Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not — Ross

So I have known Christians and Buddhists who were both obsessed with fool's gold. In the former, salvation in the latter, nirvana/enlightenment. Both spawned distorted, narcissistic expressions of their faith that seem obsessed with status.

However I would argue that there are many Christians who do not have a focus on salvation. This tends to be most acute in some forms of Protestantism.

I don't know if you answered the central question in my thread which was that Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not. It focuses on overcoming suffering and achieving happiness in THIS world not some kind of eternal Bliss in another world, which Nietszche criticizes Christianity especially for, it's turning away from this life. Marx also attacks religion, (and I'm sure he had Christianity in mind) for it's false promises of happiness in the hereafter as a way of ignoring the suffering and plight of the oppressed in this life. In my opinion Buddhism differs , firstly it does not believe in a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him . — Ross

I thought the central question was about wisdom, but okay.

I disagree that the central focus of Christian teaching is salvation, although I acknowledge this is nevertheless a focus common to many, if not most, Christian religions. And I also acknowledge the criticisms by Nietzsche and Marx in reference to Christianity as an institutional religion. If you’re comparing the original teachings of Buddhism to the religion of Christianity, then I’d agree with you wholeheartedly.

But Jesus never spoke of “a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him”, so I think this is a misguided interpretation. Instead, he spoke of a personal relation beyond physical existence, through which he perceived and sought to understand a potential in himself that transcended his own life, and with it this apparent need to avoid suffering and death. And his life’s example explicitly did not ignore the suffering and plight of the oppressed in this life.

The teachings of Christianity are surrounded by a lot of noise. When you strip back the theological base of Judaism and all the political mess that followed, I think the original teachings are not so dissimilar from those of Buddhism - which I’m not sure is about ‘overcoming’ suffering or ‘achieving’ happiness, but more about recognising the capacity within us to manage both in this life.

practical wisdom in either Buddhism or Christianity (as in any philosophical approach to life) strives for an interactive balance between logic, quality and energy. So you won’t notice it unless you’re looking for it.
— Possibility

I'm afraid I don't understand this point. — Ross

I do think that Buddhism brings the possibility of an eternal source (energy) to balance the human experience of suffering and desire towards interconnectedness (logic) and enlightenment (quality). And, by the same token, I think that Christianity at its core brings the possibility of perfect relation or ‘Logos’ (logic) to balance the human experience of power (energy) and difference (quality) with a perception of potential and diversity. But that’s just my own interpretation.

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. — Ross

What use is a philosophy when living by it makes you a loser?!

However I would argue that there are many Christians who do not have a focus on salvation. This tends to be most acute in some forms of Protestantism. — Tom Storm

That's because they take for granted that they will be saved.

It's only the few scrupolous Roman Catholics who live in fear of messing up their one and only chance who care about salvation.

You may have a point there but do consider "gutters" and prisons" metaphorically. — TheMadFool

No, literally. If poverty would in and of itself be a virtue, then gutters and prisons should be full of good, morally upright, even enlightened people.

In a religious context, poverty is a virtue only to some extent for the clergy, but not for laypeople.

What use is a philosophy when living by it makes you a loser?! — baker

Ask Jesus. You're on a first name basis with him, aren't you?

In my opinion Buddhism differs , firstly it does not believe in a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him . — Ross

Buddhism is far too versatile to make generalized claims of this sort.

For example, the Pure Land Buddhists, a major school of Buddhism, believe in salvation by a higher being.

I don't know if you answered the central question in my thread which was that Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not. It focuses on overcoming suffering and achieving happiness in THIS world not some kind of eternal Bliss in another world, — Ross

What is that, if not salvation?


Also, the majority of practicing Buddhists (ie. those in Asian countries) probably don't focus much on nirvana, but just on getting a good rebirth.

- - -

I don't think Buddhism has one official book like the Christian Bible. It is not an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but is like philosophy where anyone can make an argument for this or that, and if is liked, it gets passed on. Buddhism is not "God's truth" or "God's commandments". — Athena

Don't get confused by the apparent versatility and multitude in Buddhism. At the ground level, when it comes to actually interacting with actual Buddhists, it's a clearly definable religion, with clearly specified scriptures, clerical hierarchy, religious practices, etc., and sharp lines between the various Buddhist schools, and the subschools and lineages within them.

The idea of an anything-goes kind of Buddhism is a Western bastardization that has no basis in the actual Buddhist traditions.

But Jesus never spoke of “a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him” — Possibility

In John 10:27–28 Jesus states that: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life;
They're the words of Jesus himself. That appears to me like God granting eternal Bliss to those who worship Him as I mentioned in my blog.

That appears to me like God granting eternal Bliss to those who worship Him as I mentioned in my blog. — Ross

I wonder why. The text you quote does not say "worship". It says "follow", does it not?

They're the words of Jesus himself. That appears to me like God granting eternal Bliss to those who worship Him as I mentioned in my blog. — Ross

Of course we don't really know what Jesus/Yeshua might have said, or if he was an actual person. And not even Christian scholars claim to know who wrote the gospels. Let's face, it we have some claims in a story book - just like every other religion.

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. — Ross

And yet you’re only interested in the religious aspect of Christianity and not the philosophical part. That hardly seems a fair comparison.

In John 10:27–28 Jesus states that: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life;
They're the words of Jesus himself. That appears to me like God granting eternal Bliss to those who worship Him as I mentioned in my blog. — Ross

No, they’re the words of a story that forms part of the original teachings. I would argue that:

Jesus is not ‘God’.
‘Follow’ is not worship.
Eternal ‘life’ is not eternal Bliss.

Your motivation here seems to be throwing dirt at Christianity, not doing philosophy. I’m not here to defend Christianity as a religion, but your argument that ‘Buddhism is better than Christianity because’ just doesn’t stand up when you compare like for like.

It seems all apples and oranges to me.

Christianity is a religion, whereas Buddhism is not.

Christianity is a religion, whereas Buddhism is not — Shawn

Dogmatic and dharmic practices, respectively.

Christianity = Buddhism + God
Buddhism = Christianity - God

The paradox: Christianity has, on its side, an omniscient being (God) but Buddhism seems vastly wiser.

The term minimalism is also used to describe a trend in design and architecture, wherein the subject is reduced to its necessary elements. — Wikipedia

Your motivation here seems to be throwing dirt at Christianity, not doing philosophy. I’m not here to defend Christianity as a religion, but your argument that ‘Buddhism is better than Christianity because’ just doesn’t stand up when you compare like for like. — Possibility

I'm not "throwing dirt at Christianity" if you read my intial thread you would see that I said that there are many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity in their emphasis on love, compassion etc. Secondly Christianity is not a philosophy unlike Buddhism. If you read a philosophy book you will often find a section on Buddhism but you won't find one on Christianity. Thirdly nowhere did I say that Christianity is better than Buddhism , if you look at my initial thread I framed my point as a QUESTION : Christianity is a more popular religion so does that mean that more people are interested in attaining salvation through faith in Christ than living wisely in THIS world, and Buddhist philosophy does not preach faith in a supernatural Being.
By the way Jesus did say the words I mentioned and he is the son of God, God is speaking to us through Jesus.

did I say that Christianity is better than Buddhism — Ross

There's an error in my point above. It should read nowhere did I say Buddhism is better than Christianity

wonder why. The text you quote does not say "worship". It says "follow", does it not? — Apollodorus

By follow he means the same thing as worship. He just uses a different word. When christians worship Christ they are FOLLOWING his teachings .

Of course we don't really know what Jesus/Yeshua might have said, — Tom Storm

I disagree We definitely know what Jesus said. It's perfectly clear in the gospels and they are regarded by the church and Christians all over the world as the word of God. There's no ambiguity in Jesus,s teachings , eg the sermon on the mount is very clear in it's message. Scholars are not in disagreement about what it meant

You're mistaken. Sure, some Christians think the story book is factual. But many also see the New Testament as allegorical.

My local Catholic Priest sums it up - 'The Bible is an error prone, man-made document. You need to look past it to get to the truth.'

The great American Bishop John Shelby Spong not only questioned the contents of the New Testament, he has denied the virgin birth and Jesus' miracles, not to mention his specific words. He remains an Episcopalian.

from Spong -

This point must be heard: the Gospels are first-century narrations based on first-century interpretations. Therefore they are a first-century filtering of the experience of Jesus. They have never been other than that. We must read them today not to discover the literal truth about Jesus, but rather to be led into the Jesus experience they were seeking to convey.

Unless you are a fundamentalist apologist, anyone who wants to talk about Jesus needs to surrender the inviolability of New Testament. Pick up most New Testaments - it even says in chapter prefaces that no one knows who actually wrote the gospels. How could we possibly know what Jesus actually said outside of tradition?

Sure, some Christians think the story book is factual. But many also see the New Testament as allegorical. — Tom Storm

In that case then I don't see the point in christians worshipping Christ and trying to follow his teachings if what you say is correct that we don't know what Christ taught or even if Jesus existed. That makes Christianity untenable. The sermon on the mount expresses the essense of Christ's teaching , if that is called into question then Christianity doesn't make sense. An analogy might be that one claims to agree with the policies of a political party but rejects the fundamental arguments made by the leader of the party. That doesn't make any sense to me. One either believes in the teachings of the sermon on the mount or doesn't believe , in that case theyre not a Christian.

I am an atheist but I grew up in the Christian Baptist tradition which also held that the Bible is largely allegorical. Fundamentalism and literal interpretations of scripture are a comparatively recent phenomenon.

As the great religious scholar David Bentley Hart reminds us, the early Christians, like Paul, certainly never considered the Torah as anything more than stories.

Religions use stories and myths to get to broader truths. This is a well established tradition. It may be hard for some people who have not been exposed to wider Christian/spiritual traditions to understand.

One either believes in the teachings of the sermon on the mount or doesn't believe , in that case theyre not a Christian. — Ross

You don't have to think they are the literal words of Jesus to think the sentiment is useful and spiritually sound.

An analogy might be that one claims to agree with the policies of a political party but rejects the fundamental arguments made by the leader of the par — Ross

This is unrelated but I would have thought it is very common for the foundational ideals of a party to not be followed by any of its leaders in practice.

Before this you stated that the purpose of wisdom is to improve one's life. So I assume that your argument for saying that poverty is not an intrinsic virtue comes down to you arguing that being poor will not improve your life if you are busy just scrapping by.
I agree with that but doesn't this just mean that there is a minimum level of socioeconomic success. That's all your argument entails. Your argument that Christianity is wiser because of its socioeconomic success is flawed because you assume that the minimum level of socioeconomic required by any person is the same. A Buddhist monk might not need the same level of success as you or anyone living in a developed country needs more socioeconomic success that one who is not.
I don't think that you are wrong but I think that being above socioeconomic success margin is important is analogous to being satisfied with your conditions that's all.

You don't have to think they are the literal words of Jesus to think the sentiment is useful and spiritually sound. — Tom Storm

Im not a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic and was told that the gospels were literally the teachings of Christ. I was not brought up to believe that it was just a story or an allegory. Of course Genesis is an myth but I don't think the Catholic view is that the sermon on the mount is allegorical or just a story. It is believed to be the literal teaching of Christ, love your enemies, forgive those who hurt you etc are taken as the literal words of Jesus. If one starts to question these in my opinion one is not really a Christian , maybe they are what one calls nowadays an a la carte christian , that is they cherry pick what they want from Christ's teaching and reject what doesn't suit them. You either believe in loving your neighbour or you don't, there's no halfway .

If one starts to question these in my opinion one is not really a Christian

I think that it is not about not believing in the sermon or not. Rather it is not accepting the words of Jesus at face value but asking why?
Like, if my teacher told me that I shouldn't shout at my elder then I would ask," OK but why?" It's not that I don't believe in my teacher but I don't understand the reasoning.

I framed my point as a QUESTION : Christianity is a more popular religion so does that mean that more people are interested in attaining salvation through faith in Christ than living wisely in THIS world, and Buddhist philosophy does not preach faith in a supernatural Being. — Ross

And my answer is no - not least because I disagree that ‘salvation through faith in Christ’ is the major drawcard of Christianity. But as Shawn mentioned so succinctly, you’re comparing apples and oranges. You have specifically avoided comparing either the religion of Buddhism with the religion of Christianity, or the philosophy at the origin of Buddhism with the philosophy at the origin of Christianity. Is it because such comparisons fail to illustrate the assumed qualitative ‘differences’ between the terms?

Buddhist religion preaches salvation through faith in the supernatural, and Christian philosophy strives for living wisely in THIS world.

By the way Jesus did say the words I mentioned and he is the son of God, God is speaking to us through Jesus. — Ross

That he is the ‘son of God’ or even a ‘prophet’ in the Old Testament sense is your subjective interpretation, probably gleaned from other subjective or authoritative interpretations or cultural assumptions, but is not evident, at best unclear, at the origin of Christian teachings. I disagree with your interpretation, but I think biblical hermeneutics is tangential to the discussion at hand...

By follow he means the same thing as worship. He just uses a different word. When christians worship Christ they are FOLLOWING his teachings . — Ross

...perhaps not.

Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration.

Follow: to act according to the lead or example of someone.

Not the same thing. In Greek, there are even two different words (both used in the Gospels) which are both commonly translated into ‘worship’. One is a customary show of respect due to kings and other attributed authorities, the other is a feeling of reverence towards immeasurable potential.

When Christians worship Christ they are following religious customs. When they are following his teachings they reserve their reverence for a perception of immeasurable potential.

In that case then I don't see the point in christians worshipping Christ and trying to follow his teachings if what you say is correct that we don't know what Christ taught or even if Jesus existed. That makes Christianity untenable. The sermon on the mount expresses the essense of Christ's teaching , if that is called into question then Christianity doesn't make sense. An analogy might be that one claims to agree with the policies of a political party but rejects the fundamental arguments made by the leader of the party. That doesn't make any sense to me. One either believes in the teachings of the sermon on the mount or doesn't believe , in that case theyre not a Christian. — Ross

I agree that there is no point in worshipping the Christ, but we can strive to understand his teachings - even if he didn’t really exist. And there is plenty of ambiguity in interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, to the point that it’s like a wavefunction collapse in order to form any clear directive. It’s possible to understand it in the context of Jesus’ example, but any restating of his teachings (without this example) is a limited rendering of such teachings.

If one says they believe in the words from the sermon on the mount (or a translation/interpretation thereof), that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re following the teachings of Christianity. Denying them the title ‘Christian’ has to do with the religion, not the teachings.

Im not a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic and was told that the gospels were literally the teachings of Christ. I was not brought up to believe that it was just a story or an allegory. Of course Genesis is an myth but I don't think the Catholic view is that the sermon on the mount is allegorical or just a story. It is believed to be the literal teaching of Christ, love your enemies, forgive those who hurt you etc are taken as the literal words of Jesus. If one starts to question these in my opinion one is not really a Christian , maybe they are what one calls nowadays an a la carte christian , that is they cherry pick what they want from Christ's teaching and reject what doesn't suit them. You either believe in loving your neighbour or you don't, there's no halfway . — Ross

This explains a lot. I’m also not (technically) a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic, and was taught that the gospels (as presented piecemeal and interpreted by a priest or religious authority) were literally the teachings of Christ. Of course, it wasn’t until I took the time to read the bible for myself that I recognised the ‘spin’ on what I was taught, and the context of each reading. And, more importantly, that the words of Jesus were only part of the teachings of Christ, and needed to be understood in the historical, cultural and political context in which they were written - incorporating my own doubt as well as faith. It’s not just about loving or not loving your neighbour, for instance, but about recognising that the value we attribute to others is no indication of their potential.

I think that it is not about not believing in the sermon or not. Rather it is not accepting the words of Jesus at face value but asking why? — I love Chom-choms

Why would one want to question Jesus,s saying to love your neighbor. you either agree with his ethical teaching or you don't. of course all the people who murder, rob, and abuse others reject Jesus,s teaching. They reject the notion of loving others. Unlike Socrates or philosophers Jesus was not debating whether or not one should love ones neighbor. He believed as millions of others in the world who agree with him, be they religious or non believers, that it is the right thing to do. Love is at the heart of Christian teaching . It's not a matter of debate. It's not a philosophical theory. without it it doesn't make sense.

It’s not just about loving or not loving your neighbour, for instance, but about recognising that the value we attribute to others is no indication of their potential. — Possibility

I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Jesus said one should love your neighbor. I think that's fairly straightforward. What other way can one interpret that. And the historical and cultural apects have nothing to do with it. The ethics in Christian teaching are supposed to be timeless , to apply to all periods. Of course the Bible has a lot of things which are no longer acceptable example it's discrimination against gay people. But the core message about love , etc is timeless.

Why would one want to question Jesus,s saying to love your neighbor. you either agree with his ethical teaching or you don't — Ross

Read this story.
Rajesh is a 2nd grader who hates algebra. He hates algebra partly because he finds it difficult and pointless, as he is not really going to use it IRL, but mostly because of Mr. Monty, his teacher. Mr Monty is a terrible teacher and always bullies Rajesh, even when he hasn't done anything. For Mr Monty, Rajesh's existence is a problem.
He comes home everyday and cries. He complains about it to his mother everyday. Her mother is a very busy lady, from taking care of her 3 children of which Rajesh is the oldest to being the sole bread-earner of the family, her hands are tied.
One day, Rajesh decides that he had had enough and next time he will punch Mr Monty and yell that he has had enough but when he tells his mother about his resolution, she is very imperative and explicate that he should not do that. Even if he thinks that he is right in doing this, he should not. He shouldn't even make passive resistance because his teacher is an elder and every elder should be respected.
Rajesh is, of course, taken aback by his mother's disapproval of his actions, he cant understand why his mother would say such a thing but regardless, his mother is the world to him, she is like a God to Rajesh. So he doesn't question what his mother said.
2 years later, his sister Priya is now in 2nd grade and Mr Monty hasn't changed. Priya comes to Rajesh, cries and tells him that she will punch him. Rajesh scolds her and tells her that she should never do that, IT doesn't matter what she thinks, no matter what happens she shouldn't disrespect his elders. Priya complains and shouts at him saying that he is wrong and he just likes to see her suffer. Priya, against her brother's advice punches Mr Monty. This doesn't end well, her mother is called to school and she has to make time in her busy schedule which then forces her to take a loan to pay the monthly rents. At the very least, Mr Monty is punished for unfair treatment of his students but now Her mother has to work day and night and doesn't even get a day's rest. All her irritation and anger is felt by Priya when she shouts at her. Rajesh too now ostracizes her, she should have listened to him. Look, because of what se did, her mother is so angry all the time. Rajesh still doesn't understand why her mother said what she said. He still thinks whatever mother says is right. Priya, on the other hand, doesn't regret her actions. She thinks that that is what should have been done.
Later in life, Priya now has 2 children and a divorced husband. She decided to become a teacher who doesn't discriminate against his student but her salary is not enough for her family.
Rajesh is now an adult and is living a satisfactory life with his wife and two daughters and is financially safe. He now understands the workings if the world much better than as a child. He realizes that it would have been wrong to punch Mr Monty no matter how much of a scumbag he was because if he had done so then all the other teachers would have started scrutinize him and his friends would not want to be with him because if he can punch a teacher that pisses his off then no one in the class is safe. So even if he hates it, he should suck it up because otherwise things will be worse.
One day, his elder daughter, Rani, who is in 2nd grade comes to him and tells him that her english teacher bullies her and treats her unfairly and that today she shouted at him. Rajesh scolds her and tells her that if she had any problem she should have told her father and that it is wrong to disrespect elders.
THE END

The early Rajesh is like a guy who just believes Jesus with faith and starts to spread the faith while the father Rajesh is like a guy who doesn't understand why someone would believe what Jesus said for reasons other than blind faith. So he questions Jesus and then comes to understand what Jesus meant. Then he goes around spreading the faith.

It's not a matter of debate. It's not a philosophical theory. without it it doesn't make sense. — Ross

Bro Bro Bro, how is this not a philosophical theory. I mean, Jesus is telling us how to live. IF that is not a philosophical question then I don't know what is.

Bro Bro Bro, how is this not a philosophical theory. I mean, Jesus is telling us how to live. IF that is not a philosophical question then I don't know what is. — I love Chom-choms

It's not a theory it's a moral injunction

Yeah but you can't just disregard my point because I said that those who follow Christianity wouldn't question the teachings of Christ. The story makes my point more clear. Please comment on it.