Buddhism and Christianity
-
http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/buddh_christ.htm
Quite an interesting read:
It says:
"....But I hope we have heard the last of the muddled discontent of worldly people, who curse the Church for not saving the world that did not want to be saved, and are ready to call in any other theory against it - even the wild theory by which the world would be destroyed."
I dunno this guy was known as "The Apostle of Common Sense" haha.....
The Theologian
"You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true - then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true."
G.K. Chesterton
Daily News December 12, 1903 -
You don't start new thread can die issit?
-
(continued)
It is no disgrace to Christianity, it is no disgrace to any great religion, that its counsels of perfection have not made every single person perfect. If after centuries a disparity is still found between its ideal and its followers, it only means that the religion still maintains the ideal, and the followers still need it. But it is not a thing at which a philosopher in his five wits has any reason to be surprised. As a matter of fact, it would be much more reasonable to use this taunt against the irreligious who use it than against the religious against whom it is used. It is the very people who use it most, the secularists and humanitarians who really do go in for promising millenniums of peace and plenty It is the novelists and essayists of the sceptical school who announce at intervals the War That Will End War, or the World State that will impose universal peace. Christianity never promised that it would impose universal peace. It had a great deal too much respect for personal liberty. The sceptical theorist is allowed to throw off Utopia after Utopia, and is never reproached when they are contradicted by the facts, or contradicted by each other. The unfortunate believer is alone always made responsible, and held to account for breaking a promise that he never made. -
u r here!!! good good!!!Originally posted by casino_king:You don't start new thread can die issit? -
I have this feeling Laoda wants to take over my CRO self-appointed title.
-
no la...i am just bored....u can continue be the CRO when i go back study...Originally posted by Icemoon:I have this feeling Laoda wants to take over my CRO self-appointed title.
once I go back study, I will disappear from here for three months.... -
what is CRO?
i dont know, but its good to increase rankings but have everyone fight over like mad meh? -
Chief Recreation Officer? That's the case, I think laoda is doing a good job..... basically a whole bunch of "crappy" threads... no hard feelings laoda...Originally posted by laurence82:what is CRO?
i dont know, but its good to increase rankings but have everyone fight over like mad meh?
I am wondering how you can sustain till Aug? Oh I forgot, there's the Bangkok trip. Pick some interesting hobby lah..... -
then rename Eternal Hope to Tour forum liaoOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Chief Recreation Officer? That's the case, I think laoda is doing a good job..... basically a whole bunch of "crappy" threads... no hard feelings laoda...
I am wondering how you can sustain till Aug? Oh I forgot, there's the Bangkok trip. Pick some interesting hobby lah.....
anyway, we got Singaporean Overseas forum, nice forum -
From laoda99's website:
In what respect is Buddhism, which has looked on at all the Asiatic fighting for four thousand years, any more successful than Christianity, that has barely looked on for two thousand?
But it is a Fact that Buddhism is the only religion that is devoid of religious wars in history.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" -
But some at least of the disciples of the great Gautama interpret his ideal, so far as I can understand them, as one of absolute liberation from all desire or effort or anything that human beings commonly call hope. In that sense, the philosophy would only mean the abandonment of arms because it would mean the abandonment of almost everything. It would not discourage war any more than it would discourage work. It would not discourage work any more than it would discourage pleasure. It would certainly tell the warrior that disappointment awaited him when he became the conqueror, and that his war was not worth winning. But it would also presumably tell the lover that his love was not worth winning; and that the rose would wither like the laurel. It would presumably tell the poet that his poem was not worth writing; which may (in certain cases needless to name) be indeed the case. But it can hardly be called an inspiring philosophy for the production of good poems any more than bad
This kind of interpretation is more like Nihilism, which is absolutely against what Buddhism teaches.
What does Buddhism teach?
Pls read: http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol6no2a.htm
Seize The Day
In the Noble Eight-fold Path[1] taught by Buddha, the Right Action[1] advocates practitioners of Buddhism to pursue all that are virtuous with zeal and a commitment to progress. Such should be the correct attitude whether in our career or in pursuit of the ultimate truth. The following short story may help to illustrate Buddha's teaching more clearly.
Early one morning Buddha and one of his chief disciples, Ananda, set out from Jetavana to seek alms. They came to the city of Sravasti. As they entered the city gate and were walking along a path by the city wall, they saw an aged couple.
Their backs were crooked and they could neither straighten themselves nor move about. They were dressed in rags, appearing unhygienic and well worn with age: frail, toothless, grey hair, hard of hearing and poor eyesight. They lived next to a pile of rubbish by the derelict wall of a sleazy alley. They crouched close to each other, facing a small fire for warmth. With eyes only for each other, they resembled a pair of old swans that cannot bear to part.
The Buddha turned his head and asked Ananda, "Did you see that aged couple by the wall and the warmth of the burning cow dung?"
Ananda replied, "World Honoured One, I see them."
The Buddha continued, "If this old couple had been determined and diligent when they were young and strong, regardless of the nature of their work as long as it is legitimate, perhaps at this age they are already amongst the wealthiest class of people in Sravasti. On the other hand, if they had chosen to renounce their worldly life to learn and cultivate the right path with diligence, perhaps they would have already attained the Arhat [2] by now.
Even if they were not that determined when they were young, but are ambitious and diligent only at a later age and they work with the Right Action, perhaps they are already amongst the second wealthiest class of people in Sravasti. Similarly, if on the other hand, they had chosen to renounce their worldly life to learn and cultivate the right path with diligence, perhaps they would have already attained the Anagami [2].
Worse still, should they only realise about diligence and progress when they are already at their middle age, and only then began to work with the Right Action, perhaps they are already amongst the third wealthiest class of people in Sravasti. If they had chosen to renounce their worldly life to learn and cultivate the right path with diligence, perhaps they would have already attained the Sakrdagamin [2].
However, they did none of the above. Instead, they spent their life times loving and possessing each other, and wasted the most useful time of their lives. That is why today they are helpless and have no way out of their predicament. They live in poor conditions, are penniless and there is nothing that they can do. For them it is a living death, having to face the retribution of their own doing, and nobody took any pity on them. What meaning is there in a life like this?"
In order to encourage people not to fall into the same predicament, the Buddha said, "Ananda, always remember to advise and guide people:
In youth, be determined, diligent, and thrifty and strive to acquire knowledge.
Maintain a mind that is distant and unchained from desire and be focused on building a career during the prime of life.
In middle age, realise a stable career that is based on diligence, zeal, progress and Right Action.
Always use the wealth meaningfully to benefit self and others.
Do not wait till old age and rely on the people's benevolence like the aged swan."
The above incident demonstrates the compassion of the Buddha in caring for sentient beings and encouraging people to be determined in striving for progress, regardless of whether one is concerned with building a career, or one who has renounced the worldly life to learn and cultivate the right path. His only wish was for all sentient beings to be distant from suffering and attain happiness in life.
Notes:
[1] Noble Eight-fold Path:
1. Right Speech
2. Right Action
3. Right Livelihood
4. Right Effort
5. Right Mindfulness
6. Right Concentration
7. Right Views
8. Right Thought
[2] The four stages in Hinayana sanctity:
- 1st stage - srota-apanna
- 2nd stage - sakrdagamin
- 3rd stage - anagami-phala
- 4th stage - arhat, the highest stage -
Absolutely the author of the website has no real knowledge about Buddhism - just as most of the other apologetic articles on Buddhism coming from Christianity which I have seen so far.
-
Chief Ratings Officer.Originally posted by laurence82:what is CRO?
i dont know, but its good to increase rankings but have everyone fight over like mad meh? -
haha...dun take it so hard la....i accidentally come across one....anyway he is a catholic....Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Absolutely the author of the website has no real knowledge about Buddhism - just as most of the other apologetic articles on Buddhism coming from Christianity which I have seen so far. -
yah .. good that you pointed it out.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Absolutely the author of the website has no real knowledge about Buddhism - just as most of the other apologetic articles on Buddhism coming from Christianity which I have seen so far.
-
i think cannot....eyes very tired....haizzz..not much hobbies...my camera lying inside dry box...thought of going out...but going out means spending $$$Originally posted by Chin Eng:Chief Recreation Officer? That's the case, I think laoda is doing a good job..... basically a whole bunch of "crappy" threads... no hard feelings laoda...
I am wondering how you can sustain till Aug? Oh I forgot, there's the Bangkok trip. Pick some interesting hobby lah.....
it is too expensive to go out...my ezlink card minus very quickly.... -
Its ok heheOriginally posted by laoda99:haha...dun take it so hard la....i accidentally come across one....anyway he is a catholic.... -
BBC Website says: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/christianity.shtml
Historical note
The Christian view of war has changed throughout the history of the faith.
The early church (the first 300 years) was strongly pacifist. Origen said that Christians "do not go forth as soldiers". Tertullian wrote "only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword." Clement of Alexandria wrote "...he who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God."
This changed rapidly in the time of Constantine - the Council of Arles in 314 said that to forbid "the state the right to go to war was to condemn it to extinction", and shortly after that Christian philosophers began to formulate the doctrine of the Just War. (Read more about the history of this doctrine)
For many centuries Christians believed that it was right and proper to use violence (and thus war) to spread the faith and deal with its opponents. They did not regard violence as an inherently bad thing: whether it was bad or not depended on what it was being used for.
This thinking is covered under holy wars - the main examples of which, for Christians, are the Crusades.
From Constantine onwards Christian writers and preachers have used warlike and soldierly metaphors in their writing about the faith.
The idea that violence is not inherently bad can also be seen in some versions of the Just War doctrine - violence (war) can be a vital tool in restoring justice and peace. -
Hmm .. you are in NIE getting your diploma in education?Originally posted by laoda99:i think cannot....eyes very tired....haizzz..not much hobbies...my camera lying inside dry box...thought of going out...but going out means spending $$$
it is too expensive to go out...my ezlink card minus very quickly....
Mai siao siao .. NIE allowance is people's starting salary liao .. so how poor can you be? -
very little....me now no-pay leave....haizzzzOriginally posted by Icemoon:Hmm .. you are in NIE getting your diploma in education?
Mai siao siao .. NIE allowance is people's starting salary liao .. so how poor can you be? -
Not so glamourous past....always digged out by critics...haizzz....
BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/holywar.shtml#christianity
The Crusades
The great series of western holy wars were the Crusades, which lasted from 1095 until 1291 CE. The aim was to capture the sacred places in the Holy Land from the Muslims who lived there, so it was intended as a war to right wrongs done against Christianity.
The first Crusade was started by Pope Urban II in 1095. He raged at the capture of the holy places and the treatment given to Christians, and ordered a war to restore Christianity. He said that the war would have the support of God:
"Let this be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!"
"...Whoever shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast."
The pope also absolved all who took part in the crusade of all their sins.
The first Crusade captured Jerusalem after bitter fighting, and the residents of the city were brutalised and slaughtered by the Christian invaders. The invaders' conduct breached the principles of modern just war ethics, and the massacres still colour Islamic politics today. -
can the BBC website be trusted? It says:
Buddhism and violence
But Buddhism, like the other great faiths, has not always lived up to its principles - there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war.
in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters
In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:
"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."
In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives. -
Hmm... I am not for the notion that Christianity should be pacifist...
Peaceful yes,... but pacifist? I am not entirely sure of that notion. Seems to me to come from a materialist ethic in which pain and death are the greatest evils... which they certainly are not. -
A religion of true peace that has never advocated any violence in its name.
.
Therefore I guess violence is a art form only..I thot the best kong-fu exponents came form Shuang Lim Temple... oxymoronic? -
A religion of true peace that has never advocated any violence in its name. .
Is that a certainty?
Or a pacifist notion?