I typed it backwards, she says that you can be Christian and Buddhist. (1) You have yet to say anything to prove I'm wrong; (2) You may say that, but yet you keep replying.

I think you're entirely wrong here.

So do these people.


And here's why the belief structures don't overlap, making it quite difficult to practice both.

You can participate in elements of Buddhism - many participate in traditional Zen philosophy or meditation, for instance - but if you believe in the central tenets of Christianity, you are Christian. If you believe in the traditional outcome of a Buddhist lifestyle (especially their version of life after death), you really cannot classify yourself as Christian without a LOT of lying to yourself or revisionist thought.

Alphafrog, it's one thing to state your OPINION. It's another thing to talk like what you say is absolute fact when it is not. Not to mention the sheer offensiveness of what you're saying.

That Dorthy Figan essay is one opinion piece. You could just as easily point to an opinion piece saying that "This sect of Christianity is not a real religion" (and there are plenty of those out there). That wouldn't make it accepted fact.

Would it make all of you happy if Alphafrog clarified what she is saying with "My opinion" and "what I've been taught?" Because that basically seems to be what she's saying here.

I'm not sure why you either don't understand what I'm saying or refuse to understand what I'm saying. It is not an issue of who is "right" or who is "wrong," and your attempt at an argument (where it's my job to "prove" you wrong) doesn't make sense. Also, the fact that I reply to you does not give your statements any validity.

The essay to which you linked does not resolve your question of whether Buddhism is a religion. It really says that it is and it isn't, depending on how "religion" is defined, which is very different from your assertion that it is not a religion, period. It also does not state that you can be Christian and Buddhist. It says that you can be Christian or Jewish and "embrace Buddhism," which is not the same thing as being Christian or Jewish and "being Buddhist."

I believe that Buddhism is incompatible with many of what I understand to be the core beliefs of Christianity; I do not believe that one can be Buddhist and believe any of the following:

-that Jesus died for anyone's sins
-that Jesus is a "savior"
-that there is any such thing as sin
-that there is any such thing as "salvation"
-that there is any such thing as heaven or hell
-that there is no such thing as karma and rebirth.

What does that mean? I hear people say that all the time...but what does that really mean?

It would make me "happy" because if that's what is really going on, then I'd like her to stop speaking in absolutes or continuing a debate in the format of "prove me wrong" (a very poor argumentative tactic, although I did do just that).

Example: "Buddhism is not a religion because it has no deity or dogma."

This is clearly wrong (Buddhism does have doctrine covering morality relating to faith, the very definition of dogma, and some sects of Buddhism have semi-, neo- or ACTUAL DEIST BELIEFS, not to mention that she's using a VERY specious definition of 'religion'), but hey if that's what she was taught, she has an excuse for ignorance. If she simply believes otherwise, I'll gladly educate her.

You are very verbose. I have decided I am going to make you a politican. Congratulations, Senator RC.

well, to me it means I pay more attention to my own personal journey as a person of faith-and there's really no other way to describe it-rather than on dogma or other people's views which have become dogma. I believe in karma and re-birth, but that is pretty much as far as it goes when accepting doctirine, b/c I believe that "docitirne" is a personal experince, and cannot be codified.

Oh I see. I'm speaking in general when I say this and not to you in specific because I don't know your case...but most people who I hear that from, its always used as an excuse for why they claim a religion but live contray to its doctrine. I just think if people are going to claim a religion then they should live according to its doctrine and if (or when) they do something that goes against it, they should simply be honest with themselves admit doing wrong...and correct it. If people aren't willing to do that then why claim a religion at all? Its all the same when you think about it...with or without the faith the person isn't really all that concerned with where they'll spend eternity.

Dude, let's not let get facts in the way of someone's opinion.

I personally find a lot of people mean they focus less on the outward ritualistic formalities of organized religion and more on the personal relationship/interaction with the person(s) or thing(s) with whom they commune.

No, I don't do that then. I hope not anyway. I hope I live in a good way, as opposed to just paying lipservice to dogma or doctirine.

That's exactly what I mean.

ETA: I still say I'm Muslim because their doctrine makes the most sense to me, not because I follow the rules 100%. If that's making an excuse, I guess that's between me and my Creator. :)