Christianity VERSUS Buddhism!!

[ave_turuta]

Bertrand Russell once stated: "Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." He also wrote: "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, Thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought is great and swift and free."

Are you saying that theism makes sense because it is the only safe way to "save our pretty as****"???

That is, "I believe, just in case...."??? Sounds a little bizarre to me: to suscribe to a worldview that prescribes the subordination of many in favor of a few (non-believers vs. believers) just for fear of what may happen to you in an imaginary afterlife?? Hmmmmm..... The idea of a "eternal punishment" in a place called "hell" is by no means universal. While I have no problem with people believing this, it seems to me that the philosophical approach favored by Buddhism is much closer to positive rationalism than the views espoused by monotheistic religious systems.

As I said before: if you fear death, then believing in an afterlife where you can make up for this life's mistakes kind of makes sense. Just don't try to impose your beliefs and their accompanying legalistic, restrictive, and often oppressive dogmatic prescriptions on those of us who are pretty content with trying to make the best of our lives in this world, here and now, and making of this earth the paradise you can only see in the afterlife. Peace, justice, equality, goodness... should not be restricted (imho) to an afterlife that apparently not everybody will get to enjoy. I am, after all, a proponent of equal opportunity access to paradise, right here on this earth.

Peace,

A.T.

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

Pale Rider: "The only thing that I have to ask is that which would be the wiser of the two decisions 1) To believe that there isn't a Heaven or Hell all of your life and when you die finding out that there is or 2) to believe that there is a Heaven and Hell and finding out that there isn't?"

Sounds like Pascal's Wager - which to me seems at the least a flimsy and spiritually bankrupt reason for believing in something. Option one requires at least the assumption that something could exist for which there is no evidence whether belief is involved or not. Option two accepts that such really does not exist, yet irrational belief is still given to it. Neither are intellectually honest.

If I had to answer, and was truly restricted to those two choices (which in reality I am not), then I would say that option one is the most wise.

Try this argument: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
or for a shorter version: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal


"It isn't "narrow-minded" for Christians to not look at other religions - for it is against their religion to do so."

So it is not the 'narrow-mindedness' of Christians, but rather the narrow-mindedness of Christianity. Still guilty by association if you ask me.

I think the reason why discussing belief is so touchy is because people become very defensive when asked 'why' they believe. The only reason they would feel threatened by such questions is because they can't adequettely answer them and they know it. All arguments / defenses then reduce to tautologies, as logic cannot be applied to irrationality.

I should probably bow out of this discussion as I am so obviously biased - I'll just end up bashing as I have such distate for religions.
I'm not buddhist either, but the philosophy does make more sense.

Carry on without me.

 

[MisterMike]

Buddhists believe in the "after-life" and Karma. So they do good in this life so as to come back as something a little better than a gnat in the next life. Looks like there's more reason for being a good person than just because it's a cool "philosophy."

And they have quite a bit of their own little dogma and ceremonies as well...depends on which of the hundreds of sects you choose to look at.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I have read through all (or the majority) of the posts made in comparison between religions. The only thing that I have to ask is that which would be the wiser of the two decisions 1) To believe that there isn't a Heaven or Hell all of your life and when you die finding out that there is or 2) to believe that there is a Heaven and Hell and finding out that there isn't?

That is I believe to come from the assumption that there is a heaven and a hell and that you believe in it! When making those decisions you have prior knowledge, knowledge that is in fact from a Christian background, so what about the people who know nothing of Christianity then? Those who live out in poor or isolated countries?
Do they go to hell because they no nothing of heaven and hell? Or of the Christian faith? Hardly that of an all knowing all powerful, all loving and fair God? Hey thats just my personal opinion but that creates a problem does it not?

Since all religions are man-made regardless of how a person believes we have look at the driving force of Christianity and that isn't religion, but salvation. Those that believe in Christianity realizes that life here on this planet is but a short time, and they prepare themselves for the life to come. It isn't "narrow-minded" for Christians to not look at other religions - for it is against their religion to do so. They understand and interpret the Bible clearly when it states Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and other scriptures such as try these spirits to see if they are of me....

Christians realize that belief is the strongest part of their religion, so if other religions are brought into the equation then where is their Christian beliefs? They may not be able to provide any answers into explaining why they believe the way they do, but realizing that with the "whole armour of God" they will be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

All in my opinion.

Is it not wise to question your belief? To understand, feel and be guided by your experience and belief towards that of Christ than to be a puppet who merely follows the teachings of others.
It reminds me of a saying, who's more foolish? the fool, or the fool who follows him? (lol, under the assumption it is a he!)
Btw thats not saying that Christians are fools I'm just trying to make a point that some people blindly follow others, and thats not just rescricted to Christianity but all faiths and beliefs!!

I was going to make another point, and discussed it with a Christian friend tonight, who has a very open mind (bless her) and is one of the very few people around me who is willing (and open enough) to talk about her faith, and we came to the point that as I just said before,
It is more important that people explore and experience for themselves what their faith has to offer, and maybe feel that they have infact felt God or Jesus or Allah inside them and choose to follow that faith than to have somebody dictate to them from a book about strict rules and regulations and how they should do this and should do that and not explore it themselves.

I've personally found that it is easier to talk to those who have experienced 'something' and for them to provide answers from their hearts than those who I talk to who merely get very defensive because they dont have answers and therefore recite something from their head as told or as read.

To realise, is greater than to understand (in my opinion). Whatever you realise is open to your interpretation and the way you percieve it!

Just some thoughts!
Kind Regards, thanks again for keeping the tone nice!

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Hmmm..Corpral Hicks and myself are on pretty good terms with each other on most topics. As my posts were accepted and responded to by him in the manner in which I intended!

Ah it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy! Lol, just kidding!

 

[Tgace]

Kind of an interesting bit that I found surfing on this topic...

http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/buddh_christ.htm

fighting in China? Fighting has never been a habit strictly confined to Christians; nor have wars been entirely unknown outside Christendom. It may be that certain hermits or holy men, both eastern and western, have individually abandoned war. But we are not talking about abandoning war, but about abolishing war. In what sense have Christians failed, in which Buddhists have not equally failed? In what respect is Buddhism, which has looked on at all the Asiatic fighting for four thousand years, any more successful than Christianity, that has barely looked on for two thousand? I do not think the thing is any real discredit either to Buddhism or Christianity, for anybody who is really "enlightened" about history and human nature. But if we are to be told about ten times a week by every newspaper and noisy talker that Christianity has failed to do anything because it has failed to stop fighting, what are we to say of the chances of the Chinese gentleman of stopping it in Europe with a new religion, when he could not stop it in Asia with an old one? At a guess, I should say that a Christian appeal for peace would often have been much nearer to practical politics than the metaphysical enlightenment of the Buddhist. Without putting very much money on the chances of either, I should say there would have been something rather more remotely resembling a chance for a Franciscan saint influencing the policy of Richard Coeur de Lion than of a Buddhist monk (with his mind full of Nirvana) stopping the march of Genghis Khan. But that is a minor guess, and does not matter. The obvious point is that, if Christianity is to be called a failure because it has not abolished war, Buddhism can hardly be a certain and solid guarantee that we shall abolish war. The truth is, of course, that all such talk of abolishing this and that, among the recurrent misunderstandings and temptations of mankind, shows an essential ignorance of the very nature of mankind. It does not allow for the hundred inconsistencies, dilemmas, desperate remedies, and divided allegiances of men. A man may be in every way a good man and a true believer, and yet be in a false position. Indeed, the military gentleman who wrote the letter about Buddhism and War need not look far for such an example. By his own standards, he is himself inconsistent in being a Christian soldier; and even more inconsistent since he seems to be a Buddhist soldier.

And this was written in 1929

 

[BlackCatBonz]

so, a belief in god may not grant you entrance to the "kingdom of heaven", but not believing in him and being an all around nice guy will get you a ticket in?

christianity versus buddhism, or christianity and buddhism comparisons are like comparing oranges and liver......both may be edible, but one is refreshing and the other leaves you with a queasy feeling and bad aftertaste.

 

[Tgace]

That all depends on the tastes and preferences of the eater does it not? And "tastes" are only superficial impressions. Which has more nutritional value?

IMO, you cant really compare any religion on a "VS" basis. Its the practitioner, not the practice thats important. Much as its the fighter, not the art thats important in surviving a street fight.

 

[Flatlander]

That all depends on the tastes and preferences of the eater does it not? And "tastes" are only superficial impressions. Which has more nutritional value?

IMO, you cant really compare any religion on a "VS" basis. Its the practitioner, not the practice thats important. Much as its the fighter, not the art thats important in surviving a street fight.

Oh, Tom, you clever cat. Nicely played. :asian:

 

[BlackCatBonz]

That all depends on the tastes and preferences of the eater does it not? And "tastes" are only superficial impressions. Which has more nutritional value?

IMO, you cant really compare any religion on a "VS" basis. Its the practitioner, not the practice thats important. Much as its the fighter, not the art thats important in surviving a street fight.

well seeing as how i am the eater......

 

[searcher]

Just a little POV from what I have read in the previous posts. In my Church we are told to question what our pastor teaches, but we do not question the Bible. Others can say that we blindly follow, but we only follow where our Lord leads us. I know that I will be flamed for my thoughts on the subject and I have been pondering whather or not to post on this discussion. I guess what I would like to say is for the Christians that might post here. My opinion is don't. To try and give what you have experienced or to witness to those who have made up their minds is beyond our control. It is best to pray for these people and leave it up to God to help them. I take my faith very seriously, as I am sure most of you do also, so I will not get into a squabble over religions. I don't consider myself to be narrow-minded, but our teachings are that the road to salvation is narrow. I can only tell you that I have something in my life greater than all of the universe and that is Grace, purchased with a blood sacrifice.

I thought I would chime in on an earlier discussion of the authenticity of the Bible and the words therin. The Roman historian Tacitus makes reference to Christ and the early Church in his writings. He was a pagan and non-believer that wrote about how Christians were wrongfully persecuted by Nero and have continued to be by others in history.

Thank you for letting me ramble on. Hope it makes sense to anybody reading.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

so if we as a people chose not to question other books that were written in the past where would be be?

 

[Tgace]

I dont believe he said "other people" couldnt question the Bible. Only that he didnt.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

he said :In my Church we are told to question what our pastor teaches, but we do not question the Bible.

 

[Tgace]

Right..which is his choice. He didnt say you couldnt question it.

 

[searcher]

Right..which is his choice. He didnt say you couldnt question it.

That is exactly what I said. We have people come in all of the time and question the Bible, but we as believers don't do it. We do however study and research it to get a deeper understanding. At current we are studying the book of Romans. We cover other things in our SS classes and Bible studies like the Humanist Manifesto, and other religions.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I have read through all (or the majority) of the posts made in comparison between religions. The only thing that I have to ask is that which would be the wiser of the two decisions 1) To believe that there isn't a Heaven or Hell all of your life and when you die finding out that there is or 2) to believe that there is a Heaven and Hell and finding out that there isn't?

When making those decisions you have prior knowledge, knowledge that is in fact from a Christian background, so what about the people who know nothing of Christianity then? Those who live out in poor or/and isolated countries?
Do they go to hell because they no nothing of heaven and hell? Or of the Christian faith?
Hardly that of an all knowing all powerful, all loving and fair God? Hey thats just my personal opinion but that creates a problem does it not?

Yo, anybody going to answer that?

 

[Corporal Hicks]

our teachings are that the road to salvation is narrow.

Ok, I'm respecting your views and your religion so dont take the question incorrectly, but on the purpose of interest, now narrow is that road?
Do non-believers have any 'chance' of salvation?
That is incase Christians are correct and I'm standing waiting to be judged!

I thought I would chime in on an earlier discussion of the authenticity of the Bible and the words therin. The Roman historian Tacitus makes reference to Christ and the early Church in his writings. He was a pagan and non-believer that wrote about how Christians were wrongfully persecuted by Nero and have continued to be by others in history.

Thank you for letting me ramble on. Hope it makes sense to anybody reading.

What type of authenticity? Sorry I misunderstand this part of your post? Are you referring that Tacitus stated the bible is correct or what because they were wrongly persecuted?

Great posts btw!
Regards

 

[searcher]

When making those decisions you have prior knowledge, knowledge that is in fact from a Christian background, so what about the people who know nothing of Christianity then? Those who live out in poor or/and isolated countries?
Do they go to hell because they no nothing of heaven and hell? Or of the Christian faith?
Hardly that of an all knowing all powerful, all loving and fair God? Hey thats just my personal opinion but that creates a problem does it not?

Yo, anybody going to answer that?

I have asked this question myself and I will give you the answer that was given to me. The bible states that there is enough in creation for everyone to be saved(Rom. 1:20). If they truly know nothing of the gospel or have no way of understanding then they are held un-accountable in the eyes of GOD, but I would not hold your breathe. This would include children and who have not heard the Gospel, plus those mentally incapable of understanding the Gospel

Remember that God does not hate anybody. He hates the sin, not the sinner. The fact that they(non-believers) go to hell is because of THEIR rejection of God, not because He wants to send them there.

 

[searcher]

Ok, I'm respecting your views and your religion so dont take the question incorrectly, but on the purpose of interest, now narrow is that road?
Do non-believers have any 'chance' of salvation?
That is incase Christians are correct and I'm standing waiting to be judged!

The Bible says that "Few there are that find it." I would have to say that means it is pretty narrow.

Non-believers have a chance as long as they are still alive and capable of making decisions. The chance they have is to repent and turn away from their past and turning to the saving grace that is freely offered through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would not put it off though. The Bible also says that there is no guarentee of tomorrow.