This is just a polite way of saying that Buddhism etc. are inferior to Christianity. It's religious imperialism.

I remember some years back reading a heart-breaking letter from Buddhist monks in a Buddhist country about how Christian missionaries are perverting Buddhism and how they manipulate the native people into converting to Christianity.

This post is an attempt to make the argument that the traditions of China and India, namely, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism are actually great resources of Christian apologetics. Being a Christian, I have come to see the respective systems of thought as preannouncing the message of the gospel in terms of ethical questions about life. — Dermot Griffin

This is the line of reasoning that Christian missionaries in Asia use to convert the native Buddhists, Daoists, and others to Christianity.

They tell the Buddhists that God sent them the Buddha to prepare them for the message of Christianity. And then they offer them food, medicines, jobs -- in exchange for conversion.

Just remember, if you fail to pick the right sect of Christianity, you will burn in hell, forever and ever.

The Jesuits, by the way, were adept at adopting native traditions as part of their conversion efforts. — Ciceronianus

It was a two-way street in at least some cases. Desediri Ippolito made it to Lhasa in the 17th Century and stayed for many years. He of course regarded many elements of Tibetan tantrism as paganism, but he also recognised the kinds of universal moral maxims that they shared with Christianity. The illustrious Matteo Ricci stayed many decades in old Peking, becoming fluent in the language and earning the admiration of the Mandarins. Then there's Raimundo Pannikar, a kind of 'multi-faith' Jesuit who spent a large part of his life in India; Bede Griffith, another Catholic monk who adopted India has homeland and lived on an Ashram. There is a strand of universalism in Catholicism (although it's by no means universal ;-) )

I am simply stating my opinion for dialogue; Not attempting to claim that Christianity is supreme.

I actually think that the example you give of monks talking about how Christian missionaries are preventing Buddhism is exactly what Christianity shouldn't do. There is a reason that the Eastern Churches don't go around trying to convert people; Its antithetical to what they believe. Catholicism too, tries to mimic this, but in todays day the Traditionalist movement tends to scare me. IMO true conversion begins with dialogue and this is how it happens. The Buddhist is free to become Christian or not.

Just remember, if you fail to pick the right sect of Christianity, you will burn in hell, forever and ever.

I think this is a misunderstanding.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

In terms of my views on soteriology if, for example, a Buddhist, lives in accordance with his tradition I do believe that by Gods grace he is being saved because there is something in Buddhism that promotes living a good life. Same can be said with all the other great traditions of the world. I was raised a Roman Catholic and still go to mass. But the reality of it is there are Catholics of the "traditional" type that do think I am going to burn in Hell forever because of some of my views. There are other fundamentalist Christians that think I'm going to Hell just because I go to a Catholic church. I don't think Christianity has this idea that if you pick the wrong church you'll burn forever. I personally like the Kierkegaardian take where you take a leap of faith in order to find meaning; The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter.

Well, I have always found the traditions of East Asia to be interesting so my own personal bias in reading about them has entered into the fold. Islam has a lot to offer, specifically through Sufism (which in my reading is just Islamic Platonism). Avicenna, Averroes, Ibn Arabi, and Suhrawardi are all some of my favorite thinkers. I think Christians of the more literalist type can learn much from them. The hardcore philosophy doesn't even need to be read. Rumi, Hafiz, and Attar are some of my favorite poets.

Between Augustinians, Franciscans, Benedictines, and Dominicans, Christianity was diverse. Conflict creates dynamism. That's a good thing for an ideology.

My description of Christian religious orders in a nutshell...

Augustinians: Platonists that expounded a lot of the "old school" ideas in the Church (i.e. original sin being a taint on the soul rather than just the innate tendency to do the wrong thing).

Benedictines (in my head this is a family of orders): Contemplation is everything; It is literally "what you do when you are in a temple."

Carmelites: Same as the Benedictine but there is an emphasis on practical mysticism as we can see through Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Big during the Counter-Reformation.

Franciscans: They love the example of St. Francis and Scotism is the best expression of the philosophia perennis.

Dominicans: They are obsessed with Aquinas and, depending upon what intellectual camp you are in, think Thomism is the best expression of the philosophia perennis.

Jesuits: Despite all the conspiracy theories about them and the hate Traditionalist Catholics give them, they love Thomism. They love Scotism. They love other systems of thought too, like Confucianism. So why not play around with them all?

That's interesting. I spent a while reading about the Franciscans. They became sharply apocalyptic for a while.

There is a strand of universalism in Catholicism — Wayfarer

Well, it comes with the name, of course, as you hint. Catholicus in Latin, katholikos in Greek, meaning "universal" roughly.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) — Dermot Griffin

And then there is John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me."

, it appears is not interested in replying to your point about Christianity looking very derivative, and my point about Islam appearing a more suitable candidate for consummation.

The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter. — Dermot Griffin

Fair point and if only there were more of this. My friend, a Baptist, used to say, 'I am a Christian but I am compassionate enough to keep this to myself'. Seems to me that these days mainstream Christianity is becoming more beset by garrulous apologists.

I don't think Christianity has this idea that if you pick the wrong church you'll burn forever. — Dermot Griffin

Have you read Bentley Hart's "That All Shall be Saved" I had a cursory read and it is an interesting alternative account of the Christian tradition as one of as 'hopeful universalism.'

I like to think that if there is a god (as Hart might understand one) this deity is more likely to support a sincere secular humanist than many of those believers whose faith is one of judgment, purity culture and material acquisitiveness. But all of this comes down to what god is for you.

In terms of my views on soteriology if, for example, a Buddhist, lives in accordance with his tradition I do believe that by Gods grace he is being saved because there is something in Buddhism that promotes living a good life. — Dermot Griffin

Karl Rahner proposed the (rather scandalous) idea of the ‘anonymous Christian’:

"Anonymous Christianity" means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. A Protestant Christian is, of course, "no anonymous Christian"; that is perfectly clear. But, let us say, a Buddhist monk (or anyone else I might suppose) who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.

Perhaps that is because there is actually an anonymous, or at least, universal Christ, who has manifested in other forms, although I suspect that idea would be much more congenial to a Hindu than to a Christian.

In Buddhism, ‘the Buddha’ is more like an archetype than a specific individual. It is true of course that the Buddha that we know of historically, ‘Buddha Shakyamuni’, was a particular individual who lived and taught in Maghada around the 5th c BCE. But according to Buddhist lore, he was but one of the many (in fact countless) Buddhas that have been born and will be born on this and other ‘life-bearing orbs’ over the ‘aeons of Kalpas’.

Rahner's idea is congenial to various expressions of Neoplatonism prevalent during the formation of 'Christianity'. But it is sharply at odds with the expectation that one world would pass away and be replaced by another as promulgated by Paul. The need for a particular credo to be the focus of a congregation was directly tied to an expectation of change throughout the entire world.

In Augustine, this was expressed as the need for a vanguard who lived amongst themselves in a City of God while also living in a City of Men.

The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter. — Dermot Griffin

And yet all that anyone has ever heard about the topic "God", one has heard from other people.

Even those people who have epileptic seizures and interpret the visions they have in those seizures as "God is speaking to me" are still working with whatever they have about the topic "God" from other people.

Even Kierkegaard was working only with what he heard other people say on the topic "God".

Karl Rahner proposed the (rather scandalous) idea of the ‘anonymous Christian’: — Wayfarer

A perfect combination of pity and contempt!

Personally I tend to shy away from Karl Rahner; Transcendental Thomism has never really interested me (the whole Kantian movement just disinterests me). I prefer the patristic idea of the “Unknowing Christian” from St. Justin Martyr. I get that Rahner’s Anonymous Christianity is supposed to mimic this, but it puts more of an emphasis on just living an ethical life rather than the concept of the Logos as a metaphysical idea which, in Chinese and Indian thought, can be compared with that of the Dao or Dharma. St. Justin Martyr argued that if you preached a logos-based ideology then you were a Christian without knowing it.

Personally I tend to shy away from Karl Rahner; — Dermot Griffin

I wasn't promoting him, in particular - I just found it an interesting perspective. But I am very interested in various schools of neo-Thomism, transcendental included, although they're very difficult to study.

Lublin Thomism, also called Phenomenological Thomism, Polish Existential Thomism, or simply "Lublinism," is the school of Neo-Thomism that I am most interested in. Its funny, when I hear the word "Neo-Thomism" I always think of Strict Observance Thomism, which I personally think is a flawed understanding of Aquinas' work.

That's odd. Others might find it more sensible to consider "the message of the gospel" as you put it as being merely derivative of these systems, which after all had existed for centuries before the gospels were written, or for that matter as derivative of the Western philosophical systems such as Stoicism, which also preceded the gospels by hundreds of years. Establishing that Christianity borrowed heavily from other religions or philosophical traditions wouldn't seem to indicate there's anything unique about it. — Ciceronianus

Plato has been left out and he seems to have been as concerned about the 10 commandments as Moses was but he came to this reasoning without an encounter with the God of Abraham.

Personally, I favor the Eastern gifts of knowledge over the Bible and I don't think it is possible to have a good understanding of Jesus without the Eastern perspective. I think the Eastern perspective is more compatible with democracy than the Bible because of the Eastern explanation of how we become better human beings that is not dependent on superstitious notions of needing to be "saved".