Buddhism and Christianity
-
No doubt, Buddha set an example by being a man of peace, and Buddhism holds the best track record of being a peaceful religion, however, as other forummers have wrote, there were "violence" committed by buddhists (which has resulted in deaths of innocent people). I can see no difference between this "violence" committed by buddhists and war committed by people in the name of God, becoz any death resulted from "violence" is also bloodshed. It does not mean those who committed violence are any better than those who shed blood in the name of god. And I disagree that God-centred religions are any less humanistic than Buddhism.
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
Ok pls let me make tis clear [b]God-centred religions are founded on the God idea.Insofar as they place God first, they cannot really give the highest priority to life. A religion that teaches that God created man, can at best claim by that fact that human life is precious above all else.Whereas for buddhism is life-centred religion.A truly humanistic religion, one that really cares for mankind and the world.Indeed, only a life-centred religion can be truly environment-friendly and compassionate to all beings.Only a life-centred religion can be truly tolerant of others.
since you ask so do let me cite a different attitude between christianity and buddhism towards wars
The Bible tells us that there is a time for hate and a time for war (Ex 3:8 and it is widely recognized today that those great evils depend upon each other. As we have seen, God is quite capable of hatred and, not surprisingly is therefore often involved in war.
The Lord is a man of war (Ex 15:3).
The Lord your God is in your midst, a warrior who gives victory (Zeph 3:17).
The Lord goes forth like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his fury, he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against the enemy (Is 42:13).
When I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders (Deut 32:41-42).
For centuries Christians have been inspired by these Bible passages, which encourage and even glorify war, to use violence to spread their religion. Even today there is a distinctly militaristic flavour about Christianity. The Salvation Army with its motto "Blood and Fire"; the hymns that speak about "Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war"; the saying "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition", etc. The Bible contains dozens of examples of God helping his devotees to capture cities, slaughter civilian populations and defeat armies (for example Num 21:1-3, Num 31:1-12, Deut 2:32-34, Deut 3:3-7, Josh 11:6-11, etc.). Concerning captives in war God says:
And you shall destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God gives over to you, your eye shall not pity them (')eat 7:16).
When the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them you must utterly destroy them and show no mercy to them (Deut 7:2).
What was the Buddha's attitude to war? There is no example of the Buddha ever praising war, encouraging war, or going to war himself. On the contrary, he urged all to live in peace and harmony and is described in this way:
Re is a reconciler of those who are in conflict and an encourager of those who are already united, rejoicing in peace, loving peace, delighting in peace, he is one who speaks in praise of peace (Digha Nikaya, Sutta No.1).
He set an example by being a man of peace
Abandoning killing, the monk Gotarna lives refraining from killing, he is without stick or sword, he lives with care, compassion and sympathy for others (Digha Nikaya, Sutta No.1).
The Buddha was not content with merely speaking in favour of peace or with being peaceful himself. He actively promoted peace by trying to stop war. When hi relatives were about to go to war over the waters of the Rohini River, the Buddha did not take sides, urge them on, give them advice on tactics, or tell them to show no mercy to their adversaries, as God would have done. Instead he stood between the two factions and said, "What is more valuable, blood or water?" The soldier replied, "Blood is more valuable, sir." Then the Buddha said, "Then is it not unbecoming to spill blood for water?" Both sides dropped their weapons and peace was restored (Dhammapada Atthakata Book l5,l). The Buddha had put aside hatred and filled his mind with love and compassion, so approving of war was impossible for him.
"Though in their ignorance many will curse and
abuse us and beat us with swords and staves; we will endure it all."
--Lotus Sutra: 13
"Repeatedly shall we be driven out and exiled afar from our monasteries. Such evils will be our ills for remembering the Buddha's command, but we will endure all these things."
--Lotus Sutra: 13
May they know what they did were wrong
May they be truly awakened to loving-kindness & compassion one day
[/b] -
As you said, committed by so called 'Buddhists', not in the name of Buddha or an act recognised in Buddhism.Originally posted by laoda99:No doubt, Buddha set an example by being a man of peace, and Buddhism holds the best track record of being a peaceful religion, however, as other forummers have wrote, there were "violence" committed by buddhists (which has resulted in deaths of innocent people). I can see no difference between this "violence" committed by buddhists and war committed by people in the name of God, becoz any death resulted from "violence" is also bloodshed. It does not mean those who committed violence are any better than those who shed blood in the name of god. And I disagree that God-centred religions are any less humanistic than Buddhism.
I think there is a need to discern between what the faith requires, and what the members of the faith actually do. -
We are evaluating the ethical principles behind the respective religions, not the people who practise these religions.Originally posted by laoda99:No doubt, Buddha set an example by being a man of peace, and Buddhism holds the best track record of being a peaceful religion, however, as other forummers have wrote, there were "violence" committed by buddhists (which has resulted in deaths of innocent people). I can see no difference between this "violence" committed by buddhists and war committed by people in the name of God, becoz any death resulted from "violence" is also bloodshed. It does not mean those who committed violence are any better than those who shed blood in the name of god. And I disagree that God-centred religions are any less humanistic than Buddhism.
As for God-centered religions, ethics and morals are what that God define it to be. Hence you implied previously that if I commit genocide I am wrong, but if God commits genocide, or commands His followers to commit genocide, then it is ok.
You see the problem there? I dunno about you, but right now the word "Dogmatism" is staring right at my face... -
If the ethical principles behind a god-centered religion is genocide, how can that god-centered religion members perform good/loving deeds?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:We are evaluating the ethical principles behind the respective religions, not the people who practise these religions.
As for God-centered religions, ethics and morals are what that God define it to be. Hence you implied previously that if I commit genocide I am wrong, but if God commits genocide, or commands His followers to commit genocide, then it is ok.
You see the problem there? I dunno about you, but right now the word "Dogmatism" is staring right at my face...
However, if a so-call life-centered/humanistic religion which centered around love/kindness, but its members still commit acts of "violence", then I think the members have not really learn anything from their enlightened teacher.
Come on, nobody's perfect. It is the people who try their best keep to their faith and do what is right that makes the faith really shine, same for both in Christianity and Buddhism. If we want to say one religion is more humanistic than the other, then it is more often we fall to egoism, which I think Buddha will want all of us to avoid. -
Originally posted by laoda99:
I did not say that the ethical principles behind a god-centered religion is genocide. I am just saying that its that God who defines the ethical standards. For these monotheistic religions, the ethical standard is to shower love and compassion onto those who submit to that God, and to persecute those who do not.
[b]
If the ethical principles behind a god-centered religion is genocide, how can that god-centered religion members perform good/loving deeds?
b] -
Are u being persecuted by anyone practicising monotheistic religions?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I did not say that the ethical principles behind a god-centered religion is genocide. I am just saying that its that God who defines the ethical standards. For these monotheistic religions, the ethical standard is to shower love and compassion onto those who submit to that God, and to persecute those who do not. -
You are again confused between the teachings of a religion and the people who practice that religion.Originally posted by laoda99:Are u being persecuted by anyone practicising monotheistic religions?
The fact that I am not 'persecuted' by followers of mono-theistic faiths does not mean that that mono-theistic faith does not teach its adherents to persecute non-believers.
...As a matter of fact, I did get harrased by your co-religionists throughout by life. See my post in the folliowing thread
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=173291 -
Hmm...my argument is .....if the teachings of a religion is bad....can pple who practice that religion turn out good?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:You are again confused between the teachings of a religion and the people who practice that religion.
The fact that I am not 'persecuted' by followers of mono-theistic faiths does not mean that that mono-theistic faith does not teach its adherents to persecute non-believers.
...As a matter of fact, I did get harrased by your co-religionists throughout by life. See my post in the folliowing thread
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=173291
As I have said, there are good and bad hats in a religion. It is unfortunate u are harrassed by " my co-religionists ". Should I apologize on their behalf? And persecution, is too strong a word to be used for the " harassment " u face from these people. " My co-religionists " will never be able to convert u if u do not wish to.
Are u a teacher btw?
And if I am not wrong, Buddhism forum promote ecumenism between religions, regardless whether they are monotheistic/life-centered/watever. And I think clinging to the fact that a religion is more humanistic than the others is in fact egoism, and is contrary to teachings of Gautama Buddha. We all have some things in life which we must reflect upon ourselves. -
To the best of my knowledge, I never said that Christianity is “bad”. I am just questioning the propriety of the god-centered ethics set out in the religion. Christianity clearly has its merits, but it also has its share of ethical problems, and these ethical problems are independent of the practitioners of Christianity.
Can people who practice a religion turn out to be good if the teachings of that religion are bad?
John Rabe was a Nazi. Adherents of the Nazi ideology held that the Aryan race was superior to other races, and they promoted Germanic racial supremacy to the extent of “cleansing” the world of lesser races. Yet, at great personal risk to himself, Rabe saved countless Chinese from being slaughtered during the Nanjing Massacre in WW2.
So the answer to your question is: yes, people who practice a religion can turn out to be good even if the teachings of that religion are bad, and vice-versa. Also, the only reason I am only harassed and not persecuted, is that we live in a modern secular world, and therefore are direct beneficiaries to the separation of the state and church doctrine, not to mention also the protection accorded to me by the State, who goes out of its way to ensure racial and religious harmony in a country with a such a multi-cultural, multi-racial demographics like Singapore.
… and no lah, I don’t expect you to apologize on behalf of your co-religionists. I never believed in accountability by proxy in religion anyway… though it will be nice if Christians can refrain from lambasting all other religions all the time… I know this probably won’t happen, since it is in the core Christian teaching for followers to “bear fruit” for their Lord... speaking of which, my HOD sincerely "advised" me to enrol my children in Bible studies just yesterday
You must first bear in mind that I am not proclaiming the superiority of Buddhism over Christianity just by expressing doubts on certain ethical aspects in Christianity. If you read my other posts, I also express doubts on certain aspects of BuddhismÂ….Originally posted by laoda99:And if I am not wrong, Buddhism forum promote ecumenism between religions, regardless whether they are monotheistic/life-centered/watever. And I think clinging to the fact that a religion is more humanistic than the others is in fact egoism, and is contrary to teachings of Gautama Buddha. We all have some things in life which we must reflect upon ourselves.
...But it will be nice too if the rest of the Christians can agree with you about proclaimning the superiority of one's religion as egoism.
Lastly, …..No lah… I am not a teacher… “ink” not enuf, and my England oso not powderful enuf. -
'Living Buddha' is not a literal term.Originally posted by laoda99:"The censored publicity materials at the Yale University Press website describe a book telling "the unexpected story of (King Bhumibol Adulyadej's) life and 60-year rule — how a Western-raised boy came to be seen by his people as a living Buddha...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej
It can be used to mean someone very respectable.
In Buddhism, we do not recognise any Buddhas - up until the next Buddha Maitreya, which we will never see in our lifetime. -
All religions are equal in front of Singapore Constitutional Law. And everyone has the every and very right to profess in their faith.
Buddhism is one of the most peaceful religion in the world. In the eyes of Buddha, whether a person is Buddhist or Christian or from other faith - all are Buddhas. I also strongly believed that in the eyes of Jesus, every body regardless of race and religion, are His children. I really like what Gandhi had said - "God has no religion". In my opinion religions are just labels.
They are many things we can learn from each other, and there are many honourable establishments by Catholics/Christians/Hindus/Islam/Buddhist and others - eg like "World Vision" etc
So let us all continue to enjoy peace and harmony.
Nevertheless, I do hope that Christian evangalist can be more sensitive and respectful of other faiths. Honestly, I was quite uncomfortable when they came knocking on my door previously. -
Hmm...i think there is some misunderstanding here.ok so let me do some clarification here.Let me repeat my point that a truly humanistic religion, one that really cares for mankind and the world(all living beings), is a life-centred religion. Our global society now realizes that human life,indeed all life and nature, are interdependent. This is called interbeing, a word coined by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk living in France.What we do ultimately affects the whole universe around us.
Indeed, only a life-centred religion can be truly environment-friendly and compassionate to all beings(not only human but all beings).A religion that teaches that God created man, can at best claim by that fact that human life is precious above all else
Another example,pples do good becos their gods say so becos of the reward of something in return (eg heaven)or becos they will be punished(eg to hell)they place God first, they cannot really give the highest priority to life.
whereas in buddhism We do good not because we can use this as a bargain to go to heaven. We do good not because we are afraid of being punished to hell. We do good because this is what we are. We do good because we are happy to do so We do good because we have loving-kindness and Compassion This is what we really are and this is wat Buddha has made us realise.
As i have said a good christian is a good buddhist vice versaOriginally posted by laoda99:Hmm...my argument is .....if the teachings of a religion is bad....can pple who practice that religion turn out good?
As I have said, there are good and bad hats in a religion. It is unfortunate u are harrassed by " my co-religionists ". Should I apologize on their behalf? And persecution, is too strong a word to be used for the " harassment " u face from these people. " My co-religionists " will never be able to convert u if u do not wish to.
Are u a teacher btw?
And if I am not wrong, Buddhism forum promote ecumenism between religions, regardless whether they are monotheistic/life-centered/watever. And I think clinging to the fact that a religion is more humanistic than the others is in fact egoism, and is contrary to teachings of Gautama Buddha. We all have some things in life which we must reflect upon ourselves.
so let us not judge a religion by those who fail to practise it.
May all be happy
-
So far they haven't knocked on my doors.. but thats probably because I don't live in HDB. What church are they from?Originally posted by concerned_man:All religions are equal in front of Singapore Constitutional Law. And everyone has the every and very right to profess in their faith.
Buddhism is one of the most peaceful religion in the world. In the eyes of Buddha, whether a person is Buddhist or Christian or from other faith - all are Buddhas. I also strongly believed that in the eyes of Jesus, every body regardless of race and religion, are His children. I really like what Gandhi had said - "God has no religion". In my opinion religions are just labels.
They are many things we can learn from each other, and there are many honourable establishments by Catholics/Christians/Hindus/Islam/Buddhist and others - eg like "World Vision" etc
So let us all continue to enjoy peace and harmony.
Nevertheless, I do hope that Christian evangalist can be more sensitive and respectful of other faiths. Honestly, I was quite uncomfortable when they came knocking on my door previously.
-
The difference is - for the Buddhists, the fault entirely lies on the individual - whether for personal reasons or political reasons.Originally posted by laoda99:No doubt, Buddha set an example by being a man of peace, and Buddhism holds the best track record of being a peaceful religion, however, as other forummers have wrote, there were "violence" committed by buddhists (which has resulted in deaths of innocent people). I can see no difference between this "violence" committed by buddhists and war committed by people in the name of God, becoz any death resulted from "violence" is also bloodshed. It does not mean those who committed violence are any better than those who shed blood in the name of god. And I disagree that God-centred religions are any less humanistic than Buddhism.
Buddhism will not allow any violence for its cause.
-----------------------
My previous post on EH:
Buddhism does not use violence to spread faith and deal with Buddhism opponents.Originally posted by laoda99:hmmm.....but i really cannot see any difference from the wars caused by Buddhism and Christianity.....
Well
There was never a RELIGIOUS CAUSE for violence caused by Buddhist.
It is always personal/political reasons.
Even in Crusades, the Pope has justified the war under the name of God, and that they were fighting for Christianity.
There was never a war under the name of Buddhism or Buddha.
In other words, there was no wars caused by BUDDHISM
See my previous post:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism" -
In return why not sincerely "advised" ur HOD to enrol her children in dharma courseOriginally posted by Beyond Religion:… and no lah, I don’t expect you to apologize on behalf of your co-religionists. I never believed in accountability by proxy in religion anyway… though it will be nice if Christians can refrain from lambasting all other religions all the time… I know this probably won’t happen, since it is in the core Christian teaching for followers to “bear fruit” for their Lord... speaking of which, my HOD sincerely "advised" me to enrol my children in Bible studies just yesterday -
Yes and i think tis is what all of us r trying to explain to laoda99.Until the 15th century Christianity was largely confined to Europe. After this, European armies spread throughout the world forcing their religion on the people they conquered. In most conquered countries (e.g. Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Taiwan and parts of India) laws were passed banning all non-Christian religions. By the late 19th century brute force was no longer used to enforce belief but, under the influence of the missionaries, colonial administrators tried to hinder non-Christian religions as much as possible. Today the spread of Christianity is supported by lavish financial assistance which missionaries get largely from the U.S.A. So Christianity has spread not because of its inherent superiority but because of violence in the past and wealth today.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buddhism has always been less aggressive than Christianity. This has meant that its influence on society has been subtle, less noticeable and even perhaps less dynamic than it should have been. On the other hand it has also meant that the witch hunts against heretics, the persecution of non-believers, and the bloody religious wars which have marred Christian history have been rare or absent in Buddhism. -
revenge is sweet hor.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:In return why not sincerely "advised" ur HOD to enrol her children in dharma course -
wat do u mean?It a win win situationOriginally posted by Ito_^:revenge is sweet hor. -
bull lor. its an insult to you as to her.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:wat do u mean?It a win win situation 
-
wat do mean? Don't u think it good to able to learn both ?Nowsaday we oso need talents tat learned at least two languagesOriginally posted by Ito_^:bull lor. its an insult to you as to her. -
Afraid Ito is right... it will not be a win-win situation. For a start, that might be a career limiting move on my part.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:wat do u mean?It a win win situation
Also, if I go down that path it might spark off a lively religious discussion, which is highly inappropriate in an office environment.
So I chose to shrug it off... -
ok anyway thinking of sending ur kids to dharma class?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:Afraid Ito is right... it will not be a win-win situation. For a start, that might be a career limiting move on my part.
Also, if I go down that path it might spark off a lively religious discussion, which is highly inappropriate in an office environment.
So I chose to shrug it off... -
I most certainly will!Originally posted by neutral_onliner:ok anyway thinking of sending ur kids to dharma class? -
BBT Sunday SchoolOriginally posted by Beyond Religion:I most certainly will! 
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
It's obvious that some of these war creators decided that they will interpret the buddhst orders in their own context to justify their personal gain. We must never recognise these people as teachers or dharma propagator.
All those are not [b]religious wars but violence caused by some Buddhists.[/b]