Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

signoregalilei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#201

Post by elwell »

gsky wrote: post #196
elwell wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds more like the "scribes and Pharisees" that Jesus preached against : "They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. ...they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But yo…

He was born to a virgin and you expect us to believe that fairy tale.

Not without reason. I believe it, in view of the entire context.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#202

Post by 3m4r »

geye1234 wrote: post #200
3m4r wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Christianity is not 'a syncretic import from the east'. One way we know this is by looking at its differences with eastern ideas. What would first-century Christianity make of the denial of diachronic identity (the self is an illusion), or the denial of the idea that God is personal? You're still doing the exact same thing. "Eastern ideas" is a leaky set and faulty abstraction. You have pointed to no actual bounded…

>>Christianity is not 'a syncretic import from the east'. One way we know this is by looking at its differences with eastern ideas. What would first-century Christianity make of the denial of diachronic identity (the self is an illusion), or the denial of the idea that God is personal? > You're still doing the exact same thing. "Eastern ideas" is a leaky set and faulty abstraction. You have pointed to no actual bound…

I think I've used enough of my time and more than illustrated my original points.

I wish you well, and hope your faith grows to be as secure as St. Thomas Aquinas's before his death and not as Bellarmine's during his life.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#203

Post by geye1234 »

3m4r wrote: post #202
geye1234 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Christianity is not 'a syncretic import from the east'. One way we know this is by looking at its differences with eastern ideas. What would first-century Christianity make of the denial of diachronic identity (the self is an illusion), or the denial of the idea that God is personal? > You're still doing the exact same thing. "Eastern ideas" is a leaky set and faulty abstraction. You have pointed to no actual bound…

I think I've used enough of my time and more than illustrated my original points. I wish you well, and hope your faith grows to be as secure as St. Thomas Aquinas's before his death and not as Bellarmine's during his life.

Yep likewise, wish you well. (And what do you expect of a Jesuit? :) )

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#204

Post by geye1234 »

danans wrote: post #183
geye1234 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but that proves nothing. The fact that human beings who profess religion R engage in behaviour B does not imply that B results from said profession of R. But I think you'd struggle to argue that the caste system doesn't result from Hinduism.

> But I think you'd struggle to argue that the caste system doesn't result from Hinduism. The "Hindu" caste system results from the history of social hierarchy in the Indian subcontinent. What you are calling "Hinduism" is a relatively recent construct that has emerged as a response to religions with more centralized/uniform doctrines and institutions. There are belief systems categorized under this "Hinduism" label…

True, I was speaking loosely, but that doesn't affect the point. If you change my statement to 'the caste system results from some belief systems categorized under the Hindu label' then the original point (which is that you find enormous differences resulting from different belief system) stands.

The existence of caste systems outside Hinduism doesn't change this either.

Some objects are red in and of themselves, while others can be made red by something outside them. Likewise, some beliefs cause people to act in certain ways, while other people may act in the same ways tangentially to, or even despite, their belief.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#205

Post by oska »

3m4r wrote: post #202
geye1234 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Christianity is not 'a syncretic import from the east'. One way we know this is by looking at its differences with eastern ideas. What would first-century Christianity make of the denial of diachronic identity (the self is an illusion), or the denial of the idea that God is personal? > You're still doing the exact same thing. "Eastern ideas" is a leaky set and faulty abstraction. You have pointed to no actual bound…

I think I've used enough of my time and more than illustrated my original points. I wish you well, and hope your faith grows to be as secure as St. Thomas Aquinas's before his death and not as Bellarmine's during his life.

As an interested reader and not participant in this discussion, thanks for taking the time. I found what you had to say above informative.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#206

Post by oska »

geye1234 wrote: post #174
anon291 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically stick to monasticism because Christianity is the odd one out of all the abrahamic religions in advocating for monasticism, and monasticism started in Egypt which had significant enough presence of Buddhists. As far as I am aware, Christianity is the only non Indian religion to advocate for monasticism or asceticism. It's really only Jainism and Buddhism that advocate for it other than Christianity (Hin…

Thanks. Very briefly, I haven't commented on Buddhism or the Buddha's teaching at all (except to agree with the other guy's claim that the Buddha engaged with many philosophies), and have been very careful to avoid doing so. My beef is specifically with the claim that Christianity is syncretic, and with the unsaid implication in the OP that all religions basically teach the same thing.

> and with the unsaid implication in the OP that all religions basically teach the same thing

I read the entirety of 3m4r's posts in that thread and nowhere did I see any hint of such an implication

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#207

Post by KK7NIL »

graemep wrote: post #187
KK7NIL wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically this was the result of the fact the church predates modern communications. It was not possible for a Pope to direct things That's not really accurate. All bishops were essentially "autocephalus" in antiquity. Whether they could even be removed by a council of other bishops was something that was really not resolved for many centuries. There were many occasions of competing councils declaring each other…

You are right and that history is another reason: the starting point was that. However, even when popes started claiming greater authority there was a practical constraint on centralisation.

Your theory seems to be that the speed of information significantly increased the power the pope can wield and this is what allowed for the centralization of power.

I don't think the historical record shows that. The speed of information changed little from the time of the Nicean council to the council of Trent, yet the primacy of the pope was very much established by the latter, even if it was only formalized in the 1st Vatican council.

Even to this day church politics plays out over many months and years (just look at the recent SSPX situation which was a slow-mo train wreck), the speed of information doesn't seem very significant.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#208

Post by joquarky »

kshri24 wrote: post #55
dyauspitr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think anything assimilates religions better than Hinduism. New belief system? Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on.

> Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on. Except for it's never done. No Hindu believes Allah or Jesus is an Avatar of Vishnu. It can't be. Vishnu literally means the "All-Pervading One". Allah is explicitly not Omnipresent. Jesus is Omnipresent but does not have infinite forms. So neither fit the bill. Even Buddha, who we Hindus associate as one of the Avatars of Vishnu is not the same Bu…

You're trying to apply logic to religion.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#210

Post by geye1234 »

oska wrote: post #206
geye1234 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Very briefly, I haven't commented on Buddhism or the Buddha's teaching at all (except to agree with the other guy's claim that the Buddha engaged with many philosophies), and have been very careful to avoid doing so. My beef is specifically with the claim that Christianity is syncretic, and with the unsaid implication in the OP that all religions basically teach the same thing.

> and with the unsaid implication in the OP that all religions basically teach the same thing I read the entirety of 3m4r's posts in that thread and nowhere did I see any hint of such an implication

I should have been clearer, I was referring to the blogpost as "OP", not to 3m4r.
Post reply on HN