Buddhist view on Christianity

[Sam Vara]

I don't see Christianity as having an "essence", be that scriptural, liturgical, doctrinal, or practical.

The bible is a basis isn't it?

It's one of the bases, but that's not an essence, and the importance of what the Bible says is mediated by translation and religious tradition. If a group of renegade Pentecostalists evolve away from reliance on scripture, or a Catholic tells me that the Bible is not the sole authority because it was written at a time when there was already a church based on apostolic succession, then I'm not going to tell them they are not Christians. I don't even do that with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism!

[binocular]

It's one of the bases, but that's not an essence, and the importance of what the Bible says is mediated by translation and religious tradition. If a group of renegade Pentecostalists evolve away from reliance on scripture, or a Catholic tells me that the Bible is not the sole authority because it was written at a time when there was already a church based on apostolic succession, then I'm not going to tell them they are not Christians. I don't even do that with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism!

You have developed dimplomacy into an art form.

[DNS]

Back on the topic of Christianity; they have a long history of apologetics. Apologetics in one form or another can be found in all religions, but I'd argue at least in Buddhism most of the mythological elements are not part of the essential teachings (4NT are essential, Mt. Sineru is not).

And then the question is; at what point does one deviate so far from the scriptural teachings do they no longer be considered a member of that religion? For example, Christians who say that Jesus is not the son of god, that he is not divine, that he was not born of immaculate conception, etc. I imagine there are some gray areas, but certainly a line would be crossed at one point?

[Ceisiwr]

Back on the topic of Christianity; they have a long history of apologetics. Apologetics in one form or another can be found in all religions, but I'd argue at least in Buddhism most of the mythological elements are not part of the essential teachings (4NT are essential, Mt. Sineru is not).

And then the question is; at what point does one deviate so far from the scriptural teachings do they no longer be considered a member of that religion? For example, Christians who say that Jesus is not the son of god, that he is not divine, that he was not born of immaculate conception, etc. I imagine there are some gray areas, but certainly a line would be crossed at one point?

An interesting question for Buddhism too.

[DooDoot]

It's one of the bases, but that's not an essence, and the importance of what the Bible says is mediated by translation and religious tradition.

The Bible must be considered the core essence because it is the only reference point. Any other reference point is purely illogical & pure covetous (stealing). Otherwise, it becomes nothing, similar to anarchy. Christianity obviously has a core doctrine, which is often defined by the Three Commandants of Jesus, namely: (i) Love God (the 10 commandments) with all your heart & soul (Mark 12:30); (ii) love neighbour as self (Mark 12:31); and (iii) love one another as i have loved you (John 13:34).

If a group of renegade Pentecostalists evolve away from reliance on scripture, or a Catholic tells me that the Bible is not the sole authority because it was written at a time when there was already a church based on apostolic succession, then I'm not going to tell them they are not Christians.

I wouldn't tell them either. But I would not consider them to be "Christian". Religion is "law". Similar to secular law, once the law is distorted, it becomes "lawlessness".

[Sam Vara]

It's one of the bases, but that's not an essence, and the importance of what the Bible says is mediated by translation and religious tradition.

The Bible must be considered the core essence because it is the only reference point.

I don't agree, mainly because as an atheist I cannot see how one reference without a referent is any better than any other reference. If a person tells me that the only way to meet unicorns is to conjure them up using magic, whereas a renegade tells me that one must wait for them to make contact in dreams, I'm not going to declare one right and the other wrong.

Any other reference point is purely illogical & pure covetous (stealing)

I think the illogicality is covered above, and can't make any sense here of the covetous/stealing bit.

Christianity obviously has a core doctrine, which is often defined by....

Sure. That's the difference between "core" and "essence". If someone tells me they have been led by the Holy Spirit to an encounter with the living Christ, and that this is more important to them than a text-based imperative, then what referent am I going to cite in order to prove them wrong? The most I can say is that I find their utterance confusing, because I am used to Christians speaking differently.

I wouldn't tell them either. But I would not consider them to be "Christian". Religion is "law". Similar to secular law, once the law is distorted, it becomes "lawlessness".

That sounds like definitional fiat, which is fine for those who like that sort of thing.

[binocular]

And then the question is; at what point does one deviate so far from the scriptural teachings do they no longer be considered a member of that religion? For example, Christians who say that Jesus is not the son of god, that he is not divine, that he was not born of immaculate conception, etc. I imagine there are some gray areas, but certainly a line would be crossed at one point?

A while back, Catholics and Protestants were also unable to draw that line themselves, so they decided to leave it up to God for a judicium Dei, and went to war. 30 years later and with some more agendas added, the war ended basically because they ran out of soldiers and God apparently just didn't want to take sides and make his will known.

[binocular]

That sounds like definitional fiat, which is fine for those who like that sort of thing.

What other solution is there?
One cannot just make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.

[Sam Vara]

That sounds like definitional fiat, which is fine for those who like that sort of thing.

What other solution is there?
One cannot just make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.

I have a few things to do this morning, but will get back to this interesting question later

[DooDoot]

I don't agree, mainly because as an atheist I cannot see how one reference without a referent is any better than any other reference.

Atheism is not relevant. The argument above is like saying the suttas have the same quality as above; non referable. Its like saying the purpose of Buddhism is not for the ending of suffering because it cannot be proved there was a Buddha said this.

That sounds like definitional fiat, which is fine for those who like that sort of thing.

Its Buddhism. Its not a matter of like or dislike. Its like preaching Buddhism without any laws (niyama). Obviously a person that does not honor law (niyama) cannot be a practising Buddhist.

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles

Uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā .

A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,

Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.

SN 12.20; AN 3.136

[Sam Vara]

That sounds like definitional fiat, which is fine for those who like that sort of thing.

What other solution is there?
One cannot just make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.

The other solution is simply to not engage with issues that have no bearing upon one. This is particularly relevant in the case of Christian theology, which is in this context (as far as I'm concerned) arguments about the meaning of references which have no referent. How would any such dispute ever be resolved? Especially for a linguistic conventionalist such as the Buddha appeared to be, who apparently denies that the link between word and object is essential and unchanging. This involves not taking a view, not picking up one opinion or definition and attaching to it. This is dealt with in suttas like MN 18:

my teaching is such that one does not conflict with anyone in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans. And it is such that perceptions do not underlie the brahmin who lives detached from sensual pleasures, without doubting, stripped of worry, and rid of craving for rebirth in this or that state....
a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, arguments, and fights, of accusations, divisive speech, and lies. This is where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.

AN 2.37 is also useful here:

It is because of their insistence on views, their shackles, avarice, and attachment, that ascetics fight with ascetics.

You are absolutely right to point out that one cannot make words mean whatever one wants them to mean, but the converse is that if one is stuck with a certain meaning which perforce one must use, then someone or something attributed that meaning. (Post Wittgenstein, we would probably call that something a "form of life" or language community.) That thing will gradually change, and the meaning of words and labels is also subject to anicca. If I find that people are using a word in a different way from how I expect, what external referent is there by which I can show them their error? One simply accepts that labels - sanna - are merely labels, and are impermanent, and one adapts to how convention determines linguistic use.

It is, of course, possible to clarify different meanings that are being used, so as to avoid confusion. ("When you use the word X, you mean this, but there is also the related use of X which means that".) And one might usefully correct someone who appears to have misunderstood the convention surrounding a word's use (a common one is for Buddhists to correct people who use the term kamma to mean vipaka, for example). But I'm not interested in the "correct" meaning of words beyond that. Saying that "no Christian would believe that!" is definitional fiat. There's no reason why one shouldn't insist on definitions and a correct usage, especially if one finds it emotionally satisfying, but it leads to an infinite regress of arguments and cannot be proven.

[Sam Vara]

I don't agree, mainly because as an atheist I cannot see how one reference without a referent is any better than any other reference.

Atheism is not relevant. The argument above is like saying the suttas have the same quality as above; non referable. Its like saying the purpose of Buddhism is not for the ending of suffering because it cannot be proved there was a Buddha said this.

I think atheism is relevant, in that you mentioned a reference point, and I how else are reference points to be judged when there is no referent? The two equivalences you give are not sufficiently equivalent; I think there is a referent for both the suttas and the Buddha. There may be issues of verification, but not of reference.

Its Buddhism. Its not a matter of like or dislike. Its like preaching Buddhism without any laws (niyama). Obviously a person that does not honor law (niyama) cannot be a practising Buddhist.

If you say so! I find I have at present very little need to distinguish people who are practising Buddhists from people who are not, but thanks for sharing your view on this.

[binocular]

The Bible must be considered the core essence because it is the only reference point. Any other reference point is purely illogical & pure covetous (stealing). Otherwise, it becomes nothing, similar to anarchy.

Not for tribal religions. And most people throughout history, including today, have practiced some form of tribal religion.

Just because the core teachings of a religion are codified in book form, this is not sufficient for a religion to stop being a tribal religion. If there is such a book, but the members are illiterate or just don't read said book, then they are practicing tribal religion. For example, many Catholics nowadays don't read the Bible, or the Catechism. Their type of religiosity is no different than that of the illiterate converts from 6th century, or that of an Amazonian tribe.

[binocular]

I think atheism is relevant, in that you mentioned a reference point, and I how else are reference points to be judged when there is no referent?

The monotheistic apologetic's reply would be something like this: Of course God exist, he is the referent of monotheistic scriptures. if you don't see that, then you're not being honest, or have not looked into your heart (where you would see that God is there), or you fail to appreciate that God does not reveal himself to the unqualified.

[binocular]

The other solution is simply to not engage with issues that have no bearing upon one.

Sure, there are so many things about which one doesn't have to have an opinion. But some do have bearing on one.

This is particularly relevant in the case of Christian theology, which is in this context (as far as I'm concerned) arguments about the meaning of references which have no referent. How would any such dispute ever be resolved?

Well, historically, the Catholics and the Protestants tried many things, up to and including war. Didn't help ...

You are absolutely right to point out that one cannot make words mean whatever one wants them to mean, but the converse is that if one is stuck with a certain meaning which perforce one must use, then someone or something attributed that meaning.

(Post Wittgenstein, we would probably call that something a "form of life" or language community.) That thing will gradually change, and the meaning of words and labels is also subject to anicca. If I find that people are using a word in a different way from how I expect, what external referent is there by which I can show them their error? One simply accepts that labels - sanna - are merely labels, and are impermanent, and one adapts to how convention determines linguistic use.

It is, of course, possible to clarify different meanings that are being used, so as to avoid confusion. ("When you use the word X, you mean this, but there is also the related use of X which means that".) And one might usefully correct someone who appears to have misunderstood the convention surrounding a word's use (a common one is for Buddhists to correct people who use the term kamma to mean vipaka, for example). But I'm not interested in the "correct" meaning of words beyond that. Saying that "no Christian would believe that!" is definitional fiat. There's no reason why one shouldn't insist on definitions and a correct usage, especially if one finds it emotionally satisfying, but it leads to an infinite regress of arguments and cannot be proven.

Reading this, suddenly, it occurs to me how important it is to have a calm mind, for only in a calm mind can one contemplate the above without becoming agitated (while many linguists, philosophers etc. seem to perpetually be in an agitated state of mind, that's how they can say and do the things they do).

How different a thought feels, how different the consequences of its presence, depending on the state of one's mind. Hence, make your mind like earth, make your mind like water, make your mind like fire, make your mind like wind.