So what is your interpretation of the verse I quoted? Do you believe that every individual ever born literally lives forever? Then, there's the question of what happens to all of the many souls who are not 'saved'. Are they doomed to eternity in Hell?

I think different sects of Christianity teach different things about whether all individual souls are ultimately saved, and in those that proclaim that not all will be saved, different things are taught about what happens to the 'damned', usually either eternal torture in Hell, eternal life estranged from God or simply annihilation. Christianity is an incredibly diverse religion, but there are some central tenets that define all the sects as 'Christian'.

The other thing to consider in the context of thinking about eternal life, is that eternity is not necessarily conceived as an endless duration (this is a temporal notion); I think it is more correctly conceived as the absolute presence of all time. Of course this is profoundly incomprehensible to us, even though we may have some intuitive feeling for it.

It has become fashionable to attempt to assimilate Christianity to Eastern teaching, and I think this is profoundly wrong — John

That is how a Christian would have to see it. Part of what defines Christianity is that it is the 'one true faith'.

As someone whose spiritual formation is at the cross-roads between Christian and Eastern philosophy, I see it differently. I have a naturalistic view - that the phenomena (bad word) described in religion really do occur - so, that's not a reductive attitude. But my reading of 'truth, light, and way' is not the Jesus was the only instance, but the truth that He embodies, no matter how it appears, is the only way. It is only when it is 'made manifest' or appears in material form, that it enters into 'multiplicity' and becomes 'this religion' or 'that philosophy'.

But that attitude is itself much more 'Eastern' than typically Christian.

One of the people who inspired me during religious studies, Huston Smith, died recently. He was a lifelong Presbyterian, but

he meditated with Tibetan Buddhist monks, practiced yoga with Hindu holy men, whirled with ecstatic Sufi Islamic dervishes, chewed peyote with Mexican Indians and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath with a daughter who had converted to Judaism.

Smith immersed himself in Vedanta, Sufism and Zen, yet remained a committed Christian all his (very long) life.

The other thing to consider in the context of thinking about eternal life, is that eternity is not necessarily conceived as an endless duration (this is a temporal notion); I think it is more correctly conceived as the absolute presence of all time. — John

Agree!

When you marry, your wife is 'the one and only'. But that doesn't mean, your wife is the only wife in the Universe. X-)

That is how a Christian would have to see it. Part of what defines Christianity is that it is the 'one true faith'. — Wayfarer

When you marry, your wife is 'the one and only'. But that doesn't mean, your wife is the only wife in the Universe. X-) — Wayfarer

I think all faiths see themselves as, If not the one true faith, the most true faith. So incorporation of techniques of prayer or mediation from one faith into another is certainly not entirely ruled out, and may be efficacious, no doubt. There is a history of interfaith dialogue between Buddhism and Catholicism. Although Catholic monks may have practiced Buddhist meditation techniques, though, I am not aware of any incorporation of Christian modes of prayer or contemplation into Buddhism; but that may simply be due to my ignorance.

I have thought about this some more.

Christianity is a unique religion, that teaches the possibility of a unique relationship between truly individual souls and God through Christ, who is understood to be the one and only case of God-become-Man. — John

That is indeed what a Christian would say - this is what I was taught, in religious education. But when I asked 'what does this mean', then the answer was very similar to this:

I think different sects of Christianity teach different things about whether all individual souls are ultimately saved, and in those that proclaim that not all will be saved, different things are taught about what happens to the 'damned', usually either eternal torture in Hell, eternal life estranged from God or simply annihilation — John

Which is why I turned away from the Christian answer in the first place. As my mostly non-religious friends would say: pie in the sky when you die. I didn't quite believe that this is all it was; but I also didn't want to take what I was told on complete trust. I felt I needed to be able to know.

That isn't to say that I think Christianity is 'wrong' or that I don't believe in God. But, the point is, where the Buddha begins, is with something every single person can verify from their own experience: life is dukkha (often translated as 'unsatisfactory') - what we cherish will be lost, what we think is solid and insubstantial will end. So what is the factor in experience which gives rise to this unsatisfaction? What is the cause of this unsatisfactoriness, in the here-and-now, not in some remote period of time? What is the reality behind it?

And that's the only 'article of faith' needed in Buddhism. There is much else besides - the entire vast Buddhist tradition and history - but it begins with this observation, and invites you to come and examine it.