You can be a Buddhist and a Christian

This. If I were the Buddhist supreme authority I'd forbid westerners, specially Americans, specially if they use drugs, to convert. They ruin everything.

Buddhism doesn't really have a god so it doesn't break the "no god but me" rule like other religions.

Major metaphysical and philosophical differences exist at the most rudimentary basics of Christian and Buddhist doctrine. The most glaring red flag is Christianities goal of oneness with the Father versus a Buddhist's goal of Nirvana.

While this is kind of true (although I would be more pregnant and say: the Christian goal of eternal, material life vs. the Buddhist goal of spiritual self-annihilation), it's only true if you just consider a very early and pure form of Christianity.

By the process of blending with Stoizism during the process of becoming Roman state religion Christianity changed heavily. It becomes evident if you take a look at the Epikureans - while they sympathised a lot with Christianity at the time the "Acts of the Apostles" took place, they became kind of an antagonist later on and were even seen the way modern Christians see Satanists.

Stoicism on the other hand has quite some overlaps with Buddhism. And since it influenced Christianity that much, you can find those overlaps there, too.

*"pregnant" - I meant: "concise"

>eternal, material life
Christianity is anti-material. Even beyond that, It's brother Gnosticism which liberally phases into Christianity is about as anti-material as you can get.

In it's very early form, it's not - that's the joke; it's the stoic (yes, and also Gnostic) influence which made it anti-material.

One of the Christian goals is physical resurrection; I say it again physical (!!!) resurrection. Which is consistent since there is no concept of an immaterial afterlife in Judaism. It's even questionable if the Jews had a concept of an immaterial soul. Soul and blood (physical blood) are kind of identical (although it's not clear if they are actually identical or if the blood is just the carrier of the soul).

>material
that's not what early Christianity is about at all. Again, yes there are similarities in the way the 2 religions teach people to behave, and Stoicism is a good example of that, but that does not make them compatible.
The religions have different explinations of the fundamental nature of reality, so it's impossible to believe both of them at the same time. ASnd even if they you somehow coerced the 2 differeing worldvies into the same framework, Christians would still be seeking oneness with God, and Buddhists would still be seeking nothingness. American """Buddhists""" can claim they believe both, but if you get into precise details they almost always don't believe either one.

>In it's very early form, it's not - that's the joke; it's the stoic (yes, and also Gnostic) influence which made it anti-material.
wat. I've never even heard this idea before, how the hell are the first disciples of Christ, who glorified his death, materialist?

He's right that Christians believe in a physical resurrection but with glorified bodies that resemble Christ body after his Resurrection. It's more like having Angel bodies than human bodies.

Yep, I totally agree with that (besides the part about materialism of course, although I agree it's not the best word to describe it, since "material" has some unintended connotations), I just wanted to point out, there are quite some similarities.
"Quite some similarities" on the other hand are enough for most "religious" people nowadays, since their religious views and knowledge oftentimes isn't deep at all, and a lot of them tend to believe in a patchwork religion made by themselfes, while they ignore anything but the very surface of a religious tradition.

>literal physical incarnation of God born from a literal physical womb who gets literally physically resurrected

>anti-material

"no"

>glorified body
>materialism
NO

>material body
>anti-material

WAT?

>wat. I've never even heard this idea before, how the hell are the first disciples of Christ, who glorified his death, materialist?

Depends on your interpretation of the afterlife.

Are you rewarded with something in the after life or are you just made content with the glory of god?

I'm pretty sure most American protestants are materialists and make Luther roll over in his grave.

But if we are talking about early Christianity before the Romans got a hold of it, I would say it was not that materialistic.

The afterlife is a physical resurrection into a new heavens and new Earth that are untainted by sin. Christianity has always affirmed the importance of the material world because it is central to incarnation theology. Just like Jesus Christ Himself, Christianity is a fusion of the earthly with the heavenly.

Not true. Most early Christians were hell bent on matyrdom and ending their physical existence as soon as possible. There were cults that basically would attack Roman soldiers with clubs in order to be killed with their swords. Obviously it didn't last that long, but early Christians were less concerned about materialism than modern ones.

To be fair, most modern Christians think heaven is a physical place with post scarcity where they watch foot ball on their million inch plasma tv and eat infinite pork grinds without ever getting full.

I think I see what you're saying now. As said, I'm not sure about the term "materialist", but yes glorified bodies are a big deal in Christianity.

Jesus Christ is the measure for Christian conduct and there have always been heretics. The behavior you're describing was not universal within the church and has no scriptural foundation so it cannot be used to characterize Christianity as a whole. The scriptures are clear that the material world is fundamentally good (The Father Himself said so in Genesis).

Actually you can call yourself whatever you want.

You can be a Christian and not believe in God.

yeah, you can use words in a way that differs from their universally accepted definition. I can say "I'm a teapot" if by "teapot" I mean self-loathing faggot, and it will be correct. But nobody will know what the fuck I'm talking about, and that's a terrible way to use language. By "Christian" most people mean follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. By "Buddhist", most people mean follower of the teachings of Gautama Buddha. Those teachings are incompatible.

You can't be a Christian, in the way that most people mean the word, and not believe in God, since Jesus Christ was very explicit in teaching about God the Father. You can use a different definition of "Christian", but that would be stupid. And I just realized that you are being stupid on purpose. 10/10 bait, I fell for it.

We're talking about very elaborated philosophical conceptions here, but early Christians were pretty simple men; I mean, the apostles were fishermen, they didn't have a philosophical eduaction at all and I doubt they had a clear idea about the materiality or immateriality of their afterlife. Although I'm pretty sure the original Christian idea about afterlife is a material one, I doubt this question was of much importance to the disciples of christ. After all it took until the 17th century (Leibniz, Descartes and the English philosopher I don't remember the name right now) until the concept of an immaterial soul was well thought out.

The disciples of Christ didn't glorify his death, they glorified his resurrection.

>Most early Christians were hell bent on matyrdom and ending their physical existence as soon as possible.
Well, but that doesn't include any hint if they thought their "reward" was a physical afterlife or an immaterial one. And as said, it wasn't a universal behaviour within early Christianity.

To be honest, I used the word "material" just to build a contrast to the word "spiritual" and to flesh out the altering influence of Stoicism on Christianity.

There may have been cases of Buddhist-Christian syncretism in the Silk Road regions.

>glorified body
>same as a purely material body
uhhhh what's that, sweety?

Every religion is syncretic (pure religions only exist as theoretical constructs) and Christianity isn't the neatly defined conceptual construct we like to pretend it is. For example Christian Gnostics very much identified as Christians. Nothing prevents the organic synchronizing of Buddhist and Christian ideas except your own hang ups.

I think we're getting caught up on the word "material". Glorified bodies are probably not entirely spiritual, but no one here (I think) would say they are entirely material.
Buddhism is anti-material, but it's also anti-everything. The goal of nirvana is to cease any kind of existance.

Also I know Orthodoxy involves matching your essence/energy with The Father, so I don't know if the Orthodox Church believes in the Glorified body. I just know Catholics do.

I think, the basic difference between Buddhism and Christianity is the moral valuation of existence: Buddha says existence is fundamentally bad - Christianity says existence is fundamentally good but tainted by sin. That's absolutely incompatible, theoretically. Nevertheless Buddhism and Daoism mixed as well and generated Zen, which is at least as strange as a potential mixture of Buddhism and Christianity. But as said >Every religion is syncretic

One of the problems in this discussion is the ambiguity of the word "materialism". In a strictly philosophical sense it means: "consistent of matter" - nothing more, nothing less. But nowadays there are other denotations like "capitalistic" in the sense of "you give - you get".
and
obviously use the word in the strictly philosophical sense
seems to denotate the "capitalistic" meaning, too.

>Buddhist and a Christian
"NO"

>I think, the basic difference between Buddhism and Christianity is the moral valuation of existence

No. The basic difference is knowing that Christ is God Incarnate, Whom became man to save us and allow us Salvation. No re-Incarnation, not loops, no negativity or nihilsm, but the Glory of God and that we may be with Him in His Kingdom.

>83
>Also I know Orthodoxy involves matching your essence/energy with The Father, so I don't know if the Orthodox Church believes in the Glorified body.

You're thinking Theosis, or becoming as God intended us to be, before we fell. "God became Man, so that Man might become as God". Not becoming "A god" like Mormons believe, but being human fully with the God in all our being, as Christ was - sinless.
Fully Man, as intended. Body and Spirit, that is the Resurrected Man.

Hope that makes some sense, it's a huge subject and should be the focus of our lifes, as it will result from a life lived for the glory of God, as the Saints do.

>you will be reincarnated

No. Rebirth isn't reincarnation. Buddhism teaches you don't even have an actual self for the duration of the given current human life you think belongs to you, and the same is true for previous and subsequent lives. There's a causal relationship between the end of the one life and the beginning of another, not a reincarnation of some continuous self thing like Hinduism teaches.

Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy... Understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times.

Plato, Apology of Socrates: An Interpretation with a New Translation

>No re-Incarnation

There's no reincarnation in Buddhism either.

I won't offend you, but you seem to misunderstand this discussion: it's not about personal believe, it's a metadiscussion about the compatibility of Christianity and Buddhism.
I won't discuss your personal believes - that doesn't make any sense at all; what is discussed here is: are there structural barriers both of them can merge or aren't there?

Christianity teaches pre-existence though.

>I would also venture to make a suggestion. In the concluding paragraph you seem to dissuade the reader from the belief in reincarnation. I do not know whether (if it is not impertinent on my part to mention this) you have specially studied the question. Reincarnation or transmigration is a cherished belief with millions in India, indeed in China also. With many one might almost say it is a matter of experience, no longer a matter of academic acceptance. It explains reasonably the many mysteries of life. With some of the passive resisters who have gone through the gaols of the Transvaal, it has been their solace. My object in writing this is not to convince you of the truth of the doctrine, but to ask you if you will please remove the word "reincarnation" from the other things you have dissuaded your reader from.

>As regards rebirth I, for my part, shall leave out nothing; for, as it appears to me, the belief in a rebirth will never be able to strike such deep roots in and restrain mankind as the belief in the immortality of the soul and the faith in divine truth and love; of course I would accommodate you, if you so desire, to delete those passages in question.

en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Correspondence_between_Tolstoy_and_Gandhi

>I won't offend you, but you seem to misunderstand this discussion: it's not about personal believe, it's a metadiscussion about the compatibility of Christianity and Buddhism.
>I won't discuss your personal believes - that doesn't make any sense at all; what is discussed here is: are there structural barriers both of them can merge or aren't there?

Ah, well, in that case: the absolute belief and faith in Christ as God Incarnate, as I wrote. The belief and faith in God, the One, Living God.
I'd imagine that would be the stumbling block for a Buddhist.

I'm up for the parameters of your discussion as an Orthodox Christian. Not looking to debate either. state the hiccups a Buddhist might have and I'll discuss Orthodoxy in response, per your criteria mentioned.

>Christianity teaches pre-existence though.

Yes, but that God is timeless, always, before creation, outside of it but He is also within His creation everywhere, filling all things. Is that what you're getting at?

>Gandhi
Into the trash it goes

I mean Pre-exist of man. We exist before we enter our bodies.

Will you not allow that I have as much of the spirit of prophecy in me as the swans? For they, when they perceive that they must die, having sung all their life long, do then sing more than ever, rejoicing in the thought that they are about to go away to the god whose ministers they are.

en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates

>mean Pre-exist of man. We exist before we enter our bodies.
We do not. Each of us is a blessing and miracle, never to be repeated again. It is the sanctity of a human life. The soul is not eternal but is created as part of creation. Only the Holy Trinity is pre-creation.

I don't know why you'd want to, but for the sake of argument I'm pretty sure I could come up with an interpretation of both that don't contradict each other.

>God created the universe
>Buddhism doesn't contradict this because the Buddha explicitly declared he would not answer the question of how the universe came into being or whether it was eternal or not; his concern was purely on solving the problem of suffering and he didn't believe that question furthered anyone towards resolving that problem

>Original sin happened and man went from an idyllic state to a troubled one
>The Pali Canon teaches that life is out of balance

>Jesus was God's son come to Earth to help save man from sin
>The Jātaka tales are a part of the mainstream Buddhist Pāli Canon and feature compassionate gods coming to Earth to help save man in similar ways

>Christianity teaches the importance of faith
>Buddhism warns against doubt as one of the five hindrances to right mindfulness (right mindfulness being one of the eightfold path presented as the path leading to the cessation of suffering)

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Karl Marx

>Buddhism doesn't contradict this because the Buddha explicitly declared he would not answer the question of how the universe came into being or whether it was eternal or not; his concern was purely on solving the problem of suffering and he didn't believe that question furthered anyone towards resolving that problem
It would though, since God created all, and the reason for suffering is sin, or falling away from God.

>The Jātaka tales are a part of the mainstream Buddhist Pāli Canon and feature compassionate gods coming to Earth to help save man in similar ways

Can't "merge" this. Christ is God, there is One God, three persons of one essence. Christ isn't God in the form of a man, but is fully God and fully Man. The Word (Logos), which is eternal since He is. Look carefully, no other world religion has God becoming man.

>Christianity teaches the importance of faith
Indeed, faith is key. Not faith in self, not faith in harmony, or nature, but in God.

The six lower realms are Hell, Hunger, Animality, Arrogance, Humanity and Rapture.[3] These six lower worlds arise automatically from within people’s lives in response to external surroundings. Three of the four remaining worlds are: Learning, Realization and Bodhisattva. These worlds are developed through seeking, discovering and aspiring. The tenth world, Buddhahood, is a condition of pure, indestructible knowledge.

If I do not go to the hell to help the suffering beings there, who else will go? ... if the hells are not empty I will not become a Buddha. Only when all living beings have been saved, will I attain Bodhi.

>the reason for suffering is sin, or falling away from God

That still works. See Ephesians 4:18.

>They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

Buddhism teaches that suffering has ignorance as a requisite condition. Suffering can be synonymous with sin and falling away from God and you get the same idea.

>Christ isn't God in the form of a man, but is fully God and fully Man

That's semantics.

>no other world religion has God becoming man

Buddhism does. In fact it teaches divisions of name and form and identity are all ultimately conditions with a requisite cause of ignorance, so everyone and everything are both God and not God.

>Not faith in self, not faith in harmony, or nature, but in God.

Christianity holds that God is everywhere and in everything.

Jeremiah 23:23–24:

>Am I only a God nearby,’ declares the Lord, ‘and not a God far away? Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him’ declares the Lord. ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

>If I do not go to the hell to help the suffering beings there, who else will go? ... if the hells are not empty I will not become a Buddha. Only when all living beings have been saved, will I attain Bodhi.

Christ did, broke the gates of He'll and freed those who desired to repent and turn to God.

>That still works.
I'm saying that it directly has to do with the beginning of Creation, as it was without sin.

>Buddhism teaches that suffering has ignorance as a requisite condition. Suffering can be synonymous with sin and falling away from God and you get the same idea.

Ignorance of God, perhaps. But one can be fully aware of God, yet suffer and choose to sin, hence turning from God. Hence, ignorance isn't required for sin.

>That's semantics.
Not at all. I can sculpt a marble statue of a man, but that doesn't make it a man.

>
Buddhism does. In fact it teaches divisions of name and form and identity are all ultimately conditions with a requisite cause of ignorance, so everyone and everything are both God and not God.

Then that is polytheism, since there is but One God. God is not divided, but is One God, three persons of one essence, distinct but not separated, all at once. Not like a mask then another mask, not modal. I am not God, nor my couch, nor Satan, nor the god of Islam. We will never be God, but can be as God through theosis and reaching as close as we can to how He intended us, prior to the Fall. Christ revealed this fully to us, as God Incarnate. For us and His love for us, he emptied Himself of His glory, magnificence, and became fully man and fully God. He knew all our suffering without sinning, was humiliated, crucified, yet loving unconditionally.

>Christianity holds that God is everywhere and in everything.
Yes.
>Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Who is everywhere and filling all things. Treasury of good things and Giver of Life, come and abide in us and cleanse us of every sin, and save our souls, oh Good One

.

>freed those who desired to repent

I guess that's an important distinction. Bodhisattvas don't give up just because some of the people they're trying to save don't desire to repent. They remain in the world of suffering until literally every last living being has been saved.

>I'm saying that it directly has to do with the beginning of Creation, as it was without sin.

I don't see how that's a conflict with anything.

>one can be fully aware of God, yet suffer and choose to sin, hence turning from God. Hence, ignorance isn't required for sin.

I don't see how anyone would knowingly choose to subject themselves to pain and suffering. That sounds like the sort of thing you could only do if you were ignorant about the consequences of your actions.

>I can sculpt a marble statue of a man, but that doesn't make it a man.

Making a statue of a man isn't the same thing as a man putting himself into the form of a statue. You argued God taking the form of man wasn't the same as someone being both God and man, not that a man shaped to resemble God wasn't the same as someone being both God and man. Your statue analogy maps to a man shaped to resemble God, not to God taking the form of man.

>Then that is polytheism

It isn't because there is no actual division in name or form in reality. Just because you see lots of copies of yourself when looking at a couple of bathroom mirrors places on either side of you doesn't mean there's actually more than one person there.

Glad we are staying civil.

>I don't see how that's a conflict with anything.
I thought I read that the beginning of creation didn't matter regarding suffering? I stated the opposite, which would be in conflict with the Buddhist position, if I'm understanding it correctly.

>I don't see how anyone would knowingly choose to subject themselves to pain and suffering. That sounds like the sort of thing you could only do if you were ignorant about the consequences of your actions.

Everyone does it daily, even those farther on their path of Theosis. Do you think of sex with some chick you see, even a minute? As Christ said, it is then adultery, that lust. Do you feel anger, hatred, pride? Perhaps over a friend, family, or a stranger? Slandering them? Yet you believe in God, right? No ignorance, yet making the choice to do the above. Sinning against God, we never have the excuse of ignorance. However, we have the choice always of sincere repentance, as God will never reject a humble and contrite heart.

>Making a statue of a man isn't the same thing as a man putting himself into the form of a statue.
Christ wasn't in the form of a human, He is fully Human. There is a very big difference.

>You argued God taking the form of man wasn't the same as someone being both God and man, not that a man shaped to resemble God wasn't the same as someone being both God and man. Your statue analogy maps to a man shaped to resemble God, not to God taking the form of man.
My bad, bad analogy. Still, it is as stated above, and I think you get the difference as well from what you write.

>It isn't because there is no actual division in name or form in reality. Just because you see lots of copies of yourself when looking at a couple of bathroom mirrors places on either side of you doesn't mean there's actually more than one person there.

But we aren't just reflections, but each our unique person, made in God's image, but not God. We do not become God, nor "a god".

Same user, Orthodox Christian.

>It isn't because there is no actual division in name or form in reality. Just because you see lots of copies of yourself when looking at a couple of bathroom mirrors places on either side of you doesn't mean there's actually more than one person there.

What do you mean by "name" and "form". We will always be created beings, but our struggle to God, towards God and with love as He willed always, will take use to be as we are meant to be: With Him, eternally, in mutual love and within and for His Glory.

>I thought I read that the beginning of creation didn't matter regarding suffering?

It's more that the details of the universe's origin are something Gautama Buddha didn't think people would benefit from speculating about. By analogy, if an arsonist starts a fire in your house, he would of course be very important to the problem of your house being on fire; he'd in fact be the principal cause of that problem. But at the same time, the Buddha would see you in that burning house and would yell at you to get out, and if you hesitated and starting asking questions about how the fire began, he'd tell you that you need to focus on getting out right now rather than answer your questions even if he knew who the arsonist was.

>Yet you believe in God, right? No ignorance, yet making the choice to do the above.

That's a pretty narrowly defined sense of "ignorance." Just because you believe in God (i.e. aren't ignorant of his existence) doesn't mean you consciously decide to do things that will make you end up in Hell. Nobody would voluntarily say "yes, I would like to subscribe to the eternal pain and suffering route." There's still ignorance there or else you wouldn't do those things which lead to that route, or at least wouldn't do those things without sincerely repenting afterwards.

>But we aren't just reflections, but each our unique person, made in God's image, but not God. We do not become God, nor "a god".

One thing all varieties of Buddhism would agree on is that there isn't such thing as a permanent / continuous self. No I, me, or mine. There are Christians who share in that sort of view:

>You my mind, are not mine: you were given me by God. Neither are the powers active within me -- will, with its energy -- mine... And I myself belong not to me, but to God.
Combattimento Spirituale (1589), Lorenzo Scupoli

>What do you mean by "name" and "form".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namarupa

Zen Gnosticism is the only path to enlightenment.

Harrowing of Hell.

>Buddhism teaches you don't even have an actual self for the duration of the given current human life you think belongs to you
Oh yeah, i just remember something that has always bugged me.
If that is true, who or what is getting enlightened?