Buddism: Religion or Philosophy?

[Ben Kenobi]

there was many jewish sects who also believed in the idea of the transmigration of souls. Which is reflected in the gospel by two location.

Yep, that's very true. Just Christ rejected the concept.

The idea in a Christian sense took on a different meaning, where it talks about the journey after a person's death to heaven and to purgatory.

[Theben]

With all the statues and offerings and praying, I find it hard to not call it a religion.

[CrONoS]

Like I said earlier; I doubt that the concept of the transmigration of souls was explicitly rejected by Jesus.

The notion have been rejected during the third-fourth century at the beginning of the Catholics church.

[CrONoS]

What I wanted to point out is, and correct if I'm wrong:

1) Transmigration of souls was a concept known and believed by many jews.

2) Jesus never explicitly condemned this concept

3) The concept was " condemned" in the 3-4 century.
-----

On a side note:
Is there any writing of the church father that you encourage me to read? Or even medieval theologians Dun Scott, Aquinas, Albert Le Grand? Summer is beginning, and usually I read a lot of books that I can't read during the semester.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's in scripture dude.

I don't know what more to say.

Christ said that you don't have the sins from one person pass on down to another person, not in the sense that the Jews thought it would happen, where the soul would transfer from one to another.

I don't know any Christians that teach in reincarnation, and certainly not protestant ones.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's in scripture dude.

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
---


I'm under the impression that he spoke only about that man... The blind guy had to meet Christ, in the goal to show to the world the work of God. (by making him non blind). That's the reason I think he never explicitly rejected "transmigration of souls)

There is a difference between what he said; and something along this way->

Jesus answered, "Blindness doesn't appear because you(or men) sinned in your(their) previous life; or because your parents sinned but that the works of God should be made manifest in all men."

Edited for comprehension.

[Blake]

Buddhism is a system of practise rather than a system of belief or philosophy (the practices are followed because they are shown to work, at a personal level). I mean it can be treated like a philosophy, but it can also be treated in a much more down to earth way (this stuff works, lets do it).

Brahm answers what Buddhism is in part by covering what it isn't:
Meditation the Heart of Buddhism

Philosophy.

Some people come across Buddhism and they find it's a marvellous philosophy. They can sit around the coffee table after I've given a talk and they can talk for hours and still not be close to enlightenment. Very often people can discuss very high-minded things; their brains can talk about and think about such sublime subjects. Then they go out and swear at the first car that pulls out in front of them on the way home. They lose it all straight away.

[Kuciwalker]

Invalid poll. It's a false dichotomy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I vote both. Some people treat buddhism as a philosohy, some as a religion - it varies widely, and suffices for both.

Buddhism has most definitely caused bad in the past... its lack of causing 'bad' is largely due to it no longer being the state religion of any major state, I'd suggest. There certainly were wars and political intrigue based on buddhist religion in the past....

Drake said as much, several times. (As a student of Japanese history.)

[Nostromo]

I was told that there's "real" Buddhism and there's people's Buddhism. I would say that "Real" Buddhism is a lot closer to a practical philosophy (it reminds me a lot, at times, of the Stoics). People's Buddhism, OTOH, is a lot more religious in nature. Gods play an important role.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Nostromo
I was told that there's "real" Buddhism and there's people's Buddhism. I would say that "Real" Buddhism is a lot closer to a practical philosophy (it reminds me a lot, at times, of the Stoics). People's Buddhism, OTOH, is a lot more religious in nature. Gods play an important role.

Many of us westerners tend to forget that during the 19th and 18th centuries there were a lot of educated people who treated Christianity more like a philosophy than a religion.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Invalid poll. It's a false dichotomy.

Well, I guess you have a point there...But imo, Buddism is more a philosophy than a religion, contrary to Christianity, which is the opposite.

Spec.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Many of us westerners tend to forget that during the 19th and 18th centuries there were a lot of educated people who treated Christianity more like a philosophy than a religion.

Mmmm, I always got that impression from Mill.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Many of us westerners tend to forget that during the 19th and 18th centuries there were a lot of educated people who treated Christianity more like a philosophy than a religion.

See: Emerson, Thoreau, Jefferson...the Buddhism-is-a-philosophy shtick is silly. It's a system of rules for living based on non-empirical, and sometimes anti-empirical, premises. Throughout history it has functioned as a religion, with missionaries, monks and dogmatic disagreements. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a freaking duck.

[snoopy369]

I think the lesson here is that religion ~= philosophy in most instances.