this manner:

igm wrote:
I disagree… but I’m not surprised by your reply… it shows all your essential qualities and your skill in debate.


So don't attempt to suggest that you, poor lamb, were lead astray, and that i somehow cleverly lead you into flinging insults. You displayed your ability to employ snide and slighting remarks without any help from me.
Chinspinner
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 01:13 am
@maxdancona,
I hate to be rude, but people will be pointing out the differences between the reloigions and ignoring the massive similarity. Unfortunately the similarity is that it does not exist, it is make believe, it is beyond your intelligence to pretend any organised religion is real. Can we all just grow up and accept that their are not competing men on clouds ffs?
0 Replies
 
Chinspinner
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 01:17 am
@maxdancona,
I don't get it, sometimes I despair, there is no God, Jesus, holy ghost, trinity. Maybe Jesus was a historical figure, he died 2000 years ago, he stayed dead. There is no God, there is no religion, can we all just grow up? Please, it is painful to watch sometimes,,,
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  4  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 01:41 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I come from a fundamentalist Christian background. I am very familiar with the Christian world view. I never learned much about Buddhism, but I have been reading with some interest the comments about this religion here.

What strikes me is the strong similarity between Buddhism and fundamentalist Christianity (once you get past the trappings).

They both (according to posts here) deal with a truth. There are people who have the truth. There are people who don't have the truth. There is the idea of straying from the truth which causes suffering. And there is the idea that through sacrifice and meditation you can reach peace.

Religion is uniquely human. It reflects human nature and addresses human needs. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they are really quite similar. But somehow I find it amusing.



I have studied buddhism for over 15 years and I can say they are nothing a like. First of all buddhism is about transcending the self which christianity deals nothing with. You might say a christians motive is to put god before themselves but I have never found a single christian who has ever done this.

The whole moral basis for buddhism is a foundation and a starting point it is not set in stone nor does it threaten the practitioner with damnation for failure. Once you have perfected the six practices in buddhism, it no longer matters what you do because your actions will not generate karma, which is longing for existence.

Buddhist don't strive for nirvana, instead nirvana arises naturally when the perfections are complete. There is no need to want nirvana. Yet chrisitans strive for heaven and all their motivations are based off achieving it. Or better yet christians are motivated by a negative reinforcement of the threat of hell or damnation. Which buddhism lacks as well.

The whole basis for buddhism is that the idea of self is a motivational force which we take to be a substantial eternal entity. This is exactly what christians believe. They believe they are immortals who will live a second life after this one ends, by either eternal torment or eternal bliss. Buddhist do not hold this outlook, because nirvana IS extinction. It is a mind that no longer clings to becoming or striving for existence. It has given up wanting to be a being and therefore ceases to become a being.

However; this can only happen if you have perfected the wisdom which will release the mind from the strong clinging for existence. Some mistake this for being nihilistic but it's not. Buddhist don't strive to end their lives nor look at life as something to be avoided or shed. Instead they see existence as something arising from the misunderstood reality. When that reality is experienced then there is a natural letting go of craving to be reborn after this life ends.

Christians strive to exist for ever in heaven along side their family and friends with their beloved god. Buddhists don't have this mindset, so as you can see with this short explanation they are drastically different.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 05:03 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Christians strive to exist for ever in heaven along side their family and friends with their beloved god. Buddhists don't have this mindset, so as you can see with this short explanation they are drastically different.


And neither of you are going to get your hands on that precious cargo.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 07:10 am
Quote:
...is not the case that I need to make a claim for Buddhism superiority as a set of beliefs, just a case for the natural consistency and banality of such belief as a subsequent form on shared Identity principles whatever is the group in analysis, thus recognizing with serenity such claim its not being worth any particular criticism...in fact insisting in such criticism necessarily would imply, either a naive comprehension on the matter or an ulterior motive for manipulation...


...this is the centre and the heart of the matter regarding whether or not such belief which is transversal to any group or culture is in any way worth criticism...I guess some people just don´t know when to lay down their bullshit and shut up...
George
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 07:18 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...was that a "jacobin" character out of the first or the last Rocky film ?

"jacobin"?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 07:26 am
@George,
(extremists in the French Revolution)...you know perfectly what I meant George...
George
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 07:36 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
(extremists in the French Revolution)...you know perfectly what I meant George...

Not really. I didn't see how it fit the context. Still don't.
But thanks for responding.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 07:44 am
@George,
...I guess they liked to chop heads like fat kids love to eat cake and ****...worse, I think they had a problem with "fat people"...
George
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 08:00 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Ah, the guillotine as a weight-loss device.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 08:04 am
In a forum where 90% of all discussions are met with the intention of establishing some form of superiority regarding a set of beliefs, justified or not, being the protagonist of a deceptive criticism on such conduct its is very much strikingly anecdotal...a clown´s remark no less...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 09:22 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes, apparently you don't know when to lay down your bullshit and shut up. I've already dealt with your bullshit here. I don't need a flannel-mouthed, egotistical young fool like you to tell me about cultural identity. That cultural identity exists is not a reason not to subject it to criticism. Perhaps you think the bigoted, nationalistic identity of the Germans 80 years ago should not have been criticized; perhaps you feel they would be justified to resume their bigotry

I'll tell you for the last time, because i'm getting fed up with your and your high school buddy here. My point of departure is the point at which any religion claims to be possessed of a superior spirituality. At that point, they leave themselves open to criticism, and no amount of blather about cultual identities will shield them from it. When the toll of human misery is considered, which can be alleviated but isn't, then no amount of chanting and spinning of prayer wheels is worth the powder to blow all of those useless mouths to hell. I am contemptuous of such claims for that reason, and i don't give a **** whether you approve or not.

Go back to school and learn some English. What you have isn't that bad, but you attempt flights of rhetorical fancy employing terms like transversal and anecdotal when they don't fit. You're like a child that ties to run before he's learned to walk.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 10:15 am
Who said that cultural identity ideals are not to be subjected to criticism, why should n´t they ???
Cultures obviously can be judged either for the substance of its ideals, as for the routines of their practices and traditions, its all very acceptable indeed...my remark falls on the criticism upon a subsequent natural feeling of superiority that any systems of beliefs must have when to be believed at all...arguing that a system of beliefs is bad when it imply´s a pretentious sense of superiority is missing the point completely...
(its not even the case that such behaviour regarding non justified authority disputes can be cornered to Religions in particular)
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 11:54 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

I come from a fundamentalist Christian background. I am very familiar with the Christian world view. I never learned much about Buddhism, but I have been reading with some interest the comments about this religion here.

What strikes me is the strong similarity between Buddhism and fundamentalist Christianity (once you get past the trappings).

They both (according to posts here) deal with a truth. There are people who have the truth. There are people who don't have the truth. There is the idea of straying from the truth which causes suffering. And there is the idea that through sacrifice and meditation you can reach peace.

Religion is uniquely human. It reflects human nature and addresses human needs. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they are really quite similar. But somehow I find it amusing.



I have studied buddhism for over 15 years and I can say they are nothing a like. First of all buddhism is about transcending the self which christianity deals nothing with. You might say a christians motive is to put god before themselves but I have never found a single christian who has ever done this.

The whole moral basis for buddhism is a foundation and a starting point it is not set in stone nor does it threaten the practitioner with damnation for failure. Once you have perfected the six practices in buddhism, it no longer matters what you do because your actions will not generate karma, which is longing for existence.

Buddhist don't strive for nirvana, instead nirvana arises naturally when the perfections are complete. There is no need to want nirvana. Yet chrisitans strive for heaven and all their motivations are based off achieving it. Or better yet christians are motivated by a negative reinforcement of the threat of hell or damnation. Which buddhism lacks as well.

The whole basis for buddhism is that the idea of self is a motivational force which we take to be a substantial eternal entity. This is exactly what christians believe. They believe they are immortals who will live a second life after this one ends, by either eternal torment or eternal bliss. Buddhist do not hold this outlook, because nirvana IS extinction. It is a mind that no longer clings to becoming or striving for existence. It has given up wanting to be a being and therefore ceases to become a being.

However; this can only happen if you have perfected the wisdom which will release the mind from the strong clinging for existence. Some mistake this for being nihilistic but it's not. Buddhist don't strive to end their lives nor look at life as something to be avoided or shed. Instead they see existence as something arising from the misunderstood reality. When that reality is experienced then there is a natural letting go of craving to be reborn after this life ends.

Christians strive to exist for ever in heaven along side their family and friends with their beloved god. Buddhists don't have this mindset, so as you can see with this short explanation they are drastically different.

Well said! Setanta and Max seem satisfied with your argument... I'm guessing from their lack of reply. Job done! Wink
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 12:21 pm
@igm,
...I think Krumple´s remark has nothing in specific to do with what Setanta has been opposing in his criticism...he does n´t seem even interested in getting to the point where krumple is arguing from...so far, the only subtle, and yet valid point against what Setanta argued, has been presented by me...and whether he likes it or not I am sure I have a very good point in what I said...
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 01:24 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The subject of my remarks was an allegation of spiritual superiority on the part of Buddhism.


Show that Buddhism and not its adherents is alleging spiritual superiority. You seem confused about the tenets v the followers of those tenets. Do you know what you're argueing about? Is it Buddhism or Buddhists? I thought it was so called Buddhists who act in a superior way saying that Buddhism is superior, that's totally not what you are saying in your quote above (it's those that post on this site)... as per your link you sent!!!!???

You said that there is as much misery in Buddhist cultures as in any other (I paraphrase… I’ll quote if you want your post/s) and you accused me of avoided answering but I did reply and you ignored it. I said this:

igm wrote:

The Buddha said he wasn’t sure if anyone would understand his teachings and until asked several times he was determined not to try to explain them. So it’s not surprising that Buddhists find it hard to practise the deepest teachings and continue in many ways to act just like a cross-section of any population you care to name.


If the cultures still suffer the Buddha said they would until they achieve Enlightenment… so he never deceived them and if they follow the teachings then they will be freed from suffering but it is a rare event and the Buddha said so but they can gradually learn to live a life with less suffering even if they aren’t freed from it if they are unable to achieve Enlightenment. You can’t possibly say that an individual is not suffering less having practiced the Buddha’s teachings only that to you they seem to be suffering. The degree and the change in their suffering is hidden to you as it is subjective. You can only guess.

I expect you to ignore what I’ve said and come back with some sidetrack and a sprinkling of abuse …. Will you prove me wrong?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 01:50 pm
@igm,
...I would say Buddhism "alleges" itself, whatever it is, naturally...the claim of spiritual superiority cannot directly come from Buddhism but from the belief in Buddhism..."being superior" as being true it is very much the condition of believing in something as contrastant to that which you do not believe...when closely analysed the problem of non justified authority disputes its not even religion specific, rather an anthropological issue in turn, but not just that, as we could even go further down on it, concerning how systems at large are functionally disputed...although it is very true unfortunately that in the most recent years many so said science VIP´s around the world have been widely responsible for such confusion...
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2011 02:00 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
OK sure. But my point is that setanta is saying Buddhism thinks it is superior to other religions but he's was saying that his arguement was that Buddhists are saying that ... Buddhism isn't and it is also not what he was arguing about he was agreeing with max that some Buddhists on this site say that Buddhism is superior.

The tenets of Buddhism state what the Buddha said: we all have the same nature so we are all equal. Also Buddhism was so popular because it was against the 'Caste System' in India and welcomed all whatever their caste.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 10:54:12