If, after this post, there's anymore debate about this matter, I'll be very surprised. On second thought, maybe not.

lol! me sef, I saw the post and just felt weak. even before I read it, just from the length of it.

But i'm not going to give up just yet. I just need a few hours, maybe a day or two to gather my energy again.

okay o!  phew!!  let me give it a shot.  I want to say first off that I believe that the problem lies in our basic premises.  I come from premises that religion comes from the human condition which is a state of dis-ease and that religion attempts to make whole this fractured situation.  Deepsight seems to be coming from the premise that religion is something that is arbitrarily invented by it's founders and so therefore can have no bearing on each other. 

Secondly I want us to consider this scenario.  2 guys.  Brothers.  I tell them that they look alike.  The senior brother objects vehemently. 
"What do you mean we look alike?  I am tall, he is short.  I have an afro, he shaved his head.  He likes to weak designer labels, I dress simply.  I wear glasses, he doesn't.  I am muscly, he is skinny.  I am this, he is that.  etc etc."
However anybody that looks at the 2 of them will immediately know that they are brothers.  In spite of the fact that all the objections raised are valid.  It still remains obvious that they are brothers and look remarkably alike. 

It depends on what features you are looking at and how much significance you want to give those features.  Perhaps the significance you give to certain features are arbitrary, or simply in the eye of the beholder.   Is there a criteria for the significance which you give the various features of 'thoughts, belief and doctrine'?

I have said numerous times that religions around the world are various articulations of the same basic truths.  The various articulations are subject to the part of the world and the era it was articulated.  In other words they are a product of history and circumstance.

Does it matter that a lot of these 'thoughts, belief and doctrines' have come into their respective religions by a process of accretion and were not an original part of the religion and still till today are not accepted by all adherents of the religion? 

So when you talk about the 'core beliefs of christianity'  . . .

1.   That God is supreme and must be worshipped in spirit and truth

You forget that Christianity was in fact initially indistinguishable from judaism and that in Judaism, in spite of the many anthropomorphic presentations of God, it is constantly stressed that God is ineffable.  There is an interplay between the God- the concept and God- the ineffable.

2.   That God is a Trinity

You forget that far from being a 'core doctrine' this was arrived at late in the history of christianity and is now recognisably christian (though it occurs in other religions too) by that process of accretion.  Many early christians knew nothing of this trinity and it didn't make them any less christian. 

3.   That Jesus is God and part of that Trinity

This too has become christian doctrine by accretion.

4.   That original Adamic sin introduced death and suffering to Mankind

This is in my opinion highly symbolic and would require a whole thread of it's own to explain it out to you.  Buddha's story uses the same imagery (complete with Tree and Serpent and temptations) but in reverse to explain how he got enlightened. 
I don't know how to post pictures on here but check out this link, it has a drawing depicting buddhas enlightenment.
http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/library/view.php?adpath=274

Mucalinda, the Serpent King
After the Buddha's Enlightenment while seated the Bodhi tree, Barringtonia Acutangula, the Serpent King named Mucalinda come to protect the Lord.

Deserted by his friends, his teachers, and even his disciples, Siddhartha was now completely alone and without status. He decided to resolve his problems once and for all, and he settled down to meditate under a bodhi tree.

Long before, the supernatural Buddhist tempter, Mara, had sent a demon called Red-eye to keep a watch on the bodhi tree under which, it was prophesied, a bodhisattva would make his bid for Buddhahood. For centuries Red-eye watched the people coming and going past the tree, but he saw nothing to disturb him. Then one day he presented himself before Mara in a state of agitation. "Why, what is it?" asked Mara. The demon Red-eye answered him: "My Lord, I have seen thousands comig and going near the bodhi tree, but saw nothing to report. But now there is a man walking toward that tree, and from the way he walks, I believe that whatever that man sets out to do, he will do. Let your Majesty beware of what is taking place."

Mara now sent three temptations to thwart Siddhartha in his quest. The first was duty: Mara called on him to "return to your kingdom, you have done enough." The second was sensual pleasure in the form of Mara's irresistible daughters. When this too failed, Mara sent his demon sons, who strike fear and terror into the hearts of men. They attacked Siddhartha with earthquakes and showers of rocks. Mara's temptations represent the levels of release a human being must go through before liberation - first from duty, then from sensual desire and finally from irrational self-protection and fear.

Finally Mara screamed, "Arise from that seat! It belongs to me!" Siddhartha was unmoved, and extended his hand to touch the earth, calling it to bear withness to the merit of his past lives. The earth thundered, "I bear witness to the future Buddha!" Mara was defeated.

During the first part of the night, Siddhartha understood that suffering has a cause, and expressed his understanding. Then during the middle part of the night, he understood how to destroy suffering, and expressed his understanding. Finally, during the third part of the night, he described reaching enlightenment, "even as the sun was lighting the heavens."

After 49 days of meditation, in the last part of the night, Siddhartha looked up and saw the morning star. He awoke as if from a dream, and was enlightened. "How wonderful, how miraculous - all beings are fully endowed with the wisdom and power of the Tathagata (Buddha) - but sadly human beings, on account of their sticky attachments, are not aware of it."

5. That Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice to deliver remission for sins

What do you think of the idea that we have to pick up our crosses and follow him. Or that as christians we are crucified with him on the cross and subsequently rise again 3 days later with him.

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Though here, the context is of not being bound by law and ordinances, the basic teaching is clear. The death and resurrection of christ is something that all christians undergo and therein lies the remission of sins.
I fear that I may not have explained this clearly yet. Maybe this too needs another thread of it's own. The death and resurrection of christ is the shedding of our carnal nature and the awakening of our spiritual nature.

6. That Jesus’ resurrection was conquest of death for mankind

See Above.

7. That belief in Jesus’ saving sacrifice is required to attain salvation

See Above.

OF ALL OF THE EIGHT CORE DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE, ONLY NO. 8 IS A COMMON DENOMINATOR WITH BUDDHISM AND MANY OTHER RELIGIONS.

It is sarx that craves, and thus craving, leads us to suffering. If we crucify Sarx and arise with Christ as awakened beings, living in accordance with pneuma. Then we no longer crave those sensual things. The funny thing though is that those things we once craved become more accessible.
"Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and those things will be added unto you."

No logical person can look at the foregoing and insist that these truths are not centrally about suffering and escape from suffering. And not conceptually about the non-contingent love of Christian doctrine.

You make it sound as if Love is a christian doctrine but not a doctrine of any other religion. Again I ask you. Does christianity not address suffering. Did Jesus not preach extensively about human suffering? Did he not say ' come unto me all ye who are heavy laden and I will give you rest.'?
Did he not teach that we should concern ourselves less with what we will eat and what we will wear and concern ourselves with the basileia ton theon?

Everything above emphatically proves the point I tried to make regarding the FOCUS of the Four Noble Truths as SUFFERING AND THE AVOIDANCE THEREOF: which thrust is divergent from the core of Christian Doctrine which in many degrees actually embraces suffering in pursuit of salvation – AND AT ALL EVENTS is motivated by salvation based on the sacrifice of Christ – which is a doctrine you will not dare to equate with Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths!

Sir I wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest that your understanding is religion is extremely superficial, but I would suggest that you made a deeper study of what the sacrifice of Christ entails, what it means, and it's significance to the christian life. And also make a study of Buddhism. I would recommend a study of Chan Buddhism, which developed in China drew parallels with the traditions of Taoism and Confucianism.

But you really know how to make a man work o, you dis guy! I've spent about an hour already just responding to this and I haven't done anything else today.

Deepsight seems to be coming from the premise that religion is something that is arbitrarily invented by it's founders and so therefore can have no bearing on each other. 

This is a truly unfortunate assessment of my perspectives.

I have spent 90 per cent of my time on this forum arguing the contrary: the common conscience of mankind and the openness of salvation to men of all faiths under the common principle of love.

I believe that I have already stated that which I am in fact arguing and can not therefore repeat my self.

All because of staggering. And doctrine. From frying pan to fire. Pastor, you sef bad o. Inasmuch as I perceive a sense of futility about Deepsight, I'll attempt to put some things in perspective.

Staggering is after all a relative term. What is staggering to someone might not be so to another person. It has to do with background knowledge.

Doctrine to me is a belief or set of beliefs on which a set of practices, conduct or state of mind is based and in which lack of belief compromises or totally dismisses one as a follower in the faith that propagates it. It is what separates Muslims from Jews and Catholics from Protestants and not whether you should turn the other cheek or not.

Beliefs are things that are borrowed and exchanged among many civilizations and cultures of old. It is not altogether unexpected that there should be similarities in myths, legends and doctrine provided it is among religions that have been in contact with one another. Except you think the similarities in mythology between the Greek and Romans are surprising. In my opinion, doctrine by its very nature presupposes an aura of exclusiveness such that anything two religions have in common is likely not doctrine. This is not to say there are no cases of this, I just think there aren't many and certainly not staggeringly so.

In conclusion, if Columbus got to America and found Native Americans going to some sort of mass and taking communion, that will count as staggering similarity. If in 500 years, a new religion is morphed in Brazil with Exu as the centre of worship, I won't be surprised at any similarities it has with traditional Yoruba religion.

As far as I'm concerned, the only puzzle in similarity is how Mayan pyramids look like Egyptian ones.

vescucci:


Doctrine to me is a belief or set of beliefs on which a set of practices, conduct or state of mind is based and in which lack of belief compromises or totally dismisses one as a follower in the faith that propagates it. It is what separates Muslims from Jews and Catholics from Protestants and not whether you should turn the other cheek or not.

Beliefs are things that are borrowed and exchanged among many civilizations and cultures of old. It is not altogether unexpected that there should be similarities in myths, legends and doctrine provided it is among religions that have been in contact with one another. Except you think the similarities in mythology between the Greek and Romans are surprising. In my opinion, doctrine by its very nature presupposes an aura of exclusiveness such that anything two religions have in common is likely not doctrine. This is not to say there are no cases of this, I just think there aren't many and certainly not staggeringly so.

Simply and utterly brilliant. I was beginning to believe that no one else would appreciate that subtle connotation of the word "doctrine" as you have just done.

I suppose it might help if one adds to this context the word - [I]"Indoctrination"[/i] - and the very specific connotations that it carries with it.

Thank you.

^^^ Everyone sees whats above and understands it the way Vescucci states it. You will however note his speech flowed from end to end NOT changing color in the transition. THAT is what everyone complains about - the inferences, re-definitions, putting words into people's posts on their behalf.

Use of such words as ineluctable, undeniable, staggering, conclusive.

I at least, have as many as half a dozen times, stated I believes your assertions were of argument rather than of belief. They are just so, "for want of a fairer word", amazing! Else why would everyone quickly back out when your interpretations begin? Its because they know they'll be deliberately misrepresented! And you have this manner of ignoring whatever is said "post", so the person has to go on the defensive (thus looking guilty) over your "bite".

No be court case, DS!

^^^^ I do not know how many times I have advised you to face issues and not people.

What has the foregoing post of yours got to do with anything being discussed here? ? ?

^^^ Just as I've told you to stop telling me what I mean. Seeing as there's quite a number of us saying same, you'd be best served realising its the only issue but more than enough to corrupt all else

I hereby ban the word staggering from this forum. Staggering and Ontology. They are no longer welcome.

vescucci:

Doctrine to me is a belief or set of beliefs on which a set of practices, conduct or state of mind is based and in which lack of belief compromises or totally dismisses one as a follower in the faith that propagates it. It is what separates Muslims from Jews and Catholics from Protestants and not whether you should turn the other cheek or not.

Even then, Love is not a doctrine that separates christians from other faiths. and Avoidance of suffering is not a doctrine that defines buddhists separate from other religions.

Deep Sight:


I have spent 90 per cent of my time on this forum arguing the contrary: the common conscience of mankind and the openness of salvation to men of all faiths under the common principle of love.

But the similarities run deeper than what can be explained by a common conscience or principle of love. There is so much iconography that they have in common worldwide. The images, the stories, even though they are often given a different slant or interpreted differently it is fascinating that they often use the same imagery.
Look at the Garden of Eden, Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, the description of the New Jerusalem, The initiation of canaanite kings, the hanging of Woden, The garden of the Hesperides etc etc etc.

Inasmuch as I believe I have concluded everything i have to say in Post No. 63  above, I really must express distress at the rather superficial similarities being drawn between the Garden of Eden and Buddha's elightenment under a Boddhi Tree. For crying ot loud, is the mere mention of the word "tree" sufficient to draw a similarity? The two stories are starkly different! The elightenment which man derived from eating the forbidden fruit was material and worldly - the enligntenment which the Buddha referred to was spiritual and metaphysical. . .I really do not get this!

During the first part of the night, Siddhartha understood that suffering has a cause, and expressed his understanding. Then during the middle part of the night, he understood how to destroy suffering, and expressed his understanding. Finally, during the third part of the night, he described reaching enlightenment, "even as the sun was lighting the heavens."

And the foregoing quote from you, Pastor, is more than sufficient for me to rest the discussion as it entitely proves everything i argued in Post No. 63 above: namely that the foundation and thrust of the 4 Noble Truths is Suffering and the avoidance of suffering which is entirely different from the foundation and thrust of Christrian doctrine: which is salvation through the sacrifice of christ and non-contingent love.

This firmly upholds the initial statement i put to you in the other thread.

There is really nothing to add.

Edit