Originally posted by rwingett There's a difference between marketing oneself and thinking it is your duty to make converts.
Do Buddhists think they have no duty to reduce the suffering of others, to show others how to reduce their own suffering? That is their message (or "Gospel" ) after all.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Do Buddhists think they have no duty to reduce the suffering of others, to show others how to reduce their own suffering? That is their message (or "Gospel" ) after all.
Originally posted by rwingett I wouldn't know. Why don't you enlighten us?
I don't know either - but I would be very surprised if Buddhists thought their sole responsibility was to themselves and they did not have a responsibility to help other human beings attain Nirvana.
Historically, Buddhism was the first major "evangelical" religion. Although it originated in India, it was a minor religion until King Ashoka converted to it in the 3rd cent. BC. During his reign, Ashoka despatched Buddhist missionaries (including his son and daughter) all over India and South-East Asia. Buddhism had become the major religion in these parts by the 4th or 5th cent. AD.
In the 7th cent., however traditional Hinduism struck back in India with the Bhakti movement (a monotheistic variant that emphasised personal devotion to God - not very different from the mendicant orders that rose in Europe in the 11th and 12th cent.). By the 12th cent., Buddhism had declined in India and Buddhist communities only existed in relatively small pockets of the Himalayas, where they continue to this day.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Is there anything about either of these that precludes one from practicing and believing the tenets of both? Can a good Chrisitan also practice Buddhism? Can a Buddhist believe in the triune God of the Bible?
I think it depends on how to you interpret Christianity and how you interpret Buddhism. I think it is possible depending on your interpretation of both. I have come across some Christian-Buddhists on a buddhism forum...
Originally posted by lucifershammer While there is a better life to come, it is not a life separated from this world - Christians believe in the literal resurrection of the body.
Does this entail that cremated people cannot enter heaven?
Does it entail that amputees will still missing limbs in heaven?
Does it entail that birth defects will persist in heaven?
If not, then you're not dealing with literal bodily resurrection.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Does this entail that cremated people cannot enter heaven?
Does it entail that amputees will still missing limbs in heaven?
Does it entail that birth defects will persist in heaven?
If not, then you're not dealing with literal resurrection.
No. No. No.
Why not?
EDIT: Resurrection of the body means that you will be brought back from death to life - body and soul. It doesn't mean your resurrected body will be identical to your body as it was before death.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Resurrection of the body means that you will be brought back from death to life - body and soul. It doesn't mean your resurrected body will be identical to your body as it was before death.
Then don't sneak in the word "literal" if what you mean is something figurative, something beyond the plain meaning of the text.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles That is, is the amputee's body resurrected? If so, it will still have a missing limb. If the body doesn't have a missing limb, it is a different body.
Does the amputee's body become a different body when his limb is amputated?
If removal of the limb does not cause the body to become another body, why does addition of the limb do so?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Then don't sneak in the word "literal" if what you mean is something figurative, something beyond the plain meaning of the text.
Look up the definition of "resurrection". The use of 'literal' here is correct.
A figurative resurrection of the body would be one where the body is non-corporeal, for instance, or where the body is "resurrected" in peoples memories etc.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles It does become a different body with removal and addition, characterized by the two bodies having a different number of limbs.
EDIT: Is it only with limbs, or with any part of the body that your argument holds?
Originally posted by lucifershammer EDIT: Is it only with limbs, or with any part of the body that your argument holds?
Are you a fan of Heraclitus?
List all of the parts that constitute your body.
List all of the parts that constitute another, possibly the same, body.
If those lists are not identical, then the bodies are not identical, for they have a different constitution. Note that identical lists are a necessary but insufficient condition for identical bodies.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles List all of the parts that constitute your body.
List all of the parts that constitute another, possibly the same, body.
If those lists are not identical, then the bodies are not identical, for they have a different constitution. Note that identical lists are a necessary but insufficient condition for identical bodies.
I don't know about Heraclitus.
Suppose I listed parts at the cellular level (X million neurons, Y million skin cells etc. with relative orientation) - would your assertion still hold?
EDIT: Heraclitus - the chap who said "You can never step in the same river twice".
Originally posted by lucifershammer Suppose I listed parts at the cellular level (X million neurons, Y million skin cells etc. with relative orientation) - would your assertion still hold?
EDIT: Heraclitus - the chap who said "You can never step in the same river twice".
Yes, my assertion still holds. Note that those things would only be in the list if you considered them as constituent parts of the body. Regardless of what you put in the list, my assertion holds. It is a formal one, with no dependence on any particular notion of the body.
16 Dec '05 13:361 edit
Buddhism - Christianity Compatibility
Back to Top