Lib sez, “They are easily reconciled if sin is defined as the obstruction of goodness. Suffering is thus caused by the desire to sin.”
Um. 1) I didn’t say they couldn’t be reconciled; I said they weren’t identical (or at least I tried to say that).
- But I find your attempt at reconciliation problematic. (Oh, well). A Christian might say that all suffering is caused by the desire to sin. Maybe.
But such a view would conflict with Buddhist doctrine.
The Buddha set out a detailed taxonomy of suffering. Since he was focusing on what is at bottom a subjective experience it is perhaps not surprising that he would end up emphasizing internal causes of suffering rather than external ones. At any rate, the Buddha ended up concluding that all forms of suffering have in common at least some element of (psychological) attachment. Eliminate attachment, and suffering goes away.
Of course, now I have to define “attachment”. Then I would have to go over the Buddha’s proposed methods of releasing oneself from such attachments. But as I am not an expert in these matters, I won’t go there. [sup]1[/sup]
I only wish to say that a Buddhist approach differs from a Christian approach.
(OBTW, I recognize there are some obvious objections that can be raised to the preceding simplistic treatment.)
I hope it goes without saying though that the 2 religions share with everyone else a common set of moral conclusions. (eg Don’t murder, steal, lie, etc.)
Perhaps this helps, bnorton.
[sup]1[/sup][sub]DISCLAIMER: Those wishing to attain enlightenment are encouraged to ignore this post. AFAIK, IIRC, YMMV.[/sub]