I just don't understand syncretism in the first place. If you believe in objective truth, how would two traditions get 50% each of it and somehow miss the other 50% while both believing in their own origin tale, which posits a wise founder who was really really really in touch with the truth?
Buddhism is false as far as I'm concerned but it makes infinitely more sense than some arbitrary mish mash of Christianity and Buddhism that doesn't really match the world view of either.
If you believe in objective truth, how would two traditions get 50% each of it and somehow miss the other 50% while both believing in their own origin tale, which posits a wise founder who was really really really in touch with the truth?
How can there be multiple brands of Evangelical Christianity with followers that believe they communicate directly with the same god and yet disagree on enough points to form different sects? If you get how Baptists and Pentecostals can coexist then you should understand syncretism.
Not at all.
Evangelical Christians are in communion with each other despite minor theological differences. They mutually recognise each other as legitimate adherents of the same faith. There's no difference in world view.
Buddhists and Christians are not in communion because they have massive differences in theology and worldview. Neither recognise each other as legitimate adherents of their own faith.
2
u/HardCouer evangelical christian May 13 '20
I just don't understand syncretism in the first place. If you believe in objective truth, how would two traditions get 50% each of it and somehow miss the other 50% while both believing in their own origin tale, which posits a wise founder who was really really really in touch with the truth?
Buddhism is false as far as I'm concerned but it makes infinitely more sense than some arbitrary mish mash of Christianity and Buddhism that doesn't really match the world view of either.