Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Christian response to the Four Noble Truths:

1 and 2. For the Christian, this world and life is not just about suffering. It is essentially a perfect world made imperfect through human action and Original Sin. Nevertheless, both the world and life are to be treasured. While there is a better life to come, it is not a life separated from thi ...[text shortened]... represents what humanity is really about, what it really should be, what it really can and will be.

1 and 2. For the Christian, this world and life is not just about suffering. It is essentially a perfect world made imperfect through human action and Original Sin. Nevertheless, both the world and life are to be treasured. 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.

What exactly do you mean that the after life “is not a life separated from this world?“ The scripture teaches that Heaven is a much better place.

The Christian does not seek to escape his own suffering. He seeks to embrace it with Christ on the cross and sanctify it. Of course, he doesn't try to suffer unnecessarily!

The scripture tells Christians to give God their burdens, so I would have to disagree with you. Christians believe that God can alleviate their suffering and help them through their times of trouble. Since God is not a material thing, this conforms somewhat to what the Buddhists teach.

They will find Jesus in themselves - but by focusing on Jesus, not themselves. In finding Jesus they find who they really are. This was a favourite theme of JPII's. Jesus, as true man, represents what humanity is really about, what it really should be, what it really can and will be.

Jesus instructs Christians to focus on the Christ, and the Christ is in each one of us. This is similar to what Buddhists do when they meditate as I understand it.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]1 and 2. For the Christian, this world and life is not just about suffering. It is essentially a perfect world made imperfect through human action and Original Sin. Nevertheless, both the world and life are to be treasured. While there is a better life to come, it is not a life separated from this world - Christians believe in the literal resurr ...[text shortened]... s in each one of us. This is similar to what Buddhists do when they meditate as I understand it.

Actually, you are instructed to kill Buddha if you meet him "on the road."
You make your own path.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Actually, you are instructed to kill Buddha if you meet him "on the road."
You make your own path.

This doesn’t really have to do with making ones own path, it has to do with destroying the separateness that the Buddhist feels towards the Buddha.

The idea for the Buddhist is to realize oneness with the Buddha, whereas a Christian is supposed to realize oneness with the Christ.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
This doesn’t really have to do with making ones own path, it has to do with destroying the separateness that the Buddhist feels towards the Buddha.

The idea for the Buddhist is to realize oneness with the Buddha, whereas a Christian is supposed to realize oneness with the Christ.

My buddha-nature, your buddha-nature, anyone's buddha-nature is just as good as any buddha's buddha-nature.

No need to feel "oneness" with him.

😉

Originally posted by The Chess Express
The idea for the Buddhist is to realize oneness with the Buddha

This is an important error!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is an important error!

Very much so, but quantum field theories can be developed than can correct the error, just as Christ and Buddha did in non-mathematical ways.

edit-- meaning an understanding that all things , including us , are gauge-fields and the nature of communication between god and us is full of distortion caused by the imperfection of the hetrodyning of the message. Which is due to the disparity between our sharpness as opposed to god's flatness.

Originally posted by eagles54
My buddha-nature, your buddha-nature, anyone's buddha-nature is just as good as any buddha's buddha-nature.

No need to feel "oneness" with him.

😉

So we all have a Buddha nature. Like I said, one, but expressed in different ways.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is an important error!

How so?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
So we all have a Buddha nature. Like I said, one, but expressed in different ways.

Not a Buddha nature, Buddha nature. Not singular: uncountable.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Not a Buddha nature, Buddha nature. Not singular: uncountable.

I would argue that it is one expressed in countless ways. I’m not an expert on Buddhism though. This is just what I’ve come to believe based on what I’ve read.

Hinduism is another example of this. People in the west often times confuse the many “Gods” of the Hindu religion with idol worshipping or polytheism.

In fact, Hindus believe in one true God just as the Christian religions do. They just believe that God expresses himself in many different ways.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
So we all have a Buddha nature. Like I said, one, but expressed in different ways.

Buddha-nature is universal, as even a house fly "possesses" it. To realize this inherent nature, it is necessary to look within one's own mind, and nowhere else.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Very much so, but quantum field theories can be developed than can correct the error, just as Christ and Buddha did in nomathematical ways.

edit-- Which is due to the disparity between our sharpness as opposed to god's flatness.

How do these theories correct error?

Sharpness & flatness--you're not talking about singing are you.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Unless you're going to redefine "set" like you did "literal" and "body," those sets are the same. You can't even attach the indefinite article to the latter without admitting that it fully characterizes the set in question.

Unless you're going to redefine "set" like you did "literal" and "body," those sets are the same.

I redefined "body"?? You're the guy who claims amputees switch bodies, not lose limbs.

You can't even attach the indefinite article to the latter without admitting that it fully characterizes the set in question.

I can attach it to the latter just as you might attach it to the word "body" after an amputation.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That's probably because you interpret them from a certain perspective. You've never shown much aptitude for understanding Zen thinking. Why are karma & rebirth fantastic to you? There are common sense explanations for both (as well as fantastic ones to be sure).

I interpret them from the perspective in which Buddha taught them. Zen is a much later development. And, even with Zen, I'm not sure it interprets it purely from the self-help psychological perspective.

What common sense explanations do you see for karma and rebirth? And how do they relate to Buddha's teachings?

Originally posted by eagles54
Nor is this life just about suffering to buddhists.

Dukkha is the Pali word wrongly translated as "suffering." It is more closely related to the word dis-ease or unsatisfactoriness.

Buddhists I know are quite well-adjusted, loving, caring people. They are certainly not of the mind that life is only suffering.

Also (to address anothe ...[text shortened]... for the benefit of all beings, without exception. Hardly individuals of self-interest, I'd say.

'Dukkha' means deep sorrow or suffering. And it is definitely not just unsatisfactoriness.