why is not the Buddhism the real religion?
What are the objections to Buddhism?
why is not the Buddhism the real religion?
From Proving Inspiration:
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.
Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
The earth is a giant graveyard. But we have hope because one of these graves is empty. Christ Jesus came to save us from sin and its consequence: death (Romans 6: 23). And, as Dr. Peter Kreeft once said, “The Resurrection also sharply distinguishes Jesus from all the other religious founders. The bones of Abraham and Muhammad and Buddha and Confucius and Lao-tzu and Zoroaster are still here on earth. Jesus’ tomb is empty. The existential consequences of the resurrection are incomparable. It is the concrete, factual, empirical proof that: life has hope and meaning; ‘love is stronger than death’; goodness and power are ultimately allies, not enemies; life wins in the end; God has touched us right where we are and has defeated our last enemy; we are not cosmic orphans, as our modern secular worldview would make us…”
The answer to that question should be very obvious. God Bless, Memaw
Because the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God, the Catholic faith is the one true faith of God, and the Catholic religion is the one true religion of God. Amen. Absolutelty nothing else.
May God bless you all!
Well, first of all Buddhism isn’t really a religion in the true sense of the word. It’s more a philosophy. Buddhism does not posit a God or an afterlife in the way religions do.
Which Buddhist philosophy are you referring to?
Not sure how many people know this, but Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism the way Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.
Siddhārtha Gautama was Hindi.
Because it is not THE Catholic religion. For Buddhists, Buddhist drama is truth. There is story about a Buddhist disciple where upon reading the new testament he found truth so he brought it to the attention of his master(spiritual adviser) and asked him what he thought about Jesus. The master answered: He is an enlightened being.
Disclaimer: I am not a Buddhist nor do I claim to have great knowledge of Buddhism.
Because Catholicism is.
That’s an odd way to put it. Why not give your reasons for thinking it is?
What are the objections to Buddhism?
Why approach it that way? Why not start with why you find Buddhism appealing (I sure do), and what you think the Buddhist objections to Catholicism are.
Don’t assume that Buddhism and Catholicism are in competition just because they are both conventionally labeled “religions.” There is no agreed-on definition of the term “religion”–it’s just a handy label for things that look alike in many ways.
I’m not saying that they don’t conflict. I’m saying that you shouldn’t start from the assumption that one must be false if the other is true. Come to that conclusion, if you do, based on a careful examination of the specifics of each tradition.
In my opinion, the chief point of difference (but also the most convincing thing about Buddhism) is the doctrine of “impermanence.” I think the Buddhists are on to something here, but it does raise difficulties with regard to some basic Christian beliefs, like the eternal nature of God and the centrality of the Incarnation of the Logos in history.
I think it’s because of the more passive approach to life of its teaching. I’m not saying they don’t do charity, but Christianity is more active in where the Creator initiate a move to save human from it’s own destruction.
Where Buddhism took a more passive approach by avoiding life to reach enlightenment?
If you dig deep into the teaching, we find no “meat”? It is about releasing yourself from suffering, where Christianity is about accepting certain suffering to attain divine love?
I hope I make some sense here.
Buddhism is a real religion. It works, at least it works for me. It will probably work for most people, since there are many different varieties of Buddhism to suit many tastes.
It is not an Abrahamic religion, so it is very different from Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
What are the objections to Buddhism?
That it is not an Abrahamic religion, and lacks some important Abrahamic concepts, like sin, The Fall and an immortal omnipotent God etc.
Christianity is not an offshoot of Judaism. Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, is the founder of the Catholic Church, the New Covenant, a new way of life in Him. The Old Testament was the preparation of the human race for HIS coming. Who has done more to bring the human race closer to Our Heavenly Father than HIS own Son, Jesus Christ. God Bless, Memaw
I should have clarified what I meant
Back in the early days of Christianity, it was seen as a sect of Judaism within the Roman Empire, historically speaking
Spiritually speaking, of course, is a different prism.
Because it’s not Islam :p. That’s the most straightforward answer I can give. There are so many different kinds of Buddhism and I will admit that my knowledge about the intricacies is very limited. What I see consistent throughout it, though, is in overwhelming sense of self-reliance, rather than surrender to the Almighty. There are buddhists who will call on bodhisattvas, like Amitahba, to intervene in their lives, but even then, it’s a celf-centred path. The bodhisattvas merely help you on your way to attain enlightenment-- like a stepping stone.
That’s very different from believing that we ourselves are hopeless without Allah azza wa jal. We can never earn our salvation. The difference is night and day. Self-reliance is only going to lead to despair and ultimately God’s Judgment.
One time I read this article and found it insightful. catholicsistas.com/2012/05/17/why-i-became-catholic-and-not-buddhist/
A reasonable brief summary. We need to climb to the top of the mountain. Nobody else can do the climbing for us, it is something we have to do ourselves. “I’m hungry. Would you eat a sandwich for me please.” Not very useful. Some things we have to to do for ourselves.
There are buddhists who will call on bodhisattvas, like Amitahba, to intervene in their lives
Bodhisattvas can offer a lift to near the top of the mountain, but even in that case, you need to walk the last part of the path to the peak for yourself. Sukhavati is not nirvana, it is just easier to get to nirvana from Sukhavati than from Earth.
We can never earn our salvation.
Buddhists are not aiming for salvation, we are aiming for enlightenment. We know that it is possible because the Buddha did it. His major followers did it also and other Buddhists have been doing it ever since.
Good Evening Richard:
The Catholic Church has developed a thoroughly inclusive understanding of soteriology in relation to other faiths, that has an explicitly theological foundation. St. Pope John Paul II explained that this approach to other religions is based upon sacred tradition, the church fathers and the very origins of the Christian revelation:
**"…You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions. The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.
From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: “There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God inhabited the entire earth with the whole human race. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all. . . . Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death…and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2).
The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern…
In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions. I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.
Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.…” **
- Pope Saint John Paul II (1994), Crossing the Threshold of Hope
He is expressing a theological statement. Lumen Gentium is a dogmatic constitution and it explains that the Holy Spirit operates outside the church among non-believers. This is the document which states that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. A dogmatic constitution of the Magisterium and not some paper produced by the Vatican City State.
Note this section:
**The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church. From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions **
- Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (1963)
Thank you bringing “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” to our attention. I found the complete document here… which I look forward to reading in its entirety.
My pleasure Frobert.
Buddhism is both a philosophy and a practice - they do not per se believe in a god-but do have various concepts of hell
the Dalai Lama said Christ was " A great master"
when visiting St. Patrick’s in New York and saw the Clergy in their robes he commented " you are all Buddhists keep up your practice"
another way to view Buddhism is that it is Hinduism without the fanatacism