• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Buddhist ethic (at least western Buddhism) vrs the Christian ethic


... OK, so there is no reason to do theology, or anything to talk about ... I take it your done? If you're just saying "nothing can be said about faith, so your critique fails" then I find that an extremely weak argument.
 
I agree with almost all of your first paragraph

As for your second, yeah, this was meant to be more analysis, and differentiation, it comes off as competition clearly because I am a christian and I am differentiating, and choosing one, that wasn't my intention, I respect Buddhism and Buddhists and I think christians have things to learn from Buddhists, but I don't think they are fundementally just different types of the same, I reject that.
I agree with you that there are fundamental differences between Christian and Buddhist thought. If I didn't believe that to be true I'd probably still be an Anglican, or perhaps a Baha'i. I see the reason and the truth of Zen teaching, but that doesn't require me to reject or accept other strands of theological thought. I simply try to concentrate on practicing Zen without feeling attraction or aversion to what others may be doing. As I hinted earlier, for Buddhist faith to be strong and true doesn't require other faiths to be weak and false. You could use the word 'bourgeois' to describe a tendency to believe that religion is just another aspect of the consumer society; that you have to pick and choose one particular brand and reject all the others.

I certainly do not see anything remotely like overweening individualism in the practice of Buddhism in the part of the West with which I'm familiar. The Bodhisattva Vow, with which most Buddhists worldwide would be familiar, promises to work for the benefit of all sentient beings - that is the goal of practice, not the gaining of enlightenment for one's own benefit, that may be the consequence of a life or lives or a miraculous instant of practice, but it is not the intention. In Zen Buddhism, the Vow has evolved into this four-line declaration:

Beings are numberless; I vow to save them.
Delusions are inexhaustible; I vow to end them.
Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to enter them.
Buddha’s Way is unsurpassable; I vow to become it.


If one can grasp the concept of dependent origination, it will be seen that the idea of ego-driven individualism is anathema to Buddhist thought and practice. As someone with predominantly anarcho-socialist politics, I wouldn't have anything to do with a philosophy of rampant individualism.

My direct experience with Buddhists and Buddhism has been with western buddhists, the reason I made the distinction was me admitting I don't have direct experience with eastern Buddhism and have studied it not nearly as deeply as I have christianity, so it was really me trying to say "I could be wrong," just in case someone says "that's not at all tibeten, or whatever Buddhism," so I'm not saying there is one authentic Buddhism and one not, I'm just explaining my experience.
There are as many forms of Buddhist practice as there are Buddhists. Those rows that you see here on occasion between Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons and so on over who is really a Christian are almost unimaginable amongst Buddhists, many of whom don't even like to label themselves as Buddhist because that sets up a kind of us-vs-them false dualism. What you call yourself is of no importance whatsoever. What you do to achieve the promise of the Bodhisattva Vow is much more relevant.
 
I agree with you that there are fundamental differences between Christian and Buddhist thought. If I didn't believe that to be true I'd probably still be an Anglican, or perhaps a Baha'i. I see the reason and the truth of Zen teaching, but that doesn't require me to reject or accept other strands of theological thought. I simply try to concentrate on practicing Zen without feeling attraction or aversion to what others may be doing. As I hinted earlier, for Buddhist faith to be strong and true doesn't require other faiths to be weak and false. You could use the word 'bourgeois' to describe a tendency to believe that religion is just another aspect of the consumer society; that you have to pick and choose one particular brand and reject all the others.

I certainly do not see anything remotely like overweening individualism in the practice of Buddhism in the part of the West with which I'm familiar. The Bodhisattva Vow, with which most Buddhists worldwide would be familiar, promises to work for the benefit of all sentient beings - that is the goal of practice, not the gaining of enlightenment for one's own benefit, that may be the consequence of a life or lives or a miraculous instant of practice, but it is not the intention. In Zen Buddhism, the Vow has evolved into this four-line declaration:

Beings are numberless; I vow to save them.
Delusions are inexhaustible; I vow to end them.
Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to enter them.
Buddha’s Way is unsurpassable; I vow to become it.


If one can grasp the concept of dependent origination, it will be seen that the idea of ego-driven individualism is anathema to Buddhist thought and practice. As someone with predominantly anarcho-socialist politics, I wouldn't have anything to do with a philosophy of rampant individualism.

1. I do think if Buddhism is true, then reincaration is true, which would mean the Abrahamic faiths are false, if Buddhism is true there is no personal God, which would mean the Abrahamic faiths are false.

2. The practice is not the issue, its the basic fundementals.

3. Are you claiming that enlightenment is not the purpose of Bhuddism? If all sentient beings being liberated or something, is it the responsibility to liberate all or just ones self and perhaps give wisdom after? Can I get a clarification here?

4. I also have predominantly anarcho-socialist policies which are posteriori to my faith, i.e. they come out of it. I'm not saying that it has rampant individualism in its declaration, I'm saying, or I claimed, that behind the practice and religion is a foundation, or an escatology, which is egocentric, i.e. on the surface is one thing but behind, when broken down it is another.

There are as many forms of Buddhist practice as there are Buddhists. Those rows that you see here on occasion between Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons and so on over who is really a Christian are almost unimaginable amongst Buddhists, many of whom don't even like to label themselves as Buddhist because that sets up a kind of us-vs-them false dualism. What you call yourself is of no importance whatsoever. What you do to achieve the promise of the Bodhisattva Vow is much more relevant.

One CANNOT truely be a serious christian and still be fascist, it would go directly against clear New testament principles. Can one say the same for Buddhism? (not a challenge, I honestly don't know, Zizek claims one can).
 
1. I do think if Buddhism is true, then reincaration is true, which would mean the Abrahamic faiths are false, if Buddhism is true there is no personal God, which would mean the Abrahamic faiths are false.
What you would deduce from that would be according to your own logical process. I wouldn't say your reasoning is wrong, just that it wouldn't be something I'd offer an opinion on. I don't believe in a personal god, but to claim the Abrahamic religions are 'false' would be to place dualistic thinking on something, and I don't believe in that either.

2. The practice is not the issue, its the basic fundementals.
The practice IS the fundamental. Buddhism is nothing without the practice. A major difference between Buddhism and some strands of Christianity is that faith and belief in the philosophy brings nothing if you don't practice.

3. Are you claiming that enlightenment is not the purpose of Bhuddism? If all sentient beings being liberated or something, is it the responsibility to liberate all or just ones self and perhaps give wisdom after? Can I get a clarification here?
The enlightenment of the individual is not the purpose of Buddhism since the individual does not really exist. I am you and you are your neighbour. It would be impossible and the negation of the idea of dependent origination for you to attain enlightenment and nibbana independently, in a transcending vacuum.

4. I also have predominantly anarcho-socialist policies which are posteriori to my faith, i.e. they come out of it. I'm not saying that it has rampant individualism in its declaration, I'm saying, or I claimed, that behind the practice and religion is a foundation, or an escatology, which is egocentric, i.e. on the surface is one thing but behind, when broken down it is another.
Well, what can I say? That isn't my understanding at all. My experience has been that Buddhist texts and teachers mean what they say and speak clearly from the heart of wisdom. If you believe it is means something other than what it teaches, so be it.

One CANNOT truely be a serious christian and still be fascist, it would go directly against clear New testament principles. Can one say the same for Buddhism? (not a challenge, I honestly don't know, Zizek claims one can).
I'd claim that that all falls into the No True Scotsman fallacy. Since there can be no objective standard for defining "a serious Christian", there cannot be one for defining a 'serious Buddhist', can there? The fact that there have been fascists and Nazis and all kinds of authoritarian types who have claimed and been recognised as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus and the like, it seems like semantics to offer an opinion which would be based on purely emotional wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
Most of the western bhuddists that I know of are middle to upper class profressionals ... this hippies (who barely exist anymore) or hipsters.

Communism doesn't really exist in china, never has, It's been Capitalistic, for the last 30 or 40 years. Also in isn't an anti-religious one, just anti-some religions, there are plenty of christian groups that are tolerated, others are considered a threat to the state, btw, it's no different than in any state, Islam is being persecuted in the US.

Christianity doesn't offer salvation from political tyranny, it's another type of salvation that applies just as much to those under the Chinese regeime to those in Amsterdam, Also the christian ethic (as I have shown) is radically opposed to the capitalist ethic.

But the people turning to christianity in China are not those who are really that oppressed ... it's the urban middle or upper middle class ... the ones that are doing relatively well.

You're right about evangelicles though, but not all of them, infact a big part of them take the gospel seriously, problem is they are the "meek" while the right wing loones are loud and obnoxious and get on the news.

As I said in an earlier comment, yes, here in the west, people who turn to buddhism are people who have an "easier" life, safe from oppression and tyranny and are more well off socio-economically... so they can afford to deal with such issues and be interested in making a cosmetic religious change to stand out.

Communism does exist in china. It is a single-party state rules by a oligachy and with an extensive bureaucracy that covers all areas of life. Just because it isn't what communism was 80 years ago when Lenin decided to make a mess in russia, doesn't mean its not communism. There are different ways of implementing communism just like there are different ways of implementing democracy.

Christianity doesn't offer any salvation in this life. It's about the afterlife. And people who are living under the chinese regime can't possibly hope of a massive improvement in life, so at least, maybe in death they'll be free of oppression when they'll be in heaven. That's what Christianity is about. Not this world, the next world. This is where it is different than say, Islam, which has a political-social structure within it called sharia. And Christian behavior is not absolute. Just because you're banker doesn't mean you can't give 10% to charity or say a prayers. this is another key difference between Christianity and other religions, like say, hinduism, it's not absolute because it doesn't deal with this life, but the afterlife.

And yeah, evangelicals, especially televangelists suck.
 
As I said in an earlier comment, yes, here in the west, people who turn to buddhism are people who have an "easier" life, safe from oppression and tyranny and are more well off socio-economically... so they can afford to deal with such issues and be interested in making a cosmetic religious change to stand out.

Are you saying that religious truth-seeking is only for the well-off? If people are hungry or oppressed they will not be bothered about spiritual or metaphysical matters? And are you saying that converting from Christianity to Buddhism is essentially a 'cosmetic religious change' that has no meaning? And finally, are you claiming that people choose to follow a particular religious path simply for personal recognition, to merely 'stand out'?

That's a lot of supposition based on what exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't have the first clue as to what motivates my religious beliefs, so why should I believe you have a handle on anyone else's, apart from your own?
 
Are you saying that religious truth-seeking is only for the well-off? If people are hungry or oppressed they will not be bothered about spiritual or metaphysical matters? And are you saying that converting from Christianity to Buddhism is essentially a 'cosmetic religious change' that has no meaning? And finally, are you claiming that people choose to follow a particular religious path simply for personal recognition, to merely 'stand out'?

That's a lot of supposition based on what exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't have the first clue as to what motivates my religious beliefs, so why should I believe you have a handle on anyone else's, apart from your own?

No. As you put it, religious truth-seeking, is for everyone. That's why religion is popular among those who are disenfranchized or those who are suffering... that's exactly the point, people who are in problematic situations turn to religion for relief. The people in trouble find religion.

Those who are well off... people who are whole as it were, don't need religion. If you have no real problems in life, everything is going right for you, you're a good and decent person overall, give to charity and are nice to people and all that... you don't even need religion.

Christianity is especially a religion for the disenfranchized and the people in trouble. Jesus didn't spend time with kings and the nobility. He spent time with the beggars, the poor, the sick and the weary ,etc.

Now. here in the west, we are pounded every day with messages that encourage us to be different. to be unique. To be "yourself" as long as "yourself" stands out as exceptional in something. The easiest way to stand out and be different from the herd... it to change your religion. It's the easiest thing ever. Now you're a Christian. Tomorrow you're an atheist. The other day you'll be a buddhist. It's hip. This is the cosmetic change.

Now there are people who do search for religious meaning in all social classes. poor to wealthy. But these kind of people get more and more rare as you climb up the social economic ladder.
 
... OK, so there is no reason to do theology, or anything to talk about ... I take it your done?

No, we could talk theology but not Nirvana, which is beyond description (as noted in the Bible passage I posted).
I admit, however, I've lost shape. You should have debated me 10 years ago on this topic. :cool:
 
What you would deduce from that would be according to your own logical process. I wouldn't say your reasoning is wrong, just that it wouldn't be something I'd offer an opinion on. I don't believe in a personal god, but to claim the Abrahamic religions are 'false' would be to place dualistic thinking on something, and I don't believe in that either.

Ok. The statement "there is a personal God that exists" is either true, or it is not true, in my opinion it is true, it your opinion it is not, but ONE of us is correct.

Or take life after death, after you die either your consciousness stops existing or it doesn't, something is gonna happen when you die.

I think this postmodern thinking doesn't really work in the end.

The practice IS the fundamental. Buddhism is nothing without the practice. A major difference between Buddhism and some strands of Christianity is that faith and belief in the philosophy brings nothing if you don't practice.

Oh sure, that isn't what I meant, I meant like the purpose and the underlying metaphysical and ethical presuppositions.

The enlightenment of the individual is not the purpose of Buddhism since the individual does not really exist. I am you and you are your neighbour. It would be impossible and the negation of the idea of dependent origination for you to attain enlightenment and nibbana independently, in a transcending vacuum.

That's an interesting understanding, from what I understand the individual DOES exist, but is interconnected with all life.

That being said I dont' think getting rid of the self helps you much, you get all sorts of problems there as well.

Well, what can I say? That isn't my understanding at all. My experience has been that Buddhist texts and teachers mean what they say and speak clearly from the heart of wisdom. If you believe it is means something other than what it teaches, so be it.

I also believe it means what it says, but that the implications and pressuppositions are something else.

I'm exploring the idea.

I'd claim that that all falls into the No True Scotsman fallacy. Since there can be no objective standard for defining "a serious Christian", there cannot be one for defining a 'serious Buddhist', can there? The fact that there have been fascists and Nazis and all kinds of authoritarian types who have claimed and been recognised as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus and the like, it seems like semantics to offer an opinion which would be based on purely emotional wishful thinking.

1. Well there is an objective standard, its the Gospel in the New Testament (at least for most christians, almost all take the NT as cannon), it isn't a true schotsman fallacy, because I'm saying that based on clear teachings in the text of the NT, and not relying on interpretation (which is why I didn't mention things like homosexuality, marriage, conversvatism vrs liberalism or whatever).

The fascists that have called themselves christians have done so blatently ignoring the gospel, it's provable, because Christianity is more than a practice, it's a world view, it's an escatology, a metaphysics, and so on.

From what I understand Buddhist texts are not cannon, they are just helpful and enlightened texts.
 
As I said in an earlier comment, yes, here in the west, people who turn to buddhism are people who have an "easier" life, safe from oppression and tyranny and are more well off socio-economically... so they can afford to deal with such issues and be interested in making a cosmetic religious change to stand out.

Again that simply isn't the case, Bhuddism in the east is done a lot by poor people, who don't meditate, just follow a guru, or go to a temple or whatever, not all Bhuddism is meditative Bhuddism.

Communism does exist in china. It is a single-party state rules by a oligachy and with an extensive bureaucracy that covers all areas of life. Just because it isn't what communism was 80 years ago when Lenin decided to make a mess in russia, doesn't mean its not communism. There are different ways of implementing communism just like there are different ways of implementing democracy.

Sounds like the US, almost (2 parties, both buisiness, oligarchy, corporate bureaucracy, corporations run most areas of life), point being socialism requires at least the pretense that the economy is being run communally, or socially, rather than private and for profit, China doesn't even have that pretense anymore.

Christianity doesn't offer any salvation in this life. It's about the afterlife. And people who are living under the chinese regime can't possibly hope of a massive improvement in life, so at least, maybe in death they'll be free of oppression when they'll be in heaven. That's what Christianity is about. Not this world, the next world. This is where it is different than say, Islam, which has a political-social structure within it called sharia. And Christian behavior is not absolute. Just because you're banker doesn't mean you can't give 10% to charity or say a prayers. this is another key difference between Christianity and other religions, like say, hinduism, it's not absolute because it doesn't deal with this life, but the afterlife.

And yeah, evangelicals, especially televangelists suck.

Jim Wallis, and evangelical is a wonderful guy, you have many evangelicals that are great, it's such a shame that they get drowned out though, evangelicals were at the forfront of the abolitionist movement, in the labor movement and so on, yet nowerdays all you hear are the Pat Robertson types, and liberals talk about "evangelicals" (as I used to as well, before I encountered actual evangelicals) as the ones they see on TV, it's a shame.

Christianity DOES offer salvation in this life, of a sort, salvation from the fleshly materialistic way of thinking, salvation from fear and from hatred and violent thinking and so on.

I just don't buy your analysis of Christianity in China, the urban middle class have experienced massiave improvements in their lives, huge wealth has been created, oppression in China for them is almost non existant, I personally think that Christianity in China is growing due to the message itself and the fact that it's new, I don't think socio-political implications are important, I think ANYWHERE free christianity (non institutionalized) appears, it will grow. It isn't the factory workers becoming christians, its the lawers, the professionals, the petty borgouise and so on.

Islam is also mostly about the after life, and I think Christianity is also very much about this life in the sense of Matthew 25 or Matthew 5, the church, and so on, but it's just that Christianity doesn't expect reward in this life (or really anylife, since works don't get us anything extra). Also I don't think the ethic of "you can be a banker and just give to chairty and say prayers and forget your sins," the scriptures say in all you do do it for the glory of God.
 
Are you saying that religious truth-seeking is only for the well-off? If people are hungry or oppressed they will not be bothered about spiritual or metaphysical matters? And are you saying that converting from Christianity to Buddhism is essentially a 'cosmetic religious change' that has no meaning? And finally, are you claiming that people choose to follow a particular religious path simply for personal recognition, to merely 'stand out'?

That's a lot of supposition based on what exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't have the first clue as to what motivates my religious beliefs, so why should I believe you have a handle on anyone else's, apart from your own?

I think its totally appropriate, as Rainman is doing, to look at socio-economic (material) conditions behind faiths.
 
No. As you put it, religious truth-seeking, is for everyone. That's why religion is popular among those who are disenfranchized or those who are suffering... that's exactly the point, people who are in problematic situations turn to religion for relief. The people in trouble find religion.

Those who are well off... people who are whole as it were, don't need religion. If you have no real problems in life, everything is going right for you, you're a good and decent person overall, give to charity and are nice to people and all that... you don't even need religion.

Christianity is especially a religion for the disenfranchized and the people in trouble. Jesus didn't spend time with kings and the nobility. He spent time with the beggars, the poor, the sick and the weary ,etc.

Now. here in the west, we are pounded every day with messages that encourage us to be different. to be unique. To be "yourself" as long as "yourself" stands out as exceptional in something. The easiest way to stand out and be different from the herd... it to change your religion. It's the easiest thing ever. Now you're a Christian. Tomorrow you're an atheist. The other day you'll be a buddhist. It's hip. This is the cosmetic change.

Now there are people who do search for religious meaning in all social classes. poor to wealthy. But these kind of people get more and more rare as you climb up the social economic ladder.

I agree with you mostly there.

My origional contention was that Bhuddism (or at least some strands of bhuddism) appeal to Western Buisiness Class types, due to the concept that it's very subjective, practice based, and utalitarian, and, I contended although it's being challenged pretty well and making me think more, in essence self-serving.
 
Again that simply isn't the case, Bhuddism in the east is done a lot by poor people, who don't meditate, just follow a guru, or go to a temple or whatever, not all Bhuddism is meditative Bhuddism.

true.

Sounds like the US, almost (2 parties, both buisiness, oligarchy, corporate bureaucracy, corporations run most areas of life), point being socialism requires at least the pretense that the economy is being run communally, or socially, rather than private and for profit, China doesn't even have that pretense anymore.

Yes and no. Those 2 parties still need votes to get into office. And the whole thing is very different. Don't compare them. China is a new kind of communism, XXIth century communism if you will. Soon enough it will be looked at the way communism and fascism were looked at in the XXth century. A viable alternative to democracy. But they weren't back then... and this isn't now.

Jim Wallis, and evangelical is a wonderful guy, you have many evangelicals that are great, it's such a shame that they get drowned out though, evangelicals were at the forfront of the abolitionist movement, in the labor movement and so on, yet nowerdays all you hear are the Pat Robertson types, and liberals talk about "evangelicals" (as I used to as well, before I encountered actual evangelicals) as the ones they see on TV, it's a shame.

Christianity DOES offer salvation in this life, of a sort, salvation from the fleshly materialistic way of thinking, salvation from fear and from hatred and violent thinking and so on.

I just don't buy your analysis of Christianity in China, the urban middle class have experienced massiave improvements in their lives, huge wealth has been created, oppression in China for them is almost non existant, I personally think that Christianity in China is growing due to the message itself and the fact that it's new, I don't think socio-political implications are important, I think ANYWHERE free christianity (non institutionalized) appears, it will grow. It isn't the factory workers becoming christians, its the lawers, the professionals, the petty borgouise and so on.

Islam is also mostly about the after life, and I think Christianity is also very much about this life in the sense of Matthew 25 or Matthew 5, the church, and so on, but it's just that Christianity doesn't expect reward in this life (or really anylife, since works don't get us anything extra). Also I don't think the ethic of "you can be a banker and just give to chairty and say prayers and forget your sins," the scriptures say in all you do do it for the glory of God.


No, it offers no salvation from violent thinking. It offers a way to make amends to seek out forgiveness for crimes, but it doesn't do squat to nullify human emotion.

You may think that the middle class in china experiences no oppression, but you're wrong. Sure, the aquisition of wealth has enabled some people to rise above what they were. To liberate themselves. Wealth empowers people. But they have no freedom of speech. No freedom of expression. No liberty what so ever. Sure they can travel abroad (20mil or so chinamen travel abroad every year). They have more liberty than they had, lets say, 40 years ago, but it's not the same. You aren't a free person. the police treats you like ****. If you've been wronged you have nowhere to turn to. If you question politics... well, you can't. It's a dump it is people who are in the middle class, who are more financially independent that can think of such things... and notice them.
Also, don't think that middle class in chian means the same thing it means in the USA or in Europe. The vast majority of the wealth that China has is in the hands of the oligarchy.
 
No, it offers no salvation from violent thinking. It offers a way to make amends to seek out forgiveness for crimes, but it doesn't do squat to nullify human emotion.

You may think that the middle class in china experiences no oppression, but you're wrong. Sure, the aquisition of wealth has enabled some people to rise above what they were. To liberate themselves. Wealth empowers people. But they have no freedom of speech. No freedom of expression. No liberty what so ever. Sure they can travel abroad (20mil or so chinamen travel abroad every year). They have more liberty than they had, lets say, 40 years ago, but it's not the same. You aren't a free person. the police treats you like ****. If you've been wronged you have nowhere to turn to. If you question politics... well, you can't. It's a dump it is people who are in the middle class, who are more financially independent that can think of such things... and notice them.
Also, don't think that middle class in chian means the same thing it means in the USA or in Europe. The vast majority of the wealth that China has is in the hands of the oligarchy.

1. Absolutely it does, Christian ethics are radically non violent, as was the early church up until constantine, it doest nullify human emotion, "take on the new personality" is the command of pauls epistles, he talks about fleshly vrs spiritual traits, and we should deaden the fleshly and become spiritual, and so on, Christianity DOES aim to change personality.

2. The police treat wealthy people pretty well, and most people in the middle class are not repressed because they don't really need to struggle, the people that are repressed are the peasants that want to save their land and are thus thrown in prison for protesting, sure they don't have as much liberal freedoms as the west, but to claim that they embrace christianity to escape "oppression" just flies in the face of the facts.

3. The vasy majority of the welath in US is in the hands of the Oligarchy here as well ....

Yes and no. Those 2 parties still need votes to get into office. And the whole thing is very different. Don't compare them. China is a new kind of communism, XXIth century communism if you will. Soon enough it will be looked at the way communism and fascism were looked at in the XXth century. A viable alternative to democracy. But they weren't back then... and this isn't now.

You could call it XXth century Capitalism with as much and infact MORE justification, the Singapore/China model of Capitalism.

Communism is compared to Capitalism, what's compared to democracy is oligarchy, you can have both socialist and capitalist oligarchic states (take pinoche's Chile for example).
 
1. Absolutely it does, Christian ethics are radically non violent, as was the early church up until constantine, it doest nullify human emotion, "take on the new personality" is the command of pauls epistles, he talks about fleshly vrs spiritual traits, and we should deaden the fleshly and become spiritual, and so on, Christianity DOES aim to change personality.

2. The police treat wealthy people pretty well, and most people in the middle class are not repressed because they don't really need to struggle, the people that are repressed are the peasants that want to save their land and are thus thrown in prison for protesting, sure they don't have as much liberal freedoms as the west, but to claim that they embrace christianity to escape "oppression" just flies in the face of the facts.

3. The vasy majority of the welath in US is in the hands of the Oligarchy here as well ....



You could call it XXth century Capitalism with as much and infact MORE justification, the Singapore/China model of Capitalism.

Communism is compared to Capitalism, what's compared to democracy is oligarchy, you can have both socialist and capitalist oligarchic states (take pinoche's Chile for example).

1. Yes, the take on the new personality, (its poorly translated) means that you should be more forgiving. That's what Christianity teaches. And yes, become more spiritual, all that good stuff, but it's not in order to satisfy worldly requirements, but for the purpose of the afterlife.

2. Middle class in Europe and the USA don't mean the same thing as the middle class in China. It may end up there , but it is, for the most part, not there yet. China has about 10% of its population in the middle class. The rest, 1% rich... the rest are poor. 89%.

New concerns for China's rising middle class - DAWN.COM

Tens of millions of others have made a similar transition. About 10 percent of China's 1.35 billion people now count as middle class, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, a figure set to rise to 40 percent by 2020.

As the middle class will broaden, the associations with the middle class will broaden. So far their middle class = our upper middle class. From there on, its a massive dive into poverty. From lower middle class to upper middle class you have a mountain to climb. Upper middle class Chinesse can afford 2 cars and a fancy place, free from the pollution of much of their main cities... in the better neighborhoods. But it will get there. The upper middle class will be further divided into upper-upper middle class and bottom-up middle class... and middle middle class.. as higher and higher % of the population manage to have bigger paychecks and advance economically.

So for now ,comparing the 2 at face value is not quite fair.

3. True. But the oligarchy is usually not political. It controls the politicians :p.
China's oligarchy is both political and economical. You can't replace them. There is no way to get rid of them. Here, in the west, if we work hard enough as concerned citizens, we can break the "french courts" we have running our highest offices and start building firewalls... and then, the economical "monarchs" will be the Bill Gates kind of people, intelligent well behaved individuals who create something of worth... and the wall street CEO's like Lloyd Blankfein, who get multimillion dollar bonuses every couple of months will get a shake-up and wake-up.

Communism is a complex system. It incorporates both economical, political and social norms. Capitalism is an economic ideology that promotes free enterprise. Democracy is purely a political ideology that finds practical implementation in the idea of republics... parliamentary republics, semi-pres republics, presidential republics (like the USA is) and such.

To equate them is to unfairly equate them... You can't do that. China is a communist nation. it has extensive government companies if you will, that manage a lot of things in day to day life. It is politically a single party state and it promotes a social hierarchy based upon political standing. If you're with the party... you get perks. If you're not, you don't. Very simple.
 
I think its totally appropriate, as Rainman is doing, to look at socio-economic (material) conditions behind faiths.

I think making assumptions about the religious beliefs of a mass of people based solely upon their socio-economic class is a fairly futile activity. You can't even make accurate generalisations about people's political views based on socio-economic class, so I do challenge the validity of these sweeping assumptions. There's nothing wrong with looking at these factors provided you also look at all the other possible influences on someone's religious beliefs too.
 
1. Yes, the take on the new personality, (its poorly translated) means that you should be more forgiving. That's what Christianity teaches. And yes, become more spiritual, all that good stuff, but it's not in order to satisfy worldly requirements, but for the purpose of the afterlife.

2. Middle class in Europe and the USA don't mean the same thing as the middle class in China. It may end up there , but it is, for the most part, not there yet. China has about 10% of its population in the middle class. The rest, 1% rich... the rest are poor. 89%.

New concerns for China's rising middle class - DAWN.COM

1. It doesn't just mean being more forgiving, its the fruits of the spirit, also its not just for the after life ... its for the sake of love in itself, any afterlife is based on love.

2. Whether or not middle class in europe is the same as middle class in China isn't here or there. Also I would guess the class distinctions are much sharper than that, i.e. the rich is .001% (The US is more around there), and the middle class is around 5-10% and the rest are more or less poor.

As the middle class will broaden, the associations with the middle class will broaden. So far their middle class = our upper middle class. From there on, its a massive dive into poverty. From lower middle class to upper middle class you have a mountain to climb. Upper middle class Chinesse can afford 2 cars and a fancy place, free from the pollution of much of their main cities... in the better neighborhoods. But it will get there. The upper middle class will be further divided into upper-upper middle class and bottom-up middle class... and middle middle class.. as higher and higher % of the population manage to have bigger paychecks and advance economically.

So for now ,comparing the 2 at face value is not quite fair.

Its more or less the same in the US ...

3. True. But the oligarchy is usually not political. It controls the politicians :p.
China's oligarchy is both political and economical. You can't replace them. There is no way to get rid of them. Here, in the west, if we work hard enough as concerned citizens, we can break the "french courts" we have running our highest offices and start building firewalls... and then, the economical "monarchs" will be the Bill Gates kind of people, intelligent well behaved individuals who create something of worth... and the wall street CEO's like Lloyd Blankfein, who get multimillion dollar bonuses every couple of months will get a shake-up and wake-up.

The chances of the US breaking economic (and by extension political) oligarchies here are just as likely as the chinese braking theirs. Bill Gates isn't really an oligarch, he's not really involved anymore in the corporate oligarchy ...

Communism is a complex system. It incorporates both economical, political and social norms. Capitalism is an economic ideology that promotes free enterprise. Democracy is purely a political ideology that finds practical implementation in the idea of republics... parliamentary republics, semi-pres republics, presidential republics (like the USA is) and such.

To equate them is to unfairly equate them... You can't do that. China is a communist nation. it has extensive government companies if you will, that manage a lot of things in day to day life. It is politically a single party state and it promotes a social hierarchy based upon political standing. If you're with the party... you get perks. If you're not, you don't. Very simple.

It depends what you mean by communism, I'm generally talking "small c communism," which applies to everything from anarchist spain, to the 1rst century Jerusalem Church, to farming cooperatives, to the idea of the commons in a nation, and so on.

But Anyway, I think we just need to agree to dissagre here, I don't think we can say that China's incrase in interest in christianity has anything to do with "oppression."
 
I think making assumptions about the religious beliefs of a mass of people based solely upon their socio-economic class is a fairly futile activity. You can't even make accurate generalisations about people's political views based on socio-economic class, so I do challenge the validity of these sweeping assumptions. There's nothing wrong with looking at these factors provided you also look at all the other possible influences on someone's religious beliefs too.

Actually you can, in most countries, you can look at material backgrounds and make general predictions.

I'm not saying it's the only factor, I'm saying it's a factor.
 
I'm not saying it's the only factor, I'm saying it's a factor.

I agree with this, however it seems to be just one factor and opinions differ hugely on how big a factor. I'd argue that cultural, psychological and personality-related factors would be just as important in the shaping of someone's religious development.
 
I agree with this, however it seems to be just one factor and opinions differ hugely on how big a factor. I'd argue that cultural, psychological and personality-related factors would be just as important in the shaping of someone's religious development.

Culture is very much dependant on material and socio-economic conditions as well.
 
Culture is very much dependant on material and socio-economic conditions as well.

Influenced by, yes. Dependent on? No, I don't think so. Materialism is not all-pervasive and all-important, influential though it undoubtedly is.
 
China is not a Buddhist nation.

Buddhism is practiced by 18% of the people in China. That estimate varies, but no estimate that I am able to find even approaches 25% of the number of people practicing religion in China.

Source



20_religionCountryMap.jpg

Source
 
The rise of buddhism in the west is because hippies and hipsters made it trendy. It's no longer "cool" to be part of the mainstream. You need to be part of the downstream I guess.

Even in China, Christianity is on the rise because Christianity is the only religion in the world that is there for the man who lost everything and who is suffering.

Buddhism is also on the rise in China for much the same reason and is growing faster than Christianity. In the West people interested in Buddhism are expected to contend with the Asian language, dress, customs, and symbols that are entrained in it. Christians in China have to put up with the same thing in reverse, with Western language, dress, customs and symbols being brought it. In China there is an emphasis on Christianity shorn of Western influence.

Buddhism is everywhere the champion of the out groups and the oppressed against the powerful.

My understanding is that in Buddhism one does not put any faith in gods. It's beside the point. When asked about such things the Buddha would say simply "It does not further." It does not help one to attain nirvana to think on such things. In fact, it is evidence of dukkha -- dissatisfaction with life.

It seems to me that what the Buddha was trying to bring home was not the idea that one escapes the cycle of reincarnation but that one escapes the idea of reincarnation and embraces the nothingness of death in which there will be no suffering, no emotion, no thought, no sense of self.
 
Buddhism is also on the rise in China for much the same reason and is growing faster than Christianity. In the West people interested in Buddhism are expected to contend with the Asian language, dress, customs, and symbols that are entrained in it. Christians in China have to put up with the same thing in reverse, with Western language, dress, customs and symbols being brought it. In China there is an emphasis on Christianity shorn of Western influence.

Buddhism is everywhere the champion of the out groups and the oppressed against the powerful.

My understanding is that in Buddhism one does not put any faith in gods. It's beside the point. When asked about such things the Buddha would say simply "It does not further." It does not help one to attain nirvana to think on such things. In fact, it is evidence of dukkha -- dissatisfaction with life.

It seems to me that what the Buddha was trying to bring home was not the idea that one escapes the cycle of reincarnation but that one escapes the idea of reincarnation and embraces the nothingness of death in which there will be no suffering, no emotion, no thought, no sense of self.

Really?Where did you pull this gem out of? How did you come to this conclusion?

Anyway. For me, nothingness sounds a lot more boring than paradise. I mean, if you are deprived of things in live and you suffer, but you remain a good person, you will be rewarded in the afterlife with a good afterlife free from suffering. That seems a lot more of a reward than nothing. So something to look forward to.

And no, people in the west do not have to content with all that crap unless they want to. They can also adopt a more "liberal" way of going about their new religion, since, as i said before, it is mostly a cosmetic change. Have something to stand out in this world where we are taught that we need to express our uniqueness as fashionable as possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom