Being a religion of peace

[shunyadragon]

Yes it does. This shows that early in the history of the church, this was how the parable was interpreted. If you looked into the rest of the commentaries I provided at the link, you will see this was the majority established opinion. Now, would you like to give any proof that there was a different interpretation of this passage prior to the 3rd century? This was indeed the original interpretation.

As far as your extensive reference, It had too many references to go through, you need to be more specific. The reference from Marcion did not support your interpretation. There was no reference to the Romans Destroying the Temple.

[Jesse]

As far as your extensive reference, It had too many references to go through, you need to be more specific. The reference from Marcion did not support your interpretation. There was no reference to the Romans Destroying the Temple.

What? There was no reference from Marcion. I was quoting Origen. Origen's quote is clear that the parable is about a future judgement that will be meted out by the King (Christ) on those who rejected him (Israel). What other reference did early Christians have in mind other than the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?

Again, you haven't given any proof that this interpretation is not the one the early church understood. If this wasn't the original interpretation for early Christians, then what was? So far, you have given nothing to support your assertion other then telling me you just don't agree with it.

If you were serious about learning the interpretation for this parable, you would have no problem going through those commentaries. This just smacks of laziness on your part.


Edit: So I went ahead and picked from one of the commentaries for you. In Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson (1802-1880) says this about Luke 19:27:

Source: Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

27. bring hither, &c.—(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Jesse]

Shunyadragon,

I went ahead and found this for you. That will allow for an easier verse-by-verse comparison of the commentaries. You will notice the majority of commentaries are indeed in agreement with the original interpretation.

[siam]

I would not consider Buddhism excelling in assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence. It is predominantly peaceful more by its nature. I consider the Baha'i Faith more adept at peaceful assimilation in a diverse cultural context.

Shinto remains the foundation of Japanese traditional religion and yes, separate from Buddhism. Japanese militarism is rooted in Shinto beliefs, not Buddhist. It is not a matter of rigidity nor exclusivity that separates Buddhism from Shinto. It is fundamental doctrine.



Some of the more distinctive Buddhist and Taoist Martial Arts (I call Arts of the Way) are distinctly none violent, not aggressive, and more closely related to spiritual meditative practices. These practices were later corrupted by secular governments for militaristic and aggressive purposes, and became distinctly non-Buddhist nor Taoist in nature.



I can look further, but no, this is not Buddhist. Various Martial Arts disciplines can be traced back to the Neolithic based on cave and cliff drawings in South China. These ancient ways are closely related to hunting and warrior Arts of primitive human cultures.

Along with the previous book, Bodisattva Warriors, I recommended I recommend The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar to get a better over all picture of the nature and history of Chinese Shaolin history

Assimilation---the downside of assimilation is that it does not retain its distinctiveness....that is why there are so many types of Buddhism in the East. It seems you are interested in this topic...if you want to research further...some links....

Japan/Warrior Monks---Sohei (Warrior Monks) were exploited for political purposes by the various feudal/tribal leaders

Warrior monks first appeared during the Heian period,[3] when bitter political feuds began between different temples, different subsects of Buddhism, over imperial appointments to the top temple positions (abbot, or zasu). Much of the fighting over the next four centuries was over these sorts of political feuds, and centered around the temples of Kyoto, Nara, and Ōmi, namely the Tōdai-ji, Kōfuku-ji, Enryaku-ji, and Mii-dera, the four largest temples in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dheihttp://www.samurai-archives.com/HeianPeriod.html

Japan/Zen/military---It is true that Shinto contributed to military propaganda---the Emperor was considered a descendant of the Gods---but Buddhism was also exploited (Imperial way Zen)
The involvement of Zen Buddhism in military propaganda is explored by Ichikawa Hakugen "Bukkyo-sha no senso sekinin" (The war responsibility of Buddhists) and by Brian Daizen Victoria "Zen at War"
http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-5985-9780824833312.aspx
http://www.kyotojournal.org/the-jour.../zen-at-war-2/

Buddhist warfare outside of Japan
Professor Micheal Jerryson writes about "warrior monks" and such in the East...in "Buddhist warfare"
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Warfa.../dp/0195394844

The concept of one type of "Compassionate Killing" (Tibetan Buddhism)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ath-dalai-lama

The Nirvana Sutra also implies that killing a Icchantika (Sinner) will not have karmic repurcussions (related to the idea of Compassionate Killing)

[siam]

I will do my best to answer your questions.

The noble who left his own estates symbolizes God seeming to not pay attention to his servants which was a common perception of the time because the Lord had been silent to the people of Israel for the past 400 years. They are coming to Jerusalem which in the minds of many of Jesus's followers indicated a soon coming revolution against Rome. The citizens who hate Jesus and begrudge his claims of being the Messiah (let alone divine) would have sent a delegation to a higher authority protesting local rulers, really this section of the parable is not moral in nature, so much as it is stating to whom the parable is addressed to.

The one who has nothing in this story is the one who did not work for his master who in the story represents God. This could be tied to the teaching that those who know there is a God but do nothing about it are no better than the demons, and they will be justly punished for it.

Jesus is explaining the great wrath God will bring upon the (particular) Jews (and gentiles) who rejected Him.

The parable encourages doing your best to obey God because you will be rewarded greatly for success and only punished if you refuse to acknowledge God or shirk your duty.

I know of alternative teachings, but this one is the one that makes the most sense. Jesus tells the people who believed in him and those who hated Jesus that the day of Judgement when Jesus comes back will result in both rewards and punishments. Rewards for good stewards who grow the Lord's Kingdom (some of those who believed in Jesus) and punishments for those who oppose it either actively (those who sent the delegation) or passively (those who do not invest in the Kingdom of God).

I was a little distracted as I wrote this response so I hope it makes sense, I will not be offended if you ask for clarification.

Not sure clarification will be helpful---but I will ask anyway...

1) So, in order for the parable to "make sense" some of the passages have to be ignored?
2) "Lords Kingdom"---in the first part symbolizes revolution against Rome but by 27 it is Judgement day?
3) The one who did not work for his master---But!!!....the whole point of faith is that this "Holy Spirit" is going to do the work for you (make you good) so one just has to believe!!! Isn't the parable giving a contradictory message if that is the case?

I think it might be easier to interpret this if we did a little cut and paste---it divides the story into 2 sections.....

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home.(edited)

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

---------------and----------------------------------------

13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

15 Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.(edited)

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
_________________________

If we understand it this way---the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27) as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36)

and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot.....

....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

and...apologies for any offense---on another occasion we had discussed another parable with equally frustrating results!!!....but I did appreciate your patience then and thankyou for it again....

[Paprika]

If we understand it this way

You can't just chop up a whole just to meet your expectations.

the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27)

Love is not opposed to judgment.

as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36)

Not from this world: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου; it is not from this world but definitely for this world.

and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot.....

....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

[Cerebrum123]

Not sure clarification will be helpful---but I will ask anyway...

1) So, in order for the parable to "make sense" some of the passages have to be ignored?

What passages have to be ignored, and why?

2) "Lords Kingdom"---in the first part symbolizes revolution against Rome but by 27 it is Judgement day?

Who said the "revolution" was against Rome? The punishment was dealt out by Rome, but it was due to rejection of Jesus by the Jews. Just like when the Jews were conquered by the Babylonians.

3) The one who did not work for his master---But!!!....the whole point of faith is that this "Holy Spirit" is going to do the work for you (make you good) so one just has to believe!!! Isn't the parable giving a contradictory message if that is the case?

Where on earth are you getting this garbage? Faith is loyalty to God, and nowhere in the Bible do I see it say anything about the Holy Spirit doing everything for us. The Holy Spirit certainly helps us, and leads us on the path towards sanctification, but certainly does not do "all the work". Since this isn't the case, this isn't a contradictory message.

I think it might be easier to interpret this if we did a little cut and paste---it divides the story into 2 sections.....

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home.(edited)

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

---------------and----------------------------------------

13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

15 Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.(edited)

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
_________________________

Cut and paste might work with the Quran, but it doesn't work with the Bible.

If we understand it this way---the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27) as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36)

And how does it do that, even with you cut and paste job?

and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot.....

Interest was only bad in the OT when charged against fellow Israelites, and possibly poor foreigners(it's allowed to be charged against foreigners, but the poor seem to be in their own category at times). Jesus threw out the money lenders because they were in the Temple. They should not have been there at all.

Source: Christian Think Tank

"Jesus' complaint is not that they are guilty of sharp business practices and should therefore reform their ethical life, but that they should not be in the temple area at all. How dare you turn my Father's house into a market! He exclaims. Instead of solemn dignity and the murmur of prayer, there is the bellowing of cattle and bleating of sheep. Instead of brokenness and contrition, holy adoration and prolonged petition, there is noisy commerce…by setting up in the court of the Gentiles, they have excluded Gentiles who might have come to pray…" [Carson, John]

© Copyright Original Source

Link here.

....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

It's clear you don't even know the basics of Christian doctrines. This is especially apparent in your sentence about faith and the Holy Spirit.

and...apologies for any offense---on another occasion we had discussed another parable with equally frustrating results!!!....but I did appreciate your patience then and thankyou for it again....

You would probably have less frustration if you learned the basics of Christianity, and biblical exegesis before trying to toss out arguments you've copied from some random website.

[shunyadragon]

Sure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:

Source: The Time of the Reckoning

But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man— the king— in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us, Matthew 25:14-30 and one from the Gospel according to Luke. Luke 19:12-27

© Copyright Original Source

And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:

Source: No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving

But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that "being angry," he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,— pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;" Matthew 18:35 and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them," Luke 19:27 etc.

© Copyright Original Source

If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here.

OK, Origin and Marcion, yes, future judgment, but rather brutal final future judgment, and nothing here about Romans destroying the Temple?!?!?!?!

Future retribution could be tomorrow, next day and any time in the future. It is common in history for Christians to carry out these orders of retribution, ie the crusades. This violent aggressive retribution in the parable is indeed an issue from the non-Christian perspective as potential in the real world view of others who do not believe..

[shunyadragon]

Assimilation---the downside of assimilation is that it does not retain its distinctiveness....that is why there are so many types of Buddhism in the East. It seems you are interested in this topic...if you want to research further...some links....

Japan/Warrior Monks---Sohei (Warrior Monks) were exploited for political purposes by the various feudal/tribal leaders

Exploited, yes, and corrupted under Shinto authority, but not by Buddhist Beliefs and principles.

Warrior monks first appeared during the Heian period,[3] when bitter political feuds began between different temples, different subsects of Buddhism, over imperial appointments to the top temple positions (abbot, or zasu). Much of the fighting over the next four centuries was over these sorts of political feuds, and centered around the temples of Kyoto, Nara, and Ōmi, namely the Tōdai-ji, Kōfuku-ji, Enryaku-ji, and Mii-dera, the four largest temples in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei

Imperial Shinto interference was a distinct problem in the history of Japan, because every Japanese was subject to the Divine authority of the Shinto Emperor, This caused conflict, because of Shinto dominance. This cannot be interpreted as representing Buddhist teachings in Japan.

Japan/Zen/military---It is true that Shinto contributed to military propaganda---the Emperor was considered a descendant of the Gods---but Buddhism was also exploited (Imperial way Zen)
The involvement of Zen Buddhism in military propaganda is explored by Ichikawa Hakugen "Bukkyo-sha no senso sekinin" (The war responsibility of Buddhists) and by Brian Daizen Victoria "Zen at War"
http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-5985-9780824833312.aspx
http://www.kyotojournal.org/the-jour.../zen-at-war-2/

Let's deal, again . . ., with Japan. Shinto did not euphemistically contribute to militarism in Japan. Shinto is the warrior militarism of Japan, and the Emperor was the Divine authority of Shinto, and not Buddhism. Buddhism may be misused and misrepresented in Japan, because all Japanese must obey the emperor, but not Buddhism was never directly involved in nor promoted militarism in Japan as a religion, based on religious belief.

Again, I recommend you read Bodhisattva Warriors by Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio to get a clearer picture of Buddhist warrior concept and history instead of cherry picking selective quotes. You are not separating clear dominance of Shinto Divine authority in the militarism of Japan and the corruption and manipulation of Buddhism from this point of authority, from the actual history and beliefs of Buddhism itself in Japan

[Pentecost]

Not sure clarification will be helpful---but I will ask anyway...

1) So, in order for the parable to "make sense" some of the passages have to be ignored?

No. Did I forget to explain a part?

2) "Lords Kingdom"---in the first part symbolizes revolution against Rome but by 27 it is Judgement day?

Jesus was making a point to the people who thought it was the first that it is bigger than that, and point to the Judgement day, I can see why you'd be confused, the people who were listening had in mind a revolt, and Jesus knew that but wanted to turn their attention to something bigger.

3) The one who did not work for his master---But!!!....the whole point of faith is that this "Holy Spirit" is going to do the work for you (make you good) so one just has to believe!!! Isn't the parable giving a contradictory message if that is the case?

It does contradict if that's what you think Christian faith is. Faith is always accompanied by action, our saving faith is accompanied by the death and resurrection of Jesus, our faith then produces our own actions. Faith is never just a lazy belief.

I think it might be easier to interpret this if we did a little cut and paste---it divides the story into 2 sections.....

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home.(edited)

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

---------------and----------------------------------------

13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

15 Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.(edited)

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

Cutting a parable like this makes it lose context and a parable without context is meaningless, for example, Aesop's tale about the fox and the raven can either be a lesson to beware of flatterers, or it can be a lesson that one should flatter, or both, or neither. It depends on context, and when you take parts out then it becomes difficult to know which was the intended meaning.
_________________________

If we understand it this way---the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27) as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36)

It's a good thing we don't understand it way then isn't it?

and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot.....

But it's not about money. It is about using what God gives you. If God gives you a gift use it to the best of your abilities, the mention of bankers is only to highlight the hypocrisy of the one who hid the minas given to him.

....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

and...apologies for any offense---on another occasion we had discussed another parable with equally frustrating results!!!....but I did appreciate your patience then and thankyou for it again....

No apologies needed for me; no offense was taken. I am always willing to speak with you.

[Jesse]

OK, Origin and Marcion, yes, future judgment, but rather brutal final future judgment, and nothing here about Romans destroying the Temple?!?!?!?!

Future retribution could be tomorrow, next day and any time in the future. It is common in history for Christians to carry out these orders of retribution, ie the crusades. This violent aggressive retribution in the parable is indeed an issue from the non-Christian perspective as potential in the real world view of others who do not believe..

Oh I see. So you would rather throw out baseless assumptions of what you think Christian's meant, instead of dealing with the facts of what they actually meant. I am not going to go into the Crusades, because if you can't even get the interpretation of a simple parable correct, I doubt anything you believe about the Crusades has any merit. Carry on then.

[siam]

Exploited, yes, and corrupted under Shinto authority, but not by Buddhist Beliefs and principles.

Imperial Shinto interference was a distinct problem in the history of Japan, because every Japanese was subject to the Divine authority of the Shinto Emperor, This caused conflict, because of Shinto dominance. This cannot be interpreted as representing Buddhist teachings in Japan.

Let's deal, again . . ., with Japan. Shinto did not euphemistically contribute to militarism in Japan. Shinto is the warrior militarism of Japan, and the Emperor was the Divine authority of Shinto, ...

Exploitation for political purpose---Agreed...that was my point from the beginning....that those religions/philosophies that gain influence (political influence and control territories under them) such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism...such religions are exploited for political wars because religions offer meaning and that fits right in with politicians who want to go to war for political reasons but want to justify it as "meaningful" warfare....

Scripture---Again...agree. But there are passages and ideas in Buddhism that were misused for violence.....

Japan/Emperor---the Emperor was a puppet during the Shogunate period (as well as WW---the military simply exploited the idea)

Buddhism and assimilation---Here I disagree with you...Buddhism assimilates so much so that it almost becomes a fusion...such as China with Tao/Confucianism, Japan with Shinto, Southeast Asia with Hinduism...etc...
There are areas where Buddhism has a vacuum....such as Kingship---the legitimacy for Kingship is filled with other religions/philosophies such as Confucious/Tao, Shinto, Hindu...(In Buddhism, Siddartha gives up his kingdom....not an idea that power hungry Kings are going to embrace....)

Ahimsa(Non-Violence)---what is your understanding of the is issue?

[siam]

You can't just chop up a whole just to meet your expectations.


Love is not opposed to judgment.


Not from this world: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου; it is not from this world but definitely for this world.

I know...previously I had fun discussing another parable with Pentecost where I tried to argue that a Muslim interpretation might make more sense than the Christian one....

"Love is not opposed to judgement"---can you elaborate?

Not from but for--can you explain?

[siam]

@Pentecost
Thanks for answering...I hope we get more opportunities to discuss things again....Its always a pleasure.

@Cerebrum123
Thankyou for your POV.

[Paprika]

I know...previously I had fun discussing another parable with Pentecost where I tried to argue that a Muslim interpretation might make more sense than the Christian one....

That's precisely your problem: you can't suspend your own beliefs to properly consider another set of beliefs.

"Love is not opposed to judgement"---can you elaborate?

Is Allah not loving? Yet will he not judge unbelievers?

Not from but for--can you explain?

The Kingdom does not originate from this world but it is for this world.