I understand what you're saying...and it's a good point. I just think that MOST people who identify themselves as Christians do not subscribe to a fundamentalist viewpoint. Maybe that's just from my own experience. Most mainstream denominations are not fundamentalist....but they're not the loudest voices. So if you're watching TV and you're wondering, "What does a Christian believe," the only ones filling in the blank if you're watching the news are those that have the loudest, shrillest voices that generate soundbytes. The group that devotes it time, stemming from its own theology, to addressing issues of poverty and fatherlessness in its local community on a daily basis by building real relationships bridging those gaps doesn't get a lot of news time.
Yeah, Ecclesiastes is very much like Buddha's own story. The author indulges himself in every way for a period, and then denies himself of all pleasures for a period. I mean just look at this. I've always thought it was similar.
I don't think the Karmic cycle of rebirth is evolution in the sense of the scientific theory but it doesn't conflict with the idea as constant change is a given in Buddhism. As other posters have noted the Buddhist idea of the Universe is sort of like an illusion created by individual perception but the the best analogy to it is the idea of String Theory where existence as we know is due to the vibrations and emanations of what is basically a vacuum. Under that view nothing has an independent existence, including ourselves, but what we percieve is really just differences in those particular emanations. So why there aren't Buddhist Creationist is because creation isn't an issue to Buddhism. The key to Buddhist practice isn't faith in a creator since creation isn't a seminal act but something that happens all the time and the creation itself is really nothing.
This is probably true. But that's not enough. In hindsight I don't think that many (if any) of the people at the church I went to as a kid "struggled" with their faith as is required. They just read the stories, listened to whatever was supposedly the asociated "lesson" and moved on with their lives, secure in the notion that they knew what they needed to know, and that others thought so too. Honestly, if you don't struggle with your faith, I'm not sure you're really "getting it". Lot's of folks were upset or aghast that Mother Theresa had such serious spiritual misgivings. I thought that was excellent. It's not a clear path - if someone is selling you a clear path they're not interested in the destination.
I know, and I love that. I like the concept that there isn't independent existence, partially because I can't wrap my head around it entirely. But that's where I see parallels with Christianity, frankly...with Jesus saying, "stop looking for the Kingdom of God out there....it's here...and in you." You would call it something other than the Kingdom of God in all likelihood...but if you were a 1st century Jew, that's what you'd call it. Unfortunately, 20th century Christianity (and a lot of centuries before that) adopted tons of Greek thought and put God physcially in a THERE in the sky. But from my view God isn't anymore there than He is here...yet He's in both spots...yet He's not. Which leads me back to wonder, which I'm good with. Exactly right...though I understand there are some sects of Buddhism that do talk about a creation, even if it's an eternal, perpetual creation. The problem with that is that it doesn't mesh well with Big Bang...the theory not the show. It's cool with Kaley Cuoco. As am I. The idea of an infinite universe, at least as science talks about the universe, isn't squared well with that. But perhaps the faith tradition is trying to explain something other than what scientists are trying to explain. And I do like the comments from the Dalai Lama where he says, there is a light from which all things emanate.
Sorry for prolonging the derail but this is a very interesting point. Religion is and always has been a part of individual and societal identity. Consider that for most of human history religion and politics were not seperated and in tribal societies religion, politics and culture are one in the same. Up until society got to the point of seperating those things religion was largely what defined a people and I think it is still inherently part of most human societies to define ourselves by religion.
i'd rep this post a million times if i could. i'd give you a pulpit at every church in the country to deliver this sermon.
Ecclesiastes is far and away my favorite book of the bible. I really, really enjoy how well it jives with Buddha.
You'd probably give it better yourself. Cynics make lousy insprirational speakers. I'm glad your back Max.
Here I am speaking of the Theravadan and Zen traditions of Buddhism specifically but the idea isn't that God is here or God is there but that there isn't a God but that God like us is just another emanation. From my limited understanding of Christianity and other monotheistic religions is the that there is a duality between God and humanity. That there is a seperate existence for God beyond creation. In Buddhism God(s) and everything is all one, which is really, nothing.. In that sense Buddhism is an athiestic religion. That is true that some Buddhist sects do talk about creation but overall I don't think something like the Big Bang necessarily conflicts with those. Most Buddhist thought goes back to ancient Vedic ideas which talked about cycles of the Universe. The Big Bang might just represent the start of one cycle of the existence of the Universe.
I hear ya...what I'm suggesting is that both might be true at the same time...dualism and monism. And that when Jesus says, "the kingdom of God is in you" he definitely points towards a monistic viewpoint. there have been Christian writers/thinkers who've talked about this tension before. and in the end, i'm not saying Buddhism and Christianity are identical. here's one where i'll disagree with you. if you're suggesting the universe is eternal, you're in conflict with the Big Bang theory that presupposes a "beginning."
Thinking about this further, I don't see why there should be such a conflict between Evolution and Creationism. Evolution is brought about through natural selection, which seems contrary to intelligent design. But Evolution also requires spontaneous mutation in a species. Scientists believe that this mutation is random, but the theory of evolution (to my understanding) doesn't depend on such mutations occurring in an unguided fashion. So, if I'm a Creationist, I could believe that God uses the mechanism of Evolution to create the species, and He somehow introduces the mutations in a given organism to drive the process as He he sees fit. Maybe the manner in which He introduces these mutations would just appear random to those scientists that study this deeply, and after all all a scientist can do is try to describe what he observes. Why should that notion offend the sensibilities of a Christian?
It does depend on those things occurring at random. This is all happening over the span of a ludicrously long time period.
Because some people interpret the Bible literally and take it as challenge to their faith to think otherwise.
Sorry, I edited my text before reading your response. I should say it doesn't depend on the mutations being unguided, though to our observation it may appear random.
Right, and these people probably can not be convinced with reason. But there are also many people who doubt Evolution and aren't literalists. I mean, 40% of Americans think Evolution is wrong, but I'm sure 40% of American aren't Bible literalists.
Good post. I agree with everything you said, with the added caveat, that there might not even be a god, but rather the just the possibility of one. I personally think that if there were one, whatever guidance He gives to evolution just appears to us mere mortals as science. If He were to change his mind, the change would seem scientific to us as well. In which case, science and religion still shouldn't be argued interchangeably... unless at one point in our universe, there was a supernatural event. If there were a god, I doubt he would be that sloppy.
Show me proof of a God? You can't. Show me proof that the Earth is only a few hundred thousand years old? You can't. Show me proof there is a heaven? You can't. Show me proof there is a hell (fire, brimstone type). You can't. The Bible is not proof, it is a collection of stories written by Man. I can show much proof of Evolution.
it should not...unless you insist on reading Genesis literally edit: sorry i responded with this before reading the rest of the responses saying the same thing
From a Christian viewpoint is God all creation or greater than all creation? I don't know the context of the Jesus quote that you are referring to but is that quote to a literal idea that we are all part of God or Godlike, in a transcendental sense, or is it a statement that the path to being with God is within us already? This is a matter of a relative viewpoint of the universe. From a Vedic perspective we exist within one cycle of the Universe so from our standpoint the beginning of this cycle is the beginning of the universe we can perceive but not necessarily the Universe. From what I have been studying of physics this idea may not conflict as there are theories of creating other universes from the vacuum energy of our own and also the theory that our whole universe may be one black hole.
