Essentially, a simple comparison fails short to capture the relations these - and all other religions - have. Aside from maybe scientology, I don't think there's any religion that hasn't been influenced by some other school of religion.

If you want to get "theologically serious" about this, you'll want to look at a couple different points of origin and track them historically to see how they influenced each other and progressed along the way:

1. Ancient Mesopotamian Culture telling old stories, taking drugs and singing songs (Sumerian Myths), turning to a vast body of Jewish scriptures (Tanach), turning to a cult following of a Guru figure (Jesus), turning to humanitarian doctrine (Christianity).

2. Ancient Indus Valley Civilization telling old stories, taking drugs and singing songs (Vedas),
turning to a vast body of Vedic scriptures (Hinduism), turning to a cult following of a Guru figure (Gautama), turning to humanitarian doctrine (Buddhism).

3. The syncretion of the two in Greco-Roman culture within the context of previous influence by other systems (most prominently; Egyptian)

I’m going to need a stronger argument to be convinced of their compatibility.. Can any of you provide a stronger argument for how someone could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? — tryhard

However, to answer your question, there's no need to become "theologically serious". They are compatible simply by not excluding each other. A practicing Buddhist checks all the boxes of a virtuous Christian, all the while making little to no assumptions or claims about God. Rather than providing a "strong argument" for why they would be compatible, what is a single argument that they wouldn't be?

A Christian's journey ends in paradise; A Buddhists journey does not. Christian morality is Kantian-like (the decalog); Buddhist morality is utilitarian + Kantian (you're permitted to harm one to save the many, but you still incur a karmic debt to the one you off). There's more, but I'm all out.

Given the stark differences between the religions, I’m going to need a stronger argument to be convinced of their compatibility.. Can any of you provide a stronger argument for how someone could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? — tryhard

Not at the same time. I've known a few self-styled "Christian Buddhists". It seems that the way they made them "compatible" is that they simply took from each religion what they liked, and rejected the rest. Where they felt Christianity was lacking, they added Buddhism (meditation), and where they felt Buddhism was lacking, they added Christianity (a definitive stance on who gets saved and who doesn't).

Fundamental to such ecclecticism is the conviction that by picking and choosing as one pleases, one can still patchwork together an effective program for happiness. I suppose this is very ego-affirming, and that's why people do it.

Firstly, thank you for your response. I appreciate the perspective you offered regarding the stories to rituals to script to guru to doctrine model that most religious developments seem to follow. It definitely seems like there are parallels between the development of Buddhism and Christianity in terms of this. I also agree that, in general, Buddhism and Christianity seem to have similarities in terms of their influence in the East vs the West, and it’s certainly likely that religious schools have influenced each other throughout their progression into commonly held belief systems.

A practicing Buddhist checks all the boxes of a virtuous Christian, all the while making little to no assumptions or claims about God. Rather than providing a "strong argument" for why they would be compatible, what is a single argument that they wouldn't be? — Hermeticus

In response to your reply, it does seem like a practicing Buddhist has similar characteristics and acts in similar ways to express virtue to the ideal Christian. However, it seems like Christian doctrine excludes participation in the Buddhist belief system. If Christianity does exclude its followers from pursuing the Buddhist journey, an argument against Buddhist-Christian compatibility might look something like this:

1.Christianity holds that the only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ
2.The Buddhist path to salvation doesn’t include Jesus Christ
3.For Christians, the Buddhist path won’t lead to salvation.
4.Therefore, Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible.

My worry is that it seems like Christianity’s necessary condition for salvation is through Jesus Christ, which would restrict Christian from participating in the Buddhist path - even if the paths do lead to similar ends. If you were to meet a Buddhist and a Christian out in the real world, the two may act in similar ways, expressing similar values and getting along with each other. Although the fruits of their spiritual labor may appear similar, if Christianity requires belief in Jesus Christ for salvation alone, it seems like the two would be pursuing similar ends but for quite different reasons. It doesn’t seem like a Buddhist could be a Christian but not the other way around - do you have any suggestions on how this difference could be remedied? Thanks

My worry is that it seems like Christianity’s necessary condition for salvation — tryhard

Not all Christian traditions are concerned with crass notions of salvation. There are some much more mystical theological expressions such as the Apophatic tradition.

I wouldn't be worried. Religious syncretism is as old as humanity.

Hello TryHard, you have made some very interesting points in your post. However, I couldn't help but notice the lack of acknowledgement you have for Judaism. Within itself, in comparing Buddhism and Christianity, one is unable to without fully also considering the philosophies and traditions behind Judaism, as well as the Old Testament. In regards to the old testament, there would be much more difficulty reckoning Buddhism's philosophy of metta (unlimited love) with the concept of a wrathful, angry God. Although I do believe Jesus could himself be a Buddhist, I do not believe the average Christian would find Buddhism compatible. While it is, in theory, the same philosophy, especially in regards to Jesus's life and actions, I feel as if Christianity in America tends to be pretty exclusionary and tends to discount the similarities of other beliefs.

All spiritual paths have the same kernel of truth. Tat tvam asi. Religions are imperfect vehicles to realise this and most people don't, because the religious tend to be exclusivist and ritualistic. However even in Christianity you can find the less trodden path and often ignored ones, like Maister Eckhart: "The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love." It's the Atman knowing Brahman in the Hindu tradition. Even Buddhists practice bhakti, devotion to God, as do all other religions.

Thank you for your responses. To conclude, it seems like the general agreement is that while there are many shared components of Christianity and Buddhism, a rigid traditionalist in either religious path would find the other incompatible. The differences between the core beliefs, requirements, and practices of each religion are too distant - sometimes even contradictory. The gap between world views is too extreme, causing problems for premise 4 of the first argument:

If two religions have the same end, they can be practiced together — tryhard

However, Baker’s remark seems most compelling

the conviction that by picking and choosing as one pleases, one can still patchwork together an effective program for happiness — baker

The pick-and-choose approach to religion may cause issues for traditionalists, but why shouldn’t religion be approached in this way? To determine the most effective vehicle for religious fulfillment, one should be proactive in exploring different perspectives from around the world and from various periods of human history. How else are we to know which approach is most relevant to our own experiences of the world?

In this sense, a Christian can employ methods encouraged by the Buddhists while maintaining the elements of their own faith that they admire. Perhaps Buddhism can offer the Christian unique and practical advice regarding the nature of the mind and how best to respond to it; advice on an issue that the Christian may not have as direct of an acknowledgment towards in their own religious texts.

My primary worry with the pick-and-choose method of compatibility is that it seems to suggest that religious truth is simply what seems most agreeable to the individual. I could imagine someone choosing to have faith in the forgiveness aspect of Christianity as an excuse for immorality with lesser consequences, while choosing the individualist aspects of Buddhism that seem to suspend judgment of right and wrong onto the world.

Ultimately, the pursuit of religious truth is up to the individual. In this sense, picking-and-choosing pieces of information that seem most justified and crafting our own relationship to religious ideas is the only sensible approach to any pursuit of knowledge. We must consider different views, evaluate the evidence, and emerge with a redefined perspective of the world. With this, I see little danger given that the individual’s pursuit is truly based in reasoning rather than convenience.

The pick-and-choose approach to religion may cause issues for traditionalists, but why shouldn’t religion be approached in this way? — tryhard

Normally, religions work by the principle "Do x to get y." Ie. religions make promises, they make predictions as to what you will get if you put in the required effort.

For someone who picks and chooses in terms of religion, all this goes out the window, or at the very minimum, they have no guarantees that those who follow the traditional recipe have.

To determine the most effective vehicle for religious fulfillment, one should be proactive in exploring different perspectives from around the world and from various periods of human history.

"Effective" in what sense?

Effective in the sense that a particular idiosyncratic ecclectic mixture provides the greatest ego boost for some person?

How else are we to know which approach is most relevant to our own experiences of the world?

Religion/spirituality might actually have no bearing on what is most relevant to a particular person's experiences of the world. People differ from one another.

My primary worry with the pick-and-choose method of compatibility is that it seems to suggest that religious truth is simply what seems most agreeable to the individual.

Not only that; the ecclectic approach suggests that the purpose of religion is indulging one's ego. And what is more, indulging one's ego as it currently is, when it's still unenlightened.

Ultimately, the pursuit of religious truth is up to the individual. In this sense, picking-and-choosing pieces of information that seem most justified and crafting our own relationship to religious ideas is the only sensible approach to any pursuit of knowledge. We must consider different views, evaluate the evidence, and emerge with a redefined perspective of the world. With this, I see little danger given that the individual’s pursuit is truly based in reasoning rather than convenience.

Sure, it seems inevitable that we do this. But what justification do we have to call this "religion" (or "spirituality")?

Can any of you provide a stronger argument for how someone could be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? — tryhard

It’s possible that a person could find both significantly meaningful. The only requirement of a successful religion is that people find it meaningful. The problem with this theory is that an individual who could find both meaningful would have to be rather independent and the nature of religion is anti-independent. The very concept of a ‘heretic’ is testament to this fact. Heretics help to reaffirm the meaningfulnesses of a religious affiliation by distinguishing the other.