Christianity attacks Buddhist thougth!

[gerard]

Hi,

It has been going around for ages. Christianity has always denied the validity of Buddhist thought claiming the following:

1. Buddhism denies God existence

2. Buddhism denies spiritual existence

3. Buddhism proclaims that suffering is a result of craving

4. Buddhism does not give a reason for suffering

5. Buddhism denies existence beyond matter

6. Buddhism does not offer solutions for humans as a whole

7. Buddhism does not allow to acquire higher spiritual states through meditation before overcoming sin.

8. Tibetan Buddhists worship demons (this is a funny one!)

9. Zen Buddhism (in Japan) is about militancy and nationalism

10. The Eightfold Path leads to nowhere.

11. Buddhism's goals are beyond man's ability to reach


These are the main reasons why unfortunately Christianism hates Buddhism.

My reply is the following:

1. First, I am a Buddhist but I am not religious.

2. Second the more I meditate the more I realise that I need no one, that me and the Way are one single thing.

3. That physical existence maybe a a source of sins, injustice, etc. for the human race. For me society is the cause, not existence itself.

4. Unfortunately, Christianity is based on the fear and worship of God and Jesus Christ and the need for human interaction and obedience to Church to reach Heaven's salvation. Buddhism goes beyond that. I say that God is a creation of human fear to death, a rational explanation of existence.
As a result God does not concern me nor what a group of religious freaks may say.

Let me quote here something:

If I can see God, here, now, when I look at roses flowering in my garden why should I worry when physical death comes


How do you feel as a Buddhist when you meet Christians?

I feel like a leper everytime I tell to a Christian that I am a Buddhist. Its funny because they feel as if I worship something that's is utterly wrong. I have to say that I worship myself as much as I worship a turtle, a piglet, a daffodil, the Prime Minister or the constellation of Orion.

What do you think?

:)

[BendzR]

I could say I am a Christian, but based on the definition these days I don't know really...

I do not go to Church no more, I don't feel it is helping me at all and I feel better spiritually without it.

If a Christian makes you feel bad for being a Buddhist then screw them I say.

The Church I grew up in tried to label Buddhism and anything non-Christian as evil. I think it's a joke now that I can think for myself.

I do not see Buddhism really as a religion, and hence I can see myself as Buddhist if i wanted to call it that, while being a Christian.

Religion to me is dealing with that which is spiritual, and based on faith. IE. Christianity. Buddhism to me is more about the material world, and not really as much based on faith, more about the world around me while I am alive in a physical form.

Do not let anyone make you feel worth less because of your believes. ;)

[munkiejunkie]

I am a former christian, presently a tibetan buddhist, and number eight is total bullcrap.

[Kosh]

My take...

1. budhism doesnt need god to exist...it doesnt exclude it.
2. eh?
3. that seems inaccurate
4. it gives a better reason than christianity, which in my opinion cant even begin to explain suffering
5. eh?
6. ...eh? it teaches that we should be ok to each other. How many budhist holy wars have there been?
7. thats crap
8. whatever
9. no comment
10. it leads to personal improvement and release from need. without praying for it to be provided.
11. so are christians'.

[xen]

a few years ago i was walking past a christian book shop in the UK.

In the window was a large poster denouncing the evils of meditation and yoga, claiming all sorts of things about the satanic path of such practices.

as a meditator who practices yoga i wandered in and picked up a pile of leaflets which sent out inaccurate scare-mongering messages about eastern disciplines and philosophies.

being a peaceful soul i walked up to the lady in the shop and asked her to explain how i could save my soul as I had got involved with these practices as a means to control the chronic pain i am left with following a road accident. I told her i was now very frightened as I did not realise such simple things as staying calm, stretching my body and watching my diet would send me to satan's merciless bootcamp for all eternity.

She was just a kind volunteer so I didn't give her a hard time...but i saw christianity for what it truely is (IMO); nothing more than a cult of sheep who are too scared to take responibility for the truths of this existence and who are so insecure in their views that they cannot let others alone to peacefully pursue their chosen paths of personal spiritual expression. Instead they resort to twisting the truth and backing up their claims by offering dubious interpretations of passages from a dusty old book.

Many Christians are deeply spiritual people and I commend their faith and the good which they perform throughout their lives. However, the christian doctrine and those who promote it by knocking on my door or frightening the ignorant into parting with their 'donations' receive nothing but my most utter contempt.

If this offends you then you take yourself too seriously and have severe self-importance issues. (a common trait in the fanatical religious zealot!)

to quote some lines from a Roy Harper song;

"And the village is making its Sunday collection in church
The church wobbles twixt hell and heaven's crumbling perch
Unnoticed the money box loudly endorses the shame
As the world that Christ fought is supported by using his name."

peace and harmony to all man, woman and child (unless you're not christian, then it's burn heretic, burn)

PURLEEEZE!

[baubin2]

Does anyone else here wonder how often those who denounce other religions actually take the time to learn about those other religions and denounce them from a rational standpoint based on facts about those religions?

[xen]

Does anyone else here wonder how often those who denounce other religions actually take the time to learn about those other religions and denounce them from a rational standpoint based on facts about those religions?

very good point.

i think the problem comes from the nature of religion itself.

to put your total faith in a doctrine means you are saying that you accept it as an absolute truth, as such that will preclude you from seeing its flaws.

if you blind yourself to the flaws of the doctrine, you will inevitably blind yourself to your own flaws and thus feel the need on a subconscious level to defend the doctrine as it has now become a part of you

to then hear others declaring a knowledge of truth which does not form a part of your own belief system will cause a denouncement of alternate points of view.

those open-minded enough to look deeply at other religions will tend to find a unifying truth common to all spritual disciplines which reinforces their faith

those not open-minded enough to look to other expressions will condemn and attack to mask their unresolved insecurities in their own system of belief

[Strafio]

Xenmaster - yes, some Christians are over-Zealous nutters, but I've no doubt that there are a huge number of Buddhists who have also missed the point. It's not really Christianity that's the problem, as most Christians I know are very open minded about how many faces God has.



Hi,

It has been going around for ages. Christianity has always denied the validity of Buddhist thought claiming the following:

1. Buddhism denies God existence

2. Buddhism denies spiritual existence

3. Buddhism proclaims that suffering is a result of craving

4. Buddhism does not give a reason for suffering

5. Buddhism denies existence beyond matter

6. Buddhism does not offer solutions for humans as a whole

7. Buddhism does not allow to acquire higher spiritual states through meditation before overcoming sin.

8. Tibetan Buddhists worship demons (this is a funny one!)

9. Zen Buddhism (in Japan) is about militancy and nationalism

10. The Eightfold Path leads to nowhere.

11. Buddhism's goals are beyond man's ability to reach

What do you think?

:)


I've come across quite a few of these mis-conceptions.
Anyone read the book called The Lotus And The Cross?
Ravi Zacharias does try to be unbiased, but it is clear that he's living as Christian and only studied Buddhism.

I'm not accusing bias or anything, it's just pointed out understanding.
Because he has lived a Christian, he know where to look in between the lines, he understands the gaps in the bibles fallible wording.
He basically has a great understanding of Christianity.

His only experience of Buddhism though, is meeting other Buddhists, reading about Buddhists and merely studying. I can tell this because he slips on some of the things that I found confusing when I first looked into Buddhism.

But when you start living it and experiencing it, you gradually start to understand it. For instance, Buddhism doesn't deny God. It doesn't say there IS, but it doesn't say there isn't.
The idea is that it's irrelevant, and that you should live a good life regardless of whether you're trying to suck up to a greater being or what.

All these protests listed are simply from people who don't understand it, and are closed minded enough to denounce it rather than understand.


Like Baubin said, denounce it out of the politics of their own beliefs.

[Infrazael]

Former Christian here. Currently, I am alot of things. I believe in what works at the moment, following the theories of CMT, which allows me to believe in whatever I feel like, and what brings me peace. My paradigm will change over time, in accordance with whatever demands life asks for.

The thing that Christianity SCARES ME THE MOST, is the idea of "being the lamb of God."

Every time I think of that statement, it sends shivers down my spine. Why? Because being a "lamb" of God means that. . . . . I follow the herd. The herd of what? Slaves without a will. Slaves to a system. . . . following restrictions that only limit human potential, and ultimate peace. A system of control, fear, manipulating and corruption. Now that I look back, I remember my old pastor talking about how evil various religions are, and how wrong they are. How horrible Buddhism is, and how NOTHING but Jesus Christ well lead to damnation.

When Jesus said something like "I am the shepard and you are the sheep", I believe that is one of the most EVIL statements I have ever heard. Telling people to group en mass. To give up their own souls for this one person, because they want to go to heaven. To devote themselves wholly to this one person. To become the herd, to become the thoughtless.

A means to control. Controlling those people who believs SO WHOLLY in this!!! To be called "sheep."

I will NOT become a sheep in a herd. That is something so utterly disgusting and revolting. . . . . I can't stand Christianity anymore.

[Aiki-novice]

Hello,
Having experienced both religions, My sister being a practicing christian at a C of E church (much to my displeasure with the amount of brainwashing that takes place there having been forced into some of the sermons myself when i was a child) and having travelled to many buddhist countrys (Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar/Burma) IMO buddhism is the way to go. In my travels to myanmar i realised how strictly people followed thier religion, merging away from religion and turning into their life, period. I could see how forfilled people where with their everyday tasks and how happy they were even without the material junk that the "civilised" world "needs". I also believe that the entire of christianity is based on fear of god and what will happen to you when you die, Buddhism i find is far less violent and instead of scaring people about death, they talk about life. That sounds much nicer don't you think?

I myself am an agnostic and refuse to believe in anything past death, I'll cross that bridge when i come to it, but have practiced some basic insight meditation and found it very furfilling and helped me to become more concentrated and reflective.

[kiaiki]

Some of our local church halls even forbid yoga or meditation classes!!

At the same time they are busy trying to indictrinate the young in a way which any other religion would be forbidden to do: massive posters close to primary schools leading to classes of indictrination in fundamentalism. It's called the Alpha Course - or 'alpha curse' as I call it. It's a howling disgrace and should be stopped.

All the assertions in the first post are things I have heard from Christians. Of course, they are all tosh - except number 10:
I really hope the path does lead nowhere - well, emptiness anyway!

As these Christians are all 'appearances to my mind' and lack inherent existence anyway, I'm glad they're around to allow me to test my compassion. :)

[Infrazael]

Like I said, Christianity is about "controlling the herds of sheep they have penned."

[Strafio]

I don't think it's really about that.

I guess that's more of the extremist take on it.

[Fish Of Doom]

officially i am a christian, but i am in no way religous, ABSOLUTELY NOT, and my theory is simply "i don't know", i will find out when i die, only if i continue to exist, as IMO NOTHING and NO ONE has been able to prove anything, so if buddhists are the ones who are right so be it, if it's christians then so be it, i'll adapt when i die then.
i consider myself part christian(in my moral and ethical values, to a very slight degree, i was raised catholic), part agnostic(because i chose not to follow anything, but still i don't deny that they may exist), and part something else(undefined, it's the part that denies things like the mindless sheep, and believing in absolutely no higher authority, just cause you think there isn't one).
if i were to believe in a higher authority of sorts, it would be nature, because everything that happens is nature, who knows even individuality may be a work of nature, emptyness is part of nature, animals are, planets are, gravity is, etc.
another(quite stupid) theory i thought upon once is that bacteria/microorganisms/etc=simple society inside humans/aliens/etc=advanced society on planets=incomprehensible(as of now) society on some super giant beings= so on so forth. as i said, quite stupid.

in my opinion, anyone that denigrates an oposite religion just because of blind devotion is a mindless zealot.

i think that christianity though, has been like a giant bureaucracy of sorts since it was created, manipulating people so that they believed, while bein led out from the truth.
i'm not accusing christians from being false here, i'm accusing religious authority from distorting it, for example, in the bible all those comments about i am the lord, you will be saved through me etc, are the complete oposite of the values that jesus and god try to give people.

that is my opinion on the matter

Fish Of doom

[Strafio]

Hmmm...

Some odd bits of Buddhism do speculate about what happened to you when you die, and the life cycle of reincarnation and whatnot, but mostly it's about what you experience through living your day to day life, and how to improve these experiences by giving you perspective, building up to enlightenment.

I guess that would be it in a nutshell! :)

[tbubb1]

Dude, Infraezel, when they talk about the lamb of God, they are refering to Christ...who died for us.

People used to sacrifice sheep and other animals to God to attone for their sins. Jesus came and died as the ultimate attonement, so people don't have to keep doing things that way anymore. He was the 'ultimate-lamb' so to speak.

I'd agree with you that the Church (like...the catholic one) is trying to control people because of it's taintedness (...is that a word?), but Christianity is in no way trying to do so.

When Christ says that he is the shepard and we are the sheep, he elaborates further in different parts of the bible (lol...far to lazy to look them up...I know that I've read this a few times at Youth Group though) that he is the Good Shepard who dies for his sheep.

Back in the days of Christ shepards who truly cared about their sheep would go out and brave the wilderness for MONTHS to find a single lost sheep and carry it home, they'd risk their lives against predators such as wolves to keep them safe and so forth.

I'm fairly certain (as are most other Christians) that when Jesus uses this analogy of him being the shepard and we being the sheep, he is refering to himself caring enough to die for us, than as a means to diabolically twist and manipulate us so we don't follow our "own path" .

Just my thoughts.

[Humblebee]

Gerard in your posts you always talk about Buddhism in a very general way,there are many,many forms of Buddhism.
I find also your views on christianity shallow to be honest and i think you should stop it.
How can you claim to be Buddhist and not religious when Buddhism is one of the major world religions.

[ggb3]

Has anyone read Albert Einstein's writings on religion? In particular from the compilation titled Ideas and Opinions. It is very interesting and basically sums up how I think and feel. He has been correct on many subjects.....

[soggycat]

Let me first say that personally I think Buddhism as a Philosophy has some merits, but Buddhism as a Religion does not add up.
( Same as Taoism, Religious Taoism doesn’t add up )

Buddhism was founded by a Hindu Prince Siddarhartha Gautama and originated as a philosophy, not a religion.
Any religion is defined as “ relationship between Human and Creator”
Buddhism has no “Creator” and therefore by definition is not a religion.
Buddha never claimed to be a God, never asked to be worship as One.
This means EVERY Religious Buddhist who worship Buddha as a God is disobeying Buddha’s teachings.


Christians who criticise Buddhism, refer primarily to Religious Buddhism, not Philosophical Buddhism.

Buddha’s spirit may have reached Nirvana but Buddha’s body physically died because his last meal was poisoned.
Real GOD’s don’t die, they have a way of resurrecting.

Buddhism’s main problem is that reincarnation theory doesn’t add up.
If everything that dies must be reborn into either a higher or lower lifeform and the cycle repeated until it reaches “Nirvana” whereby that life becomes ” Emptiness/ Nothingness”, then it follows that at anytime there is a decreasing population for all lifeforms. (This is not rocket science. ) But this cannot explain why we have a population explosion.

Secondly, in order for a lifeform to be reborn into a “higher” lifeform, it must first lead a good and virtuous life.
This must also include not killing any animal life.
This is practically impossible for all lifeforms.
Even for humans to stay alive, bacteria in your body must die .

Buddhism teaches one to be passive. This may sound good , but is a non-survival technique In other words , if you enemy is at your door with a sword, kneel down and let him chop off your head. But actually this is in keeping with the overall reincarnation practice as Buddhism promotes the idea of “rushing to one’s death in order to be reincarnated”.

This is evidently manifest in the several cases of Buddhist monks who immolate ( set oneself on fire) in Thailand and Vietnam. Religious Buddhism ENCOURAGES / CONDONES suicide as an option.
What message is this sending to society?

[Humblebee]

Let me first say that personally I think Buddhism as a Philosophy has some merits, but Buddhism as a Religion does not add up.
( Same as Taoism, Religious Taoism doesn’t add up )
false
Buddhism was founded by a Hindu Prince Siddarhartha Gautama and originated as a philosophy, not a religion.
false
Any religion is defined as “ relationship between Human and Creator”
Buddhism has no “Creator” and therefore by definition is not a religion.
false
Buddha never claimed to be a God, never asked to be worship as One.
This means EVERY Religious Buddhist who worship Buddha as a God is disobeying Buddha’s teachings.
true


Christians who criticise Buddhism, refer primarily to Religious Buddhism, not Philosophical Buddhism.

Buddha’s spirit may have reached Nirvana but Buddha’s body physically died because his last meal was poisoned.
false
Real GOD’s don’t die, they have a way of resurrecting.
???? there are no real gods????

Buddhism’s main problem is that reincarnation theory doesn’t add up.
If everything that dies must be reborn into either a higher or lower lifeform and the cycle repeated until it reaches “Nirvana” whereby that life becomes ” Emptiness/ Nothingness”, then it follows that at anytime there is a decreasing population for all lifeforms. (This is not rocket science. ) But this cannot explain why we have a population explosion.
false

Secondly, in order for a lifeform to be reborn into a “higher” lifeform, it must first lead a good and virtuous life.
This must also include not killing any animal life.
This is practically impossible for all lifeforms.
Even for humans to stay alive, bacteria in your body must die .
so false
Buddhism teaches one to be passive. This may sound good , but is a non-survival technique In other words , if you enemy is at your door with a sword, kneel down and let him chop off your head. But actually this is in keeping with the overall reincarnation practice as Buddhism promotes the idea of “rushing to one’s death in order to be reincarnated”.
false
This is evidently manifest in the several cases of Buddhist monks who immolate ( set oneself on fire) in Thailand and Vietnam. Religious Buddhism ENCOURAGES / CONDONES suicide as an option.
What message is this sending to society?
what nonsense

[Humblebee]

When anyone says Buddhism is this or Buddhism is that please be specific on what form of Buddhism you are talking about,there are many.Siddarta taught in his 40 years of teaching many,many forms of Buddhism.
so please dont generalise because you're facts will be innacurate.

[xen]

buddhism is generally misunderstood in the west, we tend to focus upon certain aspects and these become enshrined as ill-informed urban myths.

as an example, the nirvana/samsara dichotomy. Nirvana is supposedly the state where the cycle of samsara is transcended. Samsara is the cycle of suffering we humans endure as a fundamental facet of our existence. It exists because of the mechanisms our minds use to classify the world in dualistic terms, innner/outer, good/evil, light/dark etc. These mechanisms exist to satisfy our desires, which originally evolved to assist the individual in their survival. However, as we moved away from nature and towards technology, these mechanisms could not evolve at the same rate, hence we are left living in a mental space we have become forced to endure as our world and society have become more complex.

Nirvana is a state of mind where we no longer need to chase our desires, which can never be fulfilled to our satisfaction, hence our perpetual suffering which we feel because we are unable to stop our desires directing our actions. Once we have become free of our desires we are free to enjoy the moment to moment unfolding of our lives. We no longer cling to our past or hunger after our future, we become content with where we are now as we understand that there is no where else we could possibly be.

The word religion is a western word which we have applied to spiritual systems from other cultures which we think must be religions because they seem to fill the same gap in these cultures that religion seems to fill in ours. The fundamental difference which i perceive between, for example, buddhism and christianity, is that buddhism ecourages the individual to look inside themself with a view to attaining a sense of inner peace born of understanding and accepting the circumstances of ones own life and the realisation that the individual is ultimately responsible for ones own choices through life.

In contrast, christianity encourages the individual to look outside themself, to seek solace in the idea of an external creator who benevolently oversees the choices of the individual and will, if certain rules are followed, forgive any transgressions of morality the individual commits.

The difference is highlighted in the contrasting practices of meditation and prayer. In the former the practice involves allowing ones thoughts to arise naturally, with a view to analysing and understanding the thoughts which arise in relation to the inner desires which cause their arising. The latter requires the individual to commune with an external force and to direct their thoughts for the dual purposes of venerating this force and asking for its protection.

My personal psychological make-up favours me turning to myself in times of need and developing my own stratergies for my survival as opposed to asking a deity to intervene in my life and correct or excuse my mistakes. But i don't call myself a buddhist, i call myself a self-sufficient human being.

with respect, soggycat, i feel that the statement that religious buddhism condones or promotes suicide is a dangerous misunderstanding of the buddist description of death and transition. In my humble opinion the way you presented this fact is symptomatic of the need to scare people away from views which differ from the doctrine of christ. Christ did not codone indoctrination, yet these methods are those used by his 'followers' to draw more people into the christian church. I have no problem with christians other than the way the religion has become maligned and manipulated by powerful people whose hearts do not display the truth of the system they created to enslave the ignorant. This is not a recent phenomena, it is a problem which has plagued the christian church since the begining of its days. This fact is most easily demonstrated by the inhuman acts carried out by the inquisitors of the catholic church around 500 years ago.

The reality of eastern disiplines is that they are not religions in the sense that judaism, islam or christianity are religions.

Consider this...is anyone aware of the Taoists declaring holy wars on Buddhists? Or the Buddhist attitudes relating to society causing whole cultures to feel oppressed?

Now think of the Islamic-Judaic-Christian triangle of hate which dominates so much of our media and tears holes in so many lives...

[Strafio]

SoggyCat, any shared mass belief in something is a religion, so Buddhism is indeed a religion. Like any other religion, everyone has their own idea on how to be a Buddhist.
I agree with you on one thing, in that I wouldn't worship Buddha like a God, and I really don't think he intended anyone to.

Re-incarnation possibly has problems, but only if you take it too simplistically and literally. I think that the idea is that the energy of your being and the consequences of your actions gradually makes it to another life-form.
The energy transfer is basic physics, and the consequences thing... maybe not proven but I have enough experience of it to believe in Karma.


All this prayer to the Buddha, I think it's a form of focus rather than a form of worship.
Yes, some crazy monks set themselves on fire, but I think it's a form of releasing the spirit... not all of it always makes sense. :)

But I can see from a lot of your points that you've studied it, but without actually trying to live it, you'll never understand it.

[soggycat]

Consider this...is anyone aware of the Taoists declaring holy wars on Buddhists? Or the Buddhist attitudes relating to society causing whole cultures to feel oppressed?

Now think of the Islamic-Judaic-Christian triangle of hate which dominates so much of our media and tears holes in so many lives...

You may not be aware of this. Buddhism is the official religion in Sri Lanka. Buddhist monks often hold high political office, and have openly and actively encouraged the persecution of Christianity. My source is the guy who sits next to me, a Christian who just emigrated from Sri Lanka.
http://www.christianpersecution.info/features/buddist-attack-churches-sri-lanka.html

Western Media is dominate by Judeo-Christian views. Asian media is dominated by Buddhist/ Hindu/ Islamic views.

I point out the faults of Buddhist, as the thread seeks to point out the faults of Christians. Would that not be fair ?

[soggycat]

In contrast, christianity encourages the individual to look outside themself, to seek solace in the idea of an external creator who benevolently oversees the choices of the individual and will, if certain rules are followed, forgive any transgressions of morality the individual commits.
..

"The Kingdom of God is within you."
THe Bible

[soggycat]

XenMaster,
I must first say this self immolation business is not acceptable to the West, but apparently not rare in Asia.The brand of Buddhism you practice may be different from those who condone self immolation.
Have a look:

The idea of sacrifice is a key in Buddhist thought and self-immolation could be thought of as the ultimate form of sacrifice.
….http://www.angelfire.com/nb/protest/viet.html


Buddhist monks may set themselves on fire in protest unless organisers postpone a concert of Indian film stars that coincides with the anniversary of a cleric's death, a monk said on Friday.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1146152,00050002.htm

On June 11, 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk from the Linh-Mu Pagoda in Hue, Vietnam, burned himself to death at a busy intersection in downtown Saigon, Vietnam
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/self_immolation.htm


http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/1/11_6.html
A group of Indian Buddhist monks have threatened to immolate themselves
at Bodh Gaya in Bihar if the Dalai Lama does not mediate with them on
their demands and not to hold his Kalchakra prayer on Sunday

A BUDDHIST monk and two nuns are believed to have burned themselves to death at a temple in rural Cambodia in the hope of reaching Nirvana, or a state of supreme happiness. Some have even stabbed themsevles when unsuccessful
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1089102002

[Banpen Fugyo]

STOP USING THE BIBLE FOR ARGUING YOUR POINTS, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cant quote a book that isnt even known to be true or valid to create a logical argument against something.

[Banpen Fugyo]

XenMaster,
I must first say this self immolation business is not acceptable to the West, but apparently not rare in Asia.The brand of Buddhism you practice may be different from those who condone self immolation.
Have a look:

The idea of sacrifice is a key in Buddhist thought and self-immolation could be thought of as the ultimate form of sacrifice.
….http://www.angelfire.com/nb/protest/viet.html


Buddhist monks may set themselves on fire in protest unless organisers postpone a concert of Indian film stars that coincides with the anniversary of a cleric's death, a monk said on Friday.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1146152,00050002.htm

On June 11, 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk from the Linh-Mu Pagoda in Hue, Vietnam, burned himself to death at a busy intersection in downtown Saigon, Vietnam
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/self_immolation.htm


http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/1/11_6.html
A group of Indian Buddhist monks have threatened to immolate themselves
at Bodh Gaya in Bihar if the Dalai Lama does not mediate with them on
their demands and not to hold his Kalchakra prayer on Sunday

A BUDDHIST monk and two nuns are believed to have burned themselves to death at a temple in rural Cambodia in the hope of reaching Nirvana, or a state of supreme happiness. Some have even stabbed themsevles when unsuccessful
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1089102002

whats your point? You think that killing yourself for a cause is a bad thing? Maybe they were happy to do it, who are you to judge?

[soggycat]

whats your point? You think that killing yourself for a cause is a bad thing? Maybe they were happy to do it, who are you to judge?

Yes I happen to think killing yourself for a cause is a bad thing.
Dying to save someone else is another matter.
Many of these self-immolaters where burning themselves to reach Nirvana quicker, not for any other selfless cause.

It is for me to judge because personally I would not like to see this destructive instinct propagated.

Didn't Buddha say " Don't kill"
Including yourself ?

[Strafio]

I think I see Soggy's point.

It's not that he's attacking Buddhism, he's simply pointing out that if people are going to nit-pick the Christian faith then the same can be applied to their own.
I know that his points are based around crazed individuals who try extreme things, but so were the points against Christianity.

I'd bet that Sri Lankan Buddhists are mostly great.
My friend visited one of their monastries for a week (having not known much about Buddhism before) and was really impressed by their way of life, and how easy they were to be with.
They often discussed their beliefs with him but never with a view to try and turn him, or indoctrinate him, more they just shared with him.

Likewise, I know a several Catholic priests who are the same way.
So s'all good. :)

[xen]

with respect soggycat; you can drag all the articles you want from the media to strengthen your argument. These are individuals interpreting the philosophy a particular way and not neccesarily representative of the 'correct' interpretation of the philosophy.

David Koresh and Waco? Am I to assume from his actions that a devout faith in Christ means I must hole myself in a building and immolate myself and encourage others to follow me? no, of course not!

You get extremist cults who take the writings of those they follow far too seriously in all religious and spriritual disciplines. What destroys the ability of sane and rational people to appreciate the view-point of other faiths is the focus upon these cults and the mistaken assumption that their actions are to be taken as a true reflection of the way that faith encourages its followers to behave!

With respect to your comments about religious war in asia...i asked if anyone knew of wars BETWEEN far eastern faiths, not INVOLVING far eastern faiths. I am not surprised that the example you give involves christianity...Christians are perhaps the 'daddies' of religious war! (I say this because it is the Christian faith which was used to try and stamp out the indigenous people's beliefs in EVERY populated continent of the world! The crusades 1000 yrs ago in the near-east; India, South America, Australia, Japan; the pagan belifs of Europe, the native-American culture etc, etc)

and to say "the kingdom of God is within you" in response to my comments about meditation and prayer just adds weight to my earlier comment about blind quoting passges from the bible as means to find whatever 'fact' is needed by the Christian faith to justify its position...

and finally, I humbly ask; who are you to determine what is and is not accepteble to the west? all you can do is say what is acceptable or not to you, not the rest of us.

Ascetic practices have what the west view as unusual ways to liberate their consciousness...but that is because they are not viewed from the same cultural standpoint, not because these practices lack validity

[TkdWarrior]

Buddhist monks warn of self-immolation over Indian show

Press Trust of India

Colombo, December 10, 2005|23:04 IST
now that's funny...
and I don't remember any such concert .... why??? I m so confused

-TkdWarrior-

[surgingshark]

The only problems (from either side) come from those who take it too far. I study in LBCC, where we Christians hang out with Buddhists (yes, even the orange-garbed monks) quite a lot :)

[reikislapper]

I have to agree with one of the other members on here and state for the record we aren't here to argue scripture or with the Buddhist (faith) philosophy. I myself used to be a christian and was so tempted to write something from the bible where it could be used to argue a few points but I'm not going to do it. I'm just starting to learn a bit about the Buddhist belief philosophy and it's really interesting to say the least. Does it really matter what faith you have as I'm sure we can get on without the politics of the different systems we all have. This argument will go on for quite a few more centuries after we have left the earth so why bother with the trival stuff and just get on with each other and learn what we have to offer as it's very much the same idea no matter where you look.
lisa xx

[Strafio]

The fact is, true Buddhists and true Christians wouldn't even see it as something to argue over! :p

[reikislapper]

The fact is, true Buddhists and true Christians wouldn't even see it as something to argue over! :p

RAFL You are bad to the bone !!!!, I love your answer :D :D :D.
lisa xx

[xen]

the last two posts are quality...

my gripe isn't with the people who follow a faith with sincerity, but with those elements who malign a faith and misrepresent it for their own purposes (be it through pure ignorance or through a desire to twist others to their will)

i personally follow no faith beyond a faith in myself and acceptance of natural justice..but that doesn't mean i don't have sympathies with religionists in general.

w.r.t the christian church...christ gave his teachings and he died for his beliefs...i have no doubt that the man was a gifted healer and a man of sincere integrety whose lifes work should serve to illuminate us all

what i abhor is the evil that has propgated under his name in the two thousand years or so since his death. How can un-christian acts be used to spread the teachings of peace and acceptance which formed the core of his doctrine of faith? As ever it comes down to those few individuals who manipulate themselves into positions of power and allow themselves to become slaves of greed.

Where this relates to the topic of the thread is...Why has the same culture of corruption not arisen around the teachings of the Buddha or Lao-Tzu for example?

And what does this tell us about the fundamental methods of growth associated with each different system?

[Banpen Fugyo]

I have no problem with faith either, faith in oneself, in a god, in many gods, whatever. It just bothers me when people press their beliefs, which aside from faith, hold no merit. I'm tired of scare tactics. I'm tired of being told im going to hell. I'm tired of people being told they are wrong because they believe something different. In an argument based on things that hold little factual information, i dont see how anyone can be wrong. Therefore, i dont see how anyone can be right.

[HearWa]

I've personally decided not to believe in any faith that presses stories of the following phenomenon on you to strengthen your practices or belief: birth, death, karma or an after life.

As much as I've tried, there's no way to escape the moment. Knowing this, how can anyone really know anything about birth, death, karma or the after life if we are only provided information by those who are living in this moment?

I'd like to believe in many things, but I know the belief will never make it true with the way things are. In other words, I don't believe in subjective truth. But in that statement lies the problem: even that is a belief!

How can we really understand anything? Isn't it odd how we all have these little jewels to share that make perfect sense, yet many contradict themselves? What is a person to do? :)

We must first ask ourselves if truth is subjective or objective, and I'm afriad none of us can really answer that question.

[Humblebee]

The fact is, true Buddhists and true Christians wouldn't even see it as something to argue over! :p


Halleluja [pardon the pun]

[AZeitung]

Former Christian here. Currently, I am alot of things. I believe in what works at the moment, following the theories of CMT, which allows me to believe in whatever I feel like, and what brings me peace. My paradigm will change over time, in accordance with whatever demands life asks for.

The thing that Christianity SCARES ME THE MOST, is the idea of "being the lamb of God."

Every time I think of that statement, it sends shivers down my spine. Why? Because being a "lamb" of God means that. . . . . I follow the herd.

Actually, in Christianity, "lamb of God", Agnus Dei, referrs to Jesus, being a sacraficial lamb for humanity. Case in point:

Agnus dei qui tollis pecatta mundi miserere nobis - lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

[dori_kin_86]

Dude, Infraezel, when they talk about the lamb of God, they are refering to Christ...who died for us.

People used to sacrifice sheep and other animals to God to attone for their sins. Jesus came and died as the ultimate attonement, so people don't have to keep doing things that way anymore. He was the 'ultimate-lamb' so to speak.

I'd agree with you that the Church (like...the catholic one) is trying to control people because of it's taintedness (...is that a word?), but Christianity is in no way trying to do so.

When Christ says that he is the shepard and we are the sheep, he elaborates further in different parts of the bible (lol...far to lazy to look them up...I know that I've read this a few times at Youth Group though) that he is the Good Shepard who dies for his sheep.

Back in the days of Christ shepards who truly cared about their sheep would go out and brave the wilderness for MONTHS to find a single lost sheep and carry it home, they'd risk their lives against predators such as wolves to keep them safe and so forth.

I'm fairly certain (as are most other Christians) that when Jesus uses this analogy of him being the shepard and we being the sheep, he is refering to himself caring enough to die for us, than as a means to diabolically twist and manipulate us so we don't follow our "own path" .

Just my thoughts.

Dido. I would say something, but my point was already stated.

[gerard]

When Jesus said something like "I am the shepard and you are the sheep"

The problem is that the entire Bible has been manipulated by humans to the extreme that its entire message is like Nazi propaganda. If you are not like us you'll go to hell. It's very sad how humans like to change things according to their material needs. I don't think Jesus ever said those words. Primarily because he was a Boddhisattava and as such he had the following aspirations:

1. I shall realize all the knowledge that all the Buddhas in the past had realized

2. I shall help release all beings from sufferings.

3. I shall eradicate all the defilements including of myself and of others

4. I shall cultivate with my greatest effort the Bodhi-Saddha (enlightened confidence), the Bodhi-dhamma (enlightened virtue), the Bodhi-panna (enlightened wisdom) in myself and in others.


THEREFORE, I firmly believe that many passages of the New Testament were changed to suit the Catholic Church interests. However references to reincarnation and karma clearly exist in the Bible but they need to be read carefully and interpreted accordingly by the reader (obvioulsy don't expect that in a church because these places are evil, they exist to worship Mr. $)

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_and_reincarnation


Or, for instance, these passages of the Bible:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. (1 Cor. 15:51)

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

These are just two examples of many found throughout the entire Bible. The problem is that conservative Christian (and no so conservative) will either interpret it in a different way or deny the fact of reincarnation.

Karma will also be found here:

But I say unto you, that every idle wold that men shall speak
they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment, for by thy words, thou
shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned -
(Matthew - 12: 36,37 )

For there will be no mercy for you if you have not been merciful
to others. But if you have been merciful, then God's mercy toward you will
win out over his judgment against you. (James 2:13)



or this other one which changes somehow the main outcome of the New Testament:

http://www.tombofjesus.com/


Unfortunately, many Christians will disagree and say otherwise, that the Bible doesn't say that, there are other passages denying the validity of karma and reincarnation and so forth. I say believe what you want, I don't care because I am not religious. Period.

I will NOT become a sheep in a herd. That is something so utterly disgusting and revolting. . . . . I can't stand Christianity anymore.


The reason why organise Christianism negates Buddhist thought is simply because we follow these words:

"You must rely on yourself and make yourself available for others to rely on you".

It's about you and Dao, you and yourself and no one else, which means that I alone can live inside a cave for ten years facing the wall and become closer to Dao without needing anyone to tell me what to do. Buddhism is about the freedom of the individual, which is something that many Christians don't understand as they lack of the discipline of meditation and negation of the ultimate validity of material existence and what it provides (many Buddhists also lack of that discipline though!).

:)

[gerard]

I find also your views on christianity shallow to be honest and i think you should stop it.

Hi,

I was indoctrinated into Christianism in a catholic country and I realised that what all is about is CONTROL.

Different points to consider:

1. For this thread's purpose I am a Buddhist.

2. In the martial arts section (internal) I am a Daoist.

3. My friends think of me as a spiritual person (sorry for the ego reference)

4. Personally I am Gerard who likes to meditate, be healthy (in terms of traditional Daoist practices) try to be the best person as I can be. Wisdom and compassion and help other people are part of myself.

Where do I fit in?

Read this:


"The Ways to God are as numerous as the breaths of humankind."

Sufi Tradition

How can you claim to be Buddhist and not religious when Buddhism is one of the major world religions


For me Buddhism is not a religion because I am not religious. Being spiritual is a very different thing. I discovered Buddhism through meditation. Personally I don't read Buddhist texts. I just meditate and meditate. Currently 2 hours per day. Buddhism was discovered by Siddharta through meditation. I follow the same method and all I can say I have experienced many of the things the first Buddha said. Buddhism is about experiencing, not about believing.

Call me spiritual then.

All the best,

:)

[gerard]

Buddhism’s main problem is that reincarnation theory doesn’t add up.
If everything that dies must be reborn into either a higher or lower lifeform and the cycle repeated until it reaches “Nirvana” whereby that life becomes ” Emptiness/ Nothingness”, then it follows that at anytime there is a decreasing population for all lifeforms. (This is not rocket science. ) But this cannot explain why we have a population explosion.[/B]


Man, you are missing something here.

As a qualified physicist you are denying the fundamentals of Physics:

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

2. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system.

So mate, REINCARNATION IS VALID!


Secondly, human population keeps growing due to decreased numbers of the animal population and beings from different existences, planets, dimensions, etc. (The entire system is a huge living thing that came from emptiness). I am theorising here though.

Take care,


:)

[gerard]

whats your point? You think that killing yourself for a cause is a bad thing? Maybe they were happy to do it, who are you to judge?


Hi,

Indeed is a very bad thing. By doing so you're going against the universal law.

Unless you have achieve arahat state what it usually happens is the following:

You will be stuck in the lower ‘astral’ realm (called Hell in Christian thought) until you reach the age that was supposed to reach on Earth, still facing the “demons” that you tried to escape.


Answering Soggycat:

The buddhist monks you saw were probably Arahats, so they'll be able to return to Earth at will.

Read this:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html


:)

[Strafio]

Which makes you wonder...

Maybe they DID come back.
They could be YOU! :eek:

:D

[Pocari Neko]

Like I said, Christianity is about "controlling the herds of sheep they have penned."

Infrazael, that is some VERY clever word play there. Me like.

;)

[Strafio]

I've personally decided not to believe in any faith that presses stories of the following phenomenon on you to strengthen your practices or belief: birth, death, karma or an after life.

As much as I've tried, there's no way to escape the moment. Knowing this, how can anyone really know anything about birth, death, karma or the after life if we are only provided information by those who are living in this moment?


I agree. The thing I like about Karma (or the "version" of Karma that I believe in atleast) is that it merely compliments the moment, rather than trying to determine it.

A lot of definitions of karma on here seem to be very different to my own.
My definition is that everything that you do leaves consequences, that gradually catch up with you. Karma.
Now this even stretches to your thinking.
Some thoughts lead to good consquences, others to bad. That's why we meditate, to try and prevent us from confusing ourselfs with "bad" thoughts.

I guess attachment is one, because it leads to our suffering when we lose something that we are attached to. Another is greed.
Anyone seen the "Not happy with a million $1?" thread?
I thought that was a good example.
Because I do have greed in me (not that I'm especially greedy or anything, it's just that almost natural "want things" attitude), if I was offered a choice between 3 envelopes, 1 with £100k, one with £1 million and one with £10 million and I picked the one with "only" a million, I would be disappointed that I didn't get the 10 million.

Now because I'm not really very greedy, this feeling wouldn't last long at all, wheras someone who was obsessed by their greed would probably become extremely depressed by this missed opportunity, even though they just got a million pounds for nothing.

So I guess that's an example of greed being a cause of bad karma.

This whole afterlife theorising is barely important in comparison, and maybe sort of loses the plot. I think that karma can also come through what you don't do.

Some Buddhists try to get good karma by cutting themselves off from the world so they can't cause bad karma, but that way, can they cause good karma or prevent bad karma from happening?
That's why these stories of the burning, the releasing the spirit, sure they might've cleared their minds of bad karma, what good have they done the world by leaving it?

There is the metaphysical belief that they will be born again, or can come back, or be re-incarnated, but that's merely a belief that I can understand you take comfort in if you are destined to die.
But something to kill yourself for?
I think these people have missed the point.

[tbubb1]

Well you know, about the whole reincarnation thing...trying to prove it incorrectly by saying the population explosion doesnt support it doesn't really work from my point of view.

There are an insanely high number of single celled organisms on this Earth. Since they are living, is it not possible that a creature be reincarnated as something as small as a cell? In which case, a few million cells could disappear and more noticable creatures would appear on the Earth...

I see how that'd work.

However, I'm a Christian, and do not believe in Reincarnation...it just doesn't seem logical to me. How would anyone even know if it worked or not?

"Oh yea, hey Jim, it's me Stan. I died five years ago and now I'm back as this child." ???

From what I understand you don't recall your past lives w/o past lives regression, which have been disproved by psychologists since most accounts of past life regression have been proven historically incorrect...so how would someone know that they were reincarnated? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Unlike Christianity, in which a man came and told the world what happens after you die, performed miracles, died, and came back once more... That explains exactly where that idea came from.

Once more, just my thoughts. I don't believe in reincarnation :cool:

[Banpen Fugyo]

...it just doesn't seem logical to me. How would anyone even know if it worked or not? ..............Unlike Christianity, in which a man came and told the world what happens after you die, performed miracles, died, and came back once more...

Wow. All I have to say is, wow.

[gerard]

Unlike Christianity, in which a man came and told the world what happens after you die (There are many theories of what happens after you die but really think here and now, what comes after death we will discuss it if we meet again :), performed miracles (many masters, gurus, lamas, yogis, etc. perform miracles also called siddhis), died, and came back once more (how are you so sure? check this out: http://www.tombofjesus.com/... That explains exactly where that idea came from The Bible mentions in many passages the concepts of karma and reincarnation


For a very clarifying approach read the info contained in this link:
http://www.isp.msu.edu/asianstudies/wbwoa/eastasia/China/religion.html

:rolleyes:

[d33pthought]

Not to be too terribly off-topic, but is it wrong of me to bring tarot cards to a synagogue on the high holidays when dealing with small children?

[WatchfulAbyss]

However, I'm a Christian, and do not believe in Reincarnation...it just doesn't seem logical to me. How would anyone even know if it worked or not?


Logical?
The only thing I have ever seen offered on behalf of christianity is a book, written by man, and the argument that "since science doesn't have all the finnal answers, there must be a god". These things cannot be proved on a logical level, if they could be, there would be no discussing/debating the matter. How do you know that a after life/heaven is a real place, ever been there? Can you show it to me? Can you prove any of this through science? I mean science is what we use to prove things, to understand things, there are books on leprechauns, people that claim to have seen big foot and gods other than your own, are they credible? If not, why?

You can assume and thefore this to death, and prove nothing. To compare the two theories under the reasons you gave, is irrational. ( just my opnion)



Unlike Christianity, in which a man came and told the world what happens after you die, performed miracles, died, and came back once more... That explains exactly where that idea came from.


He didn't tell me anything. There are alot of books and text on different gods and things of this nature, what makes them any less likley?


Once more, just my thoughts. I don't believe in reincarnation

And just like you, these are my thoughts, I respect that you are a christian, but that doesn't make you rite.

[soggycat]

With respect to your comments about religious war in asia...i asked if anyone knew of wars BETWEEN far eastern faiths, not INVOLVING far eastern faiths. I am not surprised that the example you give involves christianity...Christians are perhaps the 'daddies' of religious war! (I say this because it is the Christian faith which was used to try and stamp out the indigenous people's beliefs in EVERY populated continent of the world! The crusades 1000 yrs ago in the near-east; India, South America, Australia, Japan; the pagan belifs of Europe, the native-American culture etc, etc)

Your statement about Christianity being the common denominator in all inter faith religious conflict is narrow and prejudicial.
You seem to be unaware of Asian history and Asian current affairs .

Here’s what you missed out:

1.Islamic-Hindu conflicts in India ( last few hundred years)http://sathyavaadi.tripod.com/truthisgod/papers/020405.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/iisite/media/03-02-02-FinancialTimes-AVarshney.htm

2.Buddhist – Islamic conflict in South Thailand ( remember late 2004? 85 muslims suffocated in police trucks, later muslim took revenge by chopping off Buddhist religious leaders heads) http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Gunmen-launch-attacks-in-Thailands/2005/01/14/1105582703568.html

3.Muslims forced most defeated opponents to convert to Islam, as in Eastern and Central Europe ( Ottoman Empire) and India ( Moghul Empire) This has been going on since 650AD to 1700's This is why there are European Muslims ( Turkey, Bosnia, Chechyna, Spain, Central Russia)

4.The Chinese Communist Government suppressed and persecuted ALL religions during the cultural revolution ( 1964-1972)

5.The Sikh – Islamic conflict in Punjab. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/sikh/blfaq_sikh_debate_hind.htm

6.An Aussie Christian missionary , along with his 7 and 9 year old sons, were burnt alive in their car by Hindus in 1999. Graham Stewart Staines, 58, ran a leprosy hospital. http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/genocide/christians/staines.html

[soggycat]

Well you know, about the whole reincarnation thing...trying to prove it incorrectly by saying the population explosion doesnt support it doesn't really work from my point of view.

There are an insanely high number of single celled organisms on this Earth. Since they are living, is it not possible that a creature be reincarnated as something as small as a cell? In which case, a few million cells could disappear and more noticable creatures would appear on the Earth...


Reincarnation doesn’t add up because , the theory presumes that in each cycle , a dying lifeform reappears as a new one or disappears into the nothingness/emptiness of Nirvana. It must follow that the total number of lifeforms must be decreasing or at best a constant number.

Yet we see the population of the world increase 4fold, from 1.5 Billion ( 1900) to 6 Billion ( 2000)
http://www.flash.net/~hoselton/worldpop/worldpop.htm

Sure some may say, that’s because more animals die , and reincarnate as humans nowadays .
Well, if you must go along this line of reasoning , may I just say that currently we have more than 1000 times more cows, sheep, chickens, fish than we did in 1900 due to mass production farming.

Also according to Buddhism , if you take a life, you will not be reincarnated into a higher life.
In that case all carnivorous animals and humans meat eaters are doomed to stay on earth.
This means a population explosion cannot happen, as there should be a constant number ( every death replaced by a new birth)
Also herbivorous animals and vegetarian humans are equally doomed this way too, because for them to live, bacteria must die.

Also, if you say that’s because more life forms are reappearing as single cell life forms ( amoeba). Yeah of course that explain somethings, but if reincarnation has been going on for billions of years, and over this time shouldn't it be taking an “forward” path ie. towards disappearing into Nirvana, rather than “backwards” into a single cell organism.
After all, if an amoeba leads a “bad life” what must it come back as in it’s next life?

Accordingly, there is no escape from the reincarnation cycle.
Please then tell me how / why we have an inexorable population growth?
Aliens ? :)

[Strafio]

Soggy's refutation of re-incarnation is narrow and pedantic, because it's based on one or two interpretations of the idea rather than the whole idea in general.
But I think the guy's just teasing people, to prove that a lot of Buddhisms theories are no more foolproof than any other religions.

The point about all religions having their fair share of trouble making and corruptancy is spot on though. And a good deal of that corruptancy (be it from Christians, Buddhists, Hindu's, Muslims, Ancient Greeks, whatever!) stems from denouncing other faiths.

Perhaps that's something that everyone should be thinking about?

[soggycat]

Buddha found enlightenment.
He did not aspire , claim or asked to be worshipped as a God.
He wanted to share his discovery /philosophy.

Why then do the majority of Buddhist worship him as a God ?
Anyone who refers to Buddhism as a religion , by default refers to Buddha as a God.
By worshipping Buddha as a God ( complete with statue), are they not creating an earthly attachment for which Buddhists aim to remove themselves from ?

I have respect for many Buddhist Philosophical teachings , but I cannot see any reason why it was ( artificially) turned into a religion without BUDDHA's permission.

[RobotBuddha]

Just like to add something that wasn't mentioned before.

Firstly, according to the Lotus Sutra, there is are degenerate stages of Buddhism in which Buddhist teachings become corrupted and misinterpreted thus leading to confusion and falling off the path to enlightenment. Because of constant reinterpretation of Buddhism, things can often be taken in the wrong light.

The extant Buddhist teachings are generally divided into 3 stages, which represent the establishment, splitting and decline of the teachings. It is counted in years after the passing of Shakyamuni Buddha.

The Perfect Age – lasting about 500 years, during which the Buddha’s teaching was correctly practiced, and Enlightenment was often attained by the practitioners.
The Semblance Age – lasting about 1000 years, during which a form of the teaching was practiced, and Enlightenment was seldom attained.
The Dharma-ending Age – lasting some 10,000 years, during which a diluted form of the teaching exists, and Enlightenment is rarely attained.

I am sure Jesus was a great man. But over time much of his teachings have been corrupted and misinterpreted, which has lead to many ignorant acts. I am sure Jesus would not condone to the genocide commited by the Nazis. This is also true about the bible. As time progress and corrupted texts are being recirculated into our society, it has become harder and harder to see the truth of the text. I say before coming to any false conclusion to re-evaluate the text and yourself.

[geves]

i fail to see why christians (which i am) deny meditation of any form when a number of charcters in the bible meditated themselves. it's written in black and white... while i'll have to agree that christianity does tend to be controlling, the church does the controlling not really the religion.

There is nothing more currupt then a group of men who exploit the belief systems for power and money....

i do not go to church and i believe i will never feel the need to do so, but i don't know what the future holds.

i agree with one of the above posts saying if a christian (or anyone else) makes you feel bad and tiny cuz of your faith....they are probably an ***hole.

just my two cents

[korg20kbc]

Wow,
The original post made some astounding statements that "Christianity" claims... (points 1-11). I have been a Christian for most of my life and I can certainly say that "Christianity" does not claim all those things. What I will agree to is that some Christians will make many of those types of claims.

What I know to be Christianity is basically being a disciple of Jesus. That is- following His teachings and to (yes I believe it's possible) have a personal relationship with your creator.

Religion is responsible for some of the most horrible acts that have taken place in the history of the world. I believe that this is because Religious Institutions say "God is on our side, so what we want to do is right!" As a Christian I believe that the Bible is right, dependable and clear instruction from God. And the Bible says -

"Religion that God accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep one's self from being polluted by the world." James 1: 27

That to me is pretty self explanitry. That's the sort of religion that I want to practice. Now if like minded people want to get together and encourage each other to enact this type of religion and praise a God who thinks that type of religion is a good and faultless thing- they should go to Church and be encouraged. Well, at least that's what I see it is there for.

Jesus makes some pretty amazing claims about Himself. He says "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me." and "But unless you repent, you too will all perish." and "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Definately not politically correct.

I gotta ask myself "If someone is making these types of claims either he's bullcrapping and trying to get me into something shifty." Or "This bloke's out of his head and doesn't know what he's saying." OR "He knows what he's saying and knows it to be true. That's the situation that confronted me and I had to make a decision.

Some people posted messages that it was stupid to quote the Bible in this thread. Why? In my definition a Christian is someone who believes that Bible is right and tries to put it's message into practice. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a Christian. I have to take Christ's claims seriously. To me, His claims don't leave any room for Bhuddism or other subjective realities. Christ definately attacks Bhuddist thought. If He is who He said He is, then He has a unique and authorative point of view.

Gerard, It seems that you've been hurt by some Christians or people who have called themselves Christians. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

You may be right that Christianity hates Bhuddism because from Christ's point of view, millions of people are spiritually perishing. This should not be belittleing to you. In fact it's the hope of Christianity ie. That God who demands justice and punishment for wrongdoing, would rather punish Christ so we have the opportunity to escape punishment.

I strongly disagree with your inferences and statements that the Bible is like Nazi propaganda and has been entirely manipulated by humans and I feel that you are making these claims because you cannot fit Jesus' message into your world view. I ask that you retract those statements as they are deliberately inflammitory and bitter. I completely disagree with your statements but would fight to the death for your right to say them.

[Strafio]

Buddha found enlightenment.
He did not aspire , claim or asked to be worshipped as a God.
He wanted to share his discovery /philosophy.

Why then do the majority of Buddhist worship him as a God ?
Anyone who refers to Buddhism as a religion , by default refers to Buddha as a God.
By worshipping Buddha as a God ( complete with statue), are they not creating an earthly attachment for which Buddhists aim to remove themselves from ?

I have respect for many Buddhist Philosophical teachings , but I cannot see any reason why it was ( artificially) turned into a religion without BUDDHA's permission.


Religion means shared beliefs.
So if a large group of people live by Buddhist belief then it could be called a religion. Although if someone asks me what my religion is, I'd still say Christian. Other than that I'd agree with you.
Worshipping Buddha as a God really does seem to be missing the point when he was merely the first to catch on to something, and has probably been surpassed since.



Also, what RobotBuddha wrote was also well worth reading. :)

[soggycat]

Religion means shared beliefs.
So if a large group of people live by Buddhist belief then it could be called a religion. Although if someone asks me what my religion is, I'd still say Christian. Other than that I'd agree with you.
Worshipping Buddha as a God really does seem to be missing the point when he was merely the first to catch on to something, and has probably been surpassed since.


“Religion” in the context of this thread has comparesChristianity with Buddhism.
Given this premise, I am compare the God of Christianity with the God of Buddhism.

Given that , my point is Buddhism has no God because Buddha never claimed to be one , unlike Jesus.

Therefore it is not sensible to compare Buddhism with Christianity.
Apples and Oranges.

I like to point out that RELIGION must involvea God ( see dictionary definition) unless if you are referring to worship of money, then religion is used in a sense different to what is referred to in this thread


Dictionary definition of Religion:
religion : people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of God, a god, or gods, and divine involvement in the universe and human life


religion : a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

[soggycat]

i fail to see why christians (which i am) deny meditation of any form when a number of charcters in the bible meditated themselves. it's written in black and white...
just my two cents

I agree...I meditate regularly

[korg20kbc]

I agree also.

I think that many Christians disagree with Eastern meditation because they think it's about emptying the mind, whereas in the Bible the instruction to meditate is to meditate ON a theme, subject or idea. Also many Christians think that emptying your mind is a spiritually dangerous thing to do. If you vacate a room, how can you stop someone else entering and messing around with stuff?

A fair point from my angle.

[Strafio]

Oh. So my definition of religion was wrong then.

I guess that means I agreed with everything you said. :)

[AZeitung]

I will have to say, I did Taiji for a while, and then didn't practice it for the four weeks over Christmas break which meant that I didn't do any meditation either. I feel much better after having stopped. Of course, I'll start up again tomorrow.

[soggycat]

Oh. So my definition of religion was wrong then.

I guess that means I agreed with everything you said. :)
Yes I think we are of like minds, even though it may not have been apparent initially.

[tbubb1]

Of course Christianty attacks Buddhist thought. Christ came saying that you are wrong, and I am right. There is only one way to live a fufilled life, and to get to heaven, and that is through Him.

[xen]

Your statement about Christianity being the common denominator in all inter faith religious conflict is narrow and prejudicial.
You seem to be unaware of Asian history and Asian current affairs .

Here’s what you missed out:

1.Islamic-Hindu conflicts in India ( last few hundred years)http://sathyavaadi.tripod.com/truthisgod/papers/020405.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/iisite/media/03-02-02-FinancialTimes-AVarshney.htm

2.Buddhist – Islamic conflict in South Thailand ( remember late 2004? 85 muslims suffocated in police trucks, later muslim took revenge by chopping off Buddhist religious leaders heads) http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Gunmen-launch-attacks-in-Thailands/2005/01/14/1105582703568.html

3.Muslims forced most defeated opponents to convert to Islam, as in Eastern and Central Europe ( Ottoman Empire) and India ( Moghul Empire) This has been going on since 650AD to 1700's This is why there are European Muslims ( Turkey, Bosnia, Chechyna, Spain, Central Russia)

4.The Chinese Communist Government suppressed and persecuted ALL religions during the cultural revolution ( 1964-1972)

5.The Sikh – Islamic conflict in Punjab. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/sikh/blfaq_sikh_debate_hind.htm

6.An Aussie Christian missionary , along with his 7 and 9 year old sons, were burnt alive in their car by Hindus in 1999. Graham Stewart Staines, 58, ran a leprosy hospital. http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/genocide/christians/staines.html


point conceded, i do not profess to be an expert on religious war and am grateful for the points you raise,

however (there's always a but ;)) the emipres which came out of christian europe have shaped the western world and had an exploitative effect upon those cultures they dominated on a scale not acheived by any other religion.

as stated previously, the violent acts of religions are not the acts of those adhering to the true message of any religion but the acts of those who are manipulating the message and those faithful people who are coerced into violence through fear of offending their faith. I stand by my assesment that the abuse of Christs message has had the most impact throughout the world over the last 1000years.

defend your faith by all means, but the defence of acts of religious violence (from any quarter) do little to earn respect among those of a truely spiritual outlook

[xen]

Man, you are missing something here.

As a qualified physicist you are denying the fundamentals of Physics:

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

2. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system.

So mate, REINCARNATION IS VALID!


Secondly, human population keeps growing due to decreased numbers of the animal population and beings from different existences, planets, dimensions, etc. (The entire system is a huge living thing that came from emptiness). I am theorising here though.

Take care,


:)


This post is excellent...though i suspect many will miss its true implications.

The application of the truth of thermodynamics to the subject of reincarnation is one which would benefit from serious research.

We don't know what 'soul' or 'spirit' are, yet they must be of energenetic form at some level of existence...hence the mental energy created and shaped through our individual lives must go somewhere when the vehicle wears out...

perhaps it just dissipates...perhaps it looks for a new vehicle...as quantum theory tells us, our world is one built on uncertainty, possibility and probability...to categorically state the world is this or that is to miss some vital points.

[AZeitung]

Man, you are missing something here.

As a qualified physicist you are denying the fundamentals of Physics:

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

2. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system.

So mate, REINCARNATION IS VALID!


Secondly, human population keeps growing due to decreased numbers of the animal population and beings from different existences, planets, dimensions, etc. (The entire system is a huge living thing that came from emptiness). I am theorising here though.

Take care,

:)

Oh, man, I didn't see this post until xenmaster responded to it. Why does pseudoscience always have to get dragged into these arguments? Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!

First of all, we don't need to resort to thermodynamics to get conservation of energy. The first law of thermodynamics actually relates the cnage in energy to work and the change in *temperature*. It describes a heat/work relationship. Unless heat is applicable to reincarnation, there's no reason to bring up the first law of thermodynamics.

Trying to say that conservation of energy makes reincarnation valid is about as meaningful as me saying that local charge conservation makes reincarnation invalid.

If you want to talk about thermodynamics, anyway, given a certain amount of energy occupying a body, you have entropy
ln((N-1+S)!/((N-1)!*S!)) where N is the number of atoms in the body and S is the amount of energy.

Now, for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, entropy must either remain constant or increase after reincarnation. So if the new body has M atoms in it,

ln((M-1+S)!/((M-1)!*S!))>=ln((N-1+S)!/((N-1)!*S!))

It may not be apparent at first glance, but since S is constant, the left hand side of the equation will only be bigger than the right hand side if M > N.

In short, but thermodynamic arguments, you must always be reincarnated into a body which at birth has an equal or greater number of atoms than your old body did at death. That makes for either a really small adult or a really big baby.

I'm not trying to ridicule your beliefs here, I'm just saying, don't try to drag thermodynamics into this.

And do you actually know what dimensions are?

[xen]

AZeitung, i'm sure i'm gonna regret this ;) and now some nat. log. equations have reared their heads we could be off on our own :)

1) - Do I know what dimensions are? From the Collins English Dictionary :-

"dimension 1. a measurment of the size of something in a particular direction
2. scope, size, extent 3. aspect 4. (maths) the number of co-ordinates required to locate a point in space 5. (physics) a. the product or the quotient of the fundamental physical quantities (such as mass, length or time) raised to the appropriate power in a derived physical quantity b. the power to which such a fundamental quantity has to be raised in a derived quantity"

I assume you are refering to sense 5 and the use of this definition in the context of dimensional analysis, whereby an equation representing a relationship between quantities which describe a physical phenomenon must be homogenous (namely the expression of each side of the equation in terms of fundamental qualities of mass, time, current etc allows both the homogeneity and the dependance of each side to be tested), so yes I do know what dimensions are.

2) You have inadvertently provided some evidence for a souls migration UP the evolutionary chain in your coverage of the requirement for a reincarnated entity to exist within a body of more constituent atoms than the the previous incarnation...i start my journey as an ameoba, i die and become reborn as plankton, then i come back as a larger organism etc...which can be interpretted as commesurate with some eastern beliefs regarding reincarnation

However, this DOES preclude the complimetary belief that we can be reincarnated back down the chain (all according to the karmic balance at our death), but this is why I suggested that a closer examination of the philosophical implications of thermodynamics in the context of the doctrines surrounding reincarnation, not to malign the theory of TD, but to apply it as tool with which to further understand the nature of our world...(having done an applied physics degree, i view all physical theories as tools as opposed to explantions)

3) Why drag thermodynamics in? Because it might help us understand more

4) What is pseudoscience? Without the creative application of knowledge to the unknown areas of our existence we would never have left the caves my friend...until a theoretical physicist has their work approved by their peers, it too could be described as pseudoscience

[AZeitung]

AZeitung, i'm sure i'm gonna regret this ;) and now some nat. log. equations have reared their heads we could be off on our own :)

1) - Do I know what dimensions are? From the Collins English Dictionary :-

"dimension 1. a measurment of the size of something in a particular direction
2. scope, size, extent 3. aspect 4. (maths) the number of co-ordinates required to locate a point in space 5. (physics) a. the product or the quotient of the fundamental physical quantities (such as mass, length or time) raised to the appropriate power in a derived physical quantity b. the power to which such a fundamental quantity has to be raised in a derived quantity"

I assume you are refering to sense 5 and the use of this definition in the context of dimensional analysis, whereby an equation representing a relationship between quantities which describe a physical phenomenon must be homogenous (namely the expression of each side of the equation in terms of fundamental qualities of mass, time, current etc allows both the homogeneity and the dependance of each side to be tested), so yes I do know what dimensions are.


I mean it in the sense that Gerard was talking about "creatures" that inhabit other dimensions.


2) You have inadvertently provided some evidence for a souls migration UP the evolutionary chain in your coverage of the requirement for a reincarnated entity to exist within a body of more constituent atoms than the the previous incarnation...i start my journey as an ameoba, i die and become reborn as plankton, then i come back as a larger organism etc...which can be interpretted as commesurate with some eastern beliefs regarding reincarnation


not so, although I knew you would say this.
You couldn't, for instance, be reincarnated from a cow to a human being, since an adult cow is clearly larger than a human baby. Most adult animals are. You also couldn't be reincarnated into another human being after death.

Of course, thermodynamicall speaking, none of this makes sense anyway.
First, I'll outline one way that we can almost make it make sense, and then I'll explain why relativity actually forbids that way.

If you want to say that the soul is energy, which is released from the body after death and obeys all the usual physical laws, entropy is actually maximized when the soul isn't occupying any particular body, but is out in the atmosphere.

In fact, entropy is actually maximized when some of your "soul" is still in your body, some is in the atmosphere, and some is leaking into other new bodies without souls. However, given that you have a finite amount of energy in your body, most of it would never get very far, depending on how it was radiated.

To avoid this, we could assume that the soul must be contained in a body, and cannot occupy the space between bodies, which means that your soul would have to leap from your body into another, without traversing the space between.

Even at that, entropy would actually be maximized when part of the soul is in your body and part is in another. So, now we have to assume that for some reason the energy of your "soul" can't be split up, and that either all of it must be transferred or none.

Remember, the thing your being reincarnated into must still be larger than your old body.

Now, that might sound ok, but here's the problem:
according to relativity, depending on your velocity, there is some leeway in the simultanaity of two events, equal to +-x/c where x is the distance between them and c is the speed of light.

Now, say we have a soul that leaps directly from your body into another, which is a distance x away. From your perspective, everything is fine. Energy is conserved, because as soon as the "soul" energy disappeared from your body, it ended up in another.

However, from the perspective of someone travelling close to the speed of light, there was actually a time delay of just under x/c between the soul leaving your body and ending up in another. That means that for a brief period of t = x/c, ENERGY IS NOT CONSERVED. From his perspective, there was energy in your body, it disappeared for a while, then reappeared somewhere else after time had passed, and there was a period where that energy didn't exist at all.

So clearly, as a thermodynamic process, reincarnation doesn't work.


However, this DOES preclude the complimetary belief that we can be reincarnated back down the chain (all according to the karmic balance at our death), but this is why I suggested that a closer examination of the philosophical implications of thermodynamics in the context of the doctrines surrounding reincarnation, not to malign the theory of TD, but to apply it as tool with which to further understand the nature of our world...(having done an applied physics degree, i view all physical theories as tools as opposed to explantions)

3) Why drag thermodynamics in? Because it might help us understand more

4) What is pseudoscience? Without the creative application of knowledge to the unknown areas of our existence we would never have left the caves my friend...until a theoretical physicist has their work approved by their peers, it too could be described as pseudoscience

Pseudoscience isn't the creative application of science. It's the application of sciency-sounding words without any regard for what they actually mean.

[xen]

Pseudoscience isn't the creative application of science. It's the application of sciency-sounding words without any regard for what they actually mean.


i'll concede that one to you, good come back.

before we continue, i must state that i am not an expert on thermodynamics and you display a much greater fluency with the underlying theory than i posess, my stand point is merely one of enquiry and speculation on possibilities...

here's a hypothesis for your consideration...

why assume the soul is contained within the body? let us assume the soul arises as an emergent property of the functioning of the brian (don't get too tied up with linguistic anomalies, try to discern my underlying meaning)

then we could presume, for sake of argument, that the atoms of the brain are what gives rise to the souls interaction with the plane of matter (i would prefer the word mind instead of soul here, but bear with me)

now, it is recognised that the human brain is the most complex item in the known universe, in terms of its functioning with respect to its size etc

therefore, let us assume that the soul moves from brain to brain, hence we could have reincarnation up the chain as each move to a higher organism means moving to a more complex vehicle

i follow your argument regarding the relativistic arguments and would have to give the matter some thought before i could post a meaningfull counter argument.

My essential point is that if such mystical/spiritual aspects of life ARE genuine and 'real', then there must be some value in trying to find expanations for these in our current body of scientific knowledge. I am not suggesting that we mis-interpret science to create an explanation, merely that we look deeply at our science in relation to these ideas (which pre-date our current level of scientific understanding by a good few thousand years) with a view to finding some parallels.

It is my belief that our science is incomplete in many regards (which is why there are still post-graduate researchers working to extend our scientific theories) and that any use of science to debunk the mystical must take into account that our science progresses on a daily basis and that what is believed as an absolute truth today could be proved to be flawed tommorow...

but i will dust off my books on relativity and consider your argument in more detail...you have me intrigued...

[Kwajman]

As someone who's torn between the eastern and western religions, heres my two cents worth. My first feelings about christianity is that we shouldn't judge others, yet christianity and islam judges others more than any other religion. More deaths have been caused in the name of religion than any other. I try not to judge others unless their actions impact me or my family. Otherwise, why stir the pot? Why denounce others in the name of God? If someone wants to bash islam or buddhism or christianity or whatever, do it in your own mind or home. Don't put other people down just to enhance your own standing or beliefs.

[Strafio]

The thing is, I can't speak for Islam, but I know the Christians aren't supposed to be judging people. The only one righteous enough to judge is God.
So it's not Christianity that's that problem, it's people who do bad things in it's name.

Other religions can be just as bad, we just don't hear so much about them.
Soggy Cat posted some good links a few posts back, how other religions have also been the source of abuse, including some Sri Lankan Buddhists.
Not that Sri Lankan Buddhists are bad. I've got a friend who spent some time in one of their monastries and was amazed by their relaxed way of living.
But some people do bad things in the name of Buddhism.

It's the same for ANY religion.

[AZeitung]

Why does everyone think that the Roman empire was this peaceful, tollerant place that never caused anyone any trouble until the big bad Catholic church showed up and started all the fighting?

[xen]

Why does everyone think that the Roman empire was this peaceful, tollerant place that never caused anyone any trouble until the big bad Catholic church showed up and started all the fighting?

i agree, the Catholic church probably looked at the Roman empire as model for how to spread its doctrine...however instead of throwing heretics to the lions they discovered it was much more fun to do the killing and torturing themselves...

[Strafio]

Actually, I heard that the Bible was heavily doctored by the Roman authorities.

Apparently some testaments, like ones from Thomas (who incidently said that being a Christian can be a personal thing, and you don't HAVE to follow some institution) were left out, and others were possibly altered.

Notice how the Bible makes Romans look good and the Jewish authorities bad?
Other than parnoid Herod ofcourse. :)

Pilate just "gives in" to the Jews.
Jesus doesn't condemn "taxes".
The one Roman in the gospel?
The one with good faith who had helped built Jewish buildings and happened to have stronger faith than anyone else Jesus ever healed.
That's another reason why I refuse to take the Bible as a divine book of authority and pick and choose tibits of Jesus' wisdom to learn from and understand with.

[AZeitung]

Actually, I heard that the Bible was heavily doctored by the Roman authorities.


Who'd you hear that from? Dan Brown? The DaVinci Code is not even close to a reliable source.


Apparently some testaments, like ones from Thomas (who incidently said that being a Christian can be a personal thing, and you don't HAVE to follow some institution) were left out, and others were possibly altered.


The gospel of Thomas was written over 250 years after the birth of Christ. Th gospels in the bible were written within living memory of Jesus. And they have found versions of Gospels written around the time of Josephus, with no significant differences, other than some of the wording.


Notice how the Bible makes Romans look good and the Jewish authorities bad?
Other than parnoid Herod ofcourse. :)

Pilate just "gives in" to the Jews.
Jesus doesn't condemn "taxes".


He doesn't condemn tax collectors. They're human beings too and not beyond the forgiveness of God. BTW, tax collecters were Jewish, but usually thought of as traitors.


The one Roman in the gospel?


You mean Pilate, who condemned Jesus to death? Yeah, that was really nice of him.


The one with good faith who had helped built Jewish buildings and happened to have stronger faith than anyone else Jesus ever healed.


Actually, could you specifically say what you're talking about?

[shaolin_hendrix]

I never really liked religion, but I do like buddhist and taoist philosophy.

[Strafio]

Who'd you hear that from? Dan Brown? The DaVinci Code is not even close to a reliable source.

No. It wasn't anything silly like that.
I can't remember the exact source but I remember it lot of things being backed up on the website.
Sure, it's a weak argument, but I said that "I once heard", not "I think that".


The gospel of Thomas was written over 250 years after the birth of Christ. The gospels in the bible were written within living memory of Jesus. And they have found versions of Gospels written around the time of Josephus, with no significant differences, other than some of the wording.

I don't know the exact details so I can't argue.
I briefly came across something, not studied it. :)



He doesn't condemn tax collectors. They're human beings too and not beyond the forgiveness of God. BTW, tax collecters were Jewish, but usually thought of as traitors.

I didn't say "collectors".
I meant taxes in general the the Romans took from the people they "owned". :)



You mean Pilate, who condemned Jesus to death? Yeah, that was really nice of him.


I wasn't talking about Pilate, but while we're talking about Pilate, notice how he wasn't really a bad man, only gave in to the Jews under "intense pressure".
Washed his hands off the incident and what not.


Actually, could you specifically say what you're talking about?

There was a Roman centurion or governer who was ill of something and sent his servant out to ask for Jesus' forgiveness. Wheras everyone else had needed Jesus to touch them in some way and Jesus had told them that he only needed to say the word, well Jesus offered to touch this guy who said "no need, just say the word".

And Jesus was impressed with the amazing faith of this non-Jew...


Many believe that the bible is skewed towards Romans.
Some say that it was to appease Roman powers, so that they wouldn't feel offended by 'the word' and so it could spread freely through the empire.
Others like to take the conspiracy theories and claim that the Roman Empire itself doctored it to use it as a tool to control the masses! :)

[Kyu]

You canot say ''Former Christion here'' Or ''I used to be a christion''..Once you chose to follow Christ(If it is a Genuine faith) Then there is no going back..Nor should you have any desier to go back...Thats my take :D

[Kwajman]

You mean Pilate, who condemned Jesus to death? Yeah, that was really nice of him.






I thought it was the jewish crowd who chose Christ to die?

[AZeitung]

Sure, it's a weak argument, but I said that "I once heard", not "I think that".


So?


I don't know the exact details so I can't argue.
I briefly came across something, not studied it. :)


Well, the Gospel of Thomas was written around 250 AD. The letters from Paul were written around 50 AD, and some of the Gospels were first written around 60-70 AD. Jesus would have died somewhere around 30 AD.


I didn't say "collectors".


I know what you said.


I meant taxes in general the the Romans took from the people they "owned". :)


Unfortunately, this is neither true nor important. I don't think it was so absolutely horrible of the Romans to tax people who now actually were getting some benefits from being part of the empire. However, tax collectors would usually try to squeeze as much money out of the people as possible, because they could keep the extra amount for themselves.

Anyway, the passage I'm sure you're referring to is Matthew 22:21 "They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

this is in reference to the Pharisees asking him if it's lawful to pay taxes or to Caesar or not.

But go back a couple of verses to Matthew 22:15
"Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk."

They tried to trap Jesus by either gettin him in trouble with the Jews or with the Romans (He'd probably be in a lot of trouble if He told people not to pay taxes). No matter what Jesus said, it would most likely be bad for Him.

So, instead of condemning taxes, or saying that the taxes are actually a good thing, He gave the answer from Matthew 22:21. Basically, it's saying that money is a worldly good, and that in the grand scheme of things, it's not important. He's telling people not to be so attached to wordly things, and to care more about God.


I wasn't talking about Pilate, but while we're talking about Pilate, notice how he wasn't really a bad man, only gave in to the Jews under "intense pressure".
Washed his hands off the incident and what not.


Well, you said "the one Roman in the Gospels" and he was the first one who came to mind.

He *said* he washed his hands of the incident. There's a difference between that and actually being blameless. Pilate could have done things differently if he'd watned, but he didn't. I don't know what churches you've been to, but the Catholic chuch has never considered him to be "St. Pilate" and has always made him out to be something of a villian. Pilate bears responsibility for his actions in the same way a soldier would bear responsibility for his actions if he did something completely unethical and unneccissary just because he was ordered to (and in the military, you *do* have the right to refuse an unethical order - or at least, in the sense that it's just cruel and not something like firing on enemies. You know what I mean).




There was a Roman centurion or governer who was ill of something and sent his servant out to ask for Jesus' forgiveness. Wheras everyone else had needed Jesus to touch them in some way and Jesus had told them that he only needed to say the word, well Jesus offered to touch this guy who said "no need, just say the word".

And Jesus was impressed with the amazing faith of this non-Jew...


Well, I'd be impressed if a non-Jew had faith in God at that time, too.

This type of thing isn't exactly uncommon in the Gospels, anyway, but not usually with Romans. So there's one Roman with faith in the entire gospel, and that suddenly tips the entire balance toward the Romans?


Many believe that the bible is skewed towards Romans.
Some say that it was to appease Roman powers, so that they wouldn't feel offended by 'the word' and so it could spread freely through the empire.
Others like to take the conspiracy theories and claim that the Roman Empire itself doctored it to use it as a tool to control the masses! :)

And some people think the people who make those claims are paranoid and just trying to find reasons to dismiss the bible.

[Strafio]

I know.

I don't take the Bible as divine word but I don't think any of it was corrupted through conspiracy. More of a chinese whispers kind of effect.
It DOES tend to paint Romans in a good light though.
It never had one bad thing to say against Romans and Pilate actually tried to defend Jesus and merely gave into the mob, sort of reluctantly.

I think the bible might well have been slightly biased towards the Roman for political reasons, because if the Romans were to accept it then it could spread throughout the entire Empire.

Not that it's especialli important.

[aikiMac]

Actually, I heard that the Bible was heavily doctored by the Roman authorities.
...
Notice how the Bible makes Romans look good and the Jewish authorities bad?

Would these be the same Romans who killed all the Apostles except John, whom they exiled? The same Romans who killed Christians generally? The same Romans who made Christianity a capital crime? I speak of the first century AD under Nero. Are those the Romans we're talking about?

[Strafio]

No.
Romans a few generations later.
First they suppressed Christianity, for the first 30-100 years or so, and then accepted it and then adopted and owned it.

It COULD have happened, I guess... but I don't think that it did. :)

[MDN]

I thought Buddhism tought passiveness and acceptance. I don't think buddha or Jesus Christ would approve of any of the attacks on this thread. :Angel:

[Knight_Errant]

Would these be the same Romans who killed all the Apostles except John, whom they exiled? The same Romans who killed Christians generally? The same Romans who made Christianity a capital crime? I speak of the first century AD under Nero. Are those the Romans we're talking about?
Yup- also the same romans who adopted christianity through the length and breadth of the empire. There was already a bishop in Britain by the time christianity was officially legal. There's nothing particularly unusual in the spread of christianity. Greek and egyptian cults, such as that of isis, also spread throughout the roman empire. What is unusual is constantine's adoption of christianity as the state religion.

[ATF]

4. Unfortunately, Christianity is based on the fear and worship of God and Jesus Christ and the need for human interaction and obedience to Church to reach Heaven's salvation. Buddhism goes beyond that. I say that God is a creation of human fear to death, a rational explanation of existence.
As a result God does not concern me nor what a group of religious freaks may say.

Gerard,

I would like to correct you. Christians are not taught to fear God or Jesus his only son. We are taught that it is through Jesus' sacrifice of Dying on the Cross for all mankind (even unbelievers) that enables us to receive the gift of eternal life in Heaven. This IMHO is not an act of agression to make one live in fear but the ultimate sacrifice in a state of true love.


-ATF

[ATF]

I agree also.

I think that many Christians disagree with Eastern meditation because they think it's about emptying the mind, whereas in the Bible the instruction to meditate is to meditate ON a theme, subject or idea. Also many Christians think that emptying your mind is a spiritually dangerous thing to do. If you vacate a room, how can you stop someone else entering and messing around with stuff?

A fair point from my angle.

Meditation in MA is like Praying in Christianity. The difference is this. When you Meditate in MA you aspire to emtpy your mind (Mu Shin) When a Christian is praying he/she is in direct communion w/ God. ;)

There's my 2cts

-ATF

[ATF]

So it's not Christianity that's that problem, it's people who do bad things in it's name.



:bang: Strafio u nailed it! Well done. It will always be the people. Unfortunately.... :cry:

[Rainer.T88]

This is for all the people trying to determine whether christianity is true life or just a myth made by many punks from different era's

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reasoning, the story ends like a bad dream. He scaled the mountains ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, He is greeted by a band of theologians who has been sitting there for centuries."

- Robert Jastrow (evolutionist astronomer)

[Banpen Fugyo]

Wow, you got me. Nice job, I'm a believer now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[WatchfulAbyss]

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reasoning, the story ends like a bad dream. He scaled the mountains ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, He is greeted by a band of theologians who has been sitting there for centuries."

Why? Im mean sitting for centuries must be hard on the muscles'.

[Rainer.T88]

Why? Im mean sitting for centuries must be hard on the muscles'.

haha, corny indeed... but it is an analogy used. Im sure you know

[WatchfulAbyss]

haha, corny indeed... but it is an analogy used. Im sure you know


:D

[Bellator Manus]

Wow, you got me. Nice job, I'm a believer now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:His point his that many come to believe in a creator by logic and reason. If you want to talk and discuss this with me, I would be happy to help you.

What have you got to lose by talking anyways, if I am just blowing hot air, you dismiss it and move on. But if I speak the truth . . . It may just save your soul.

[Bellator Manus]

As someone who's torn between the eastern and western religions, heres my two cents worth. My first feelings about christianity is that we shouldn't judge others, yet christianity and islam judges others more than any other religion. More deaths have been caused in the name of religion than any other. I try not to judge others unless their actions impact me or my family. Otherwise, why stir the pot? Why denounce others in the name of God? If someone wants to bash islam or buddhism or christianity or whatever, do it in your own mind or home. Don't put other people down just to enhance your own standing or beliefs.NO! NO! NO! NO!

Christians are not suppose to judge others.

Romans 2
God's Righteous Judgment
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

I, however, can not speak for Islam.

[Len]

Do you guys all realize that they had a special a while back on the Missing Years of Christ and guess where he went in his missing years? India, Tibet, and the Himalayan Mountains! He went there to study....guess what?? Buddhism, Hindiusm, and Yoga!! Most traditionalists will say "that's not in the Bible". Well duh....that's why it's called the missing years. Actual scrolls and writings have been attributed to Christ's presence in those areas as he learned to control the breath, denounce material things, and learned to give to others. Christ masterd yoga and thus was a yogi. He also realized India is the spiritual center of the East. Martial Arts, Yoga, and Eastern Philosophy all came from India originally. Well original martial arts came from both India and Africa but you know what I mean. If you don't believe me, do a google search on Jesus India. Or Jesus Yoga. He was known as Saint Issa and Issa means Jesus. As far as arguing over Christians and Buddhist.....REAL Christians and Buddhists would never fight because they are brothers. Buddhists are supposed to love everyone and practice non-violence and Christians are not supposed to judge but instead love everyone as their brothers and sisters as well. There are more similarities between Christianity and Buddhism then there are differences. Buddha did not want people to pay attention to God because at the time too many people were relying soley on God to do everything for them instead of using their head. I personally believe in God but I also believe God gave you a brain to be independant and not need Him for everything otherwise God is a ventriloquist.

I have read the difference on the first post on this thread why Buddhism and Christianity are different. Now here are the similarities:


Christ: Do unto others as you would have them do to you - Luke 6:31
Buddha: Consider others as yourself - Dhammapada 10.1

Christ: If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other side also - Luke 6:29
Buddha: If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words. - Majjhima Nikaya 21.6

Christ: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again - Luke 6:27-30
Buddha: Hatred do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth...Overcome anger with love, overcome evil with good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth - Dhammapada 1.5 and 17.3.

That last one was particularly interesting because Buddha recognizes that there is evil and good. Quite contrary to the common belief that both are a made-up frame of mind.

Christ: Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me - Matthew 25:45
Buddha: If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick - Vinaya, Mahavagga 8.26.3

Christ: Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword - Matthew 26:52
Buddha: Abandoning the take of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword - Digha Nikaya 1.1.8

Christ: This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends - John 15:12-13
Buddha: Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, even so, cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings. Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world - Sutta Nipata 149-150

Christ: You know the commandments: "You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and mother." - Mark 10:19
Buddha: Abstain from killing and from taking what is not given. Abstain from unchastity and from speaking falsely. Do not accept gold or silver - Khuddakapatha 2

Christ: The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and makes nests in its branches - Matthew 13:31-32
Buddha: Do not underestimate good, thinking it will not affect you. Dripping water can fill a pitcher, drop by drop; one who is wise is filled with good, even if one accumulates it little by little - Dhammapada 9.7

Christ: Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, "Friend, let me take the speck out of your own eye," when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye - Luke 6:41-42
Buddha: The faults of others are easier to see than one's own; the faults of others are easily seen, for they are sifted like chaff, but one's own faults are hard to see. This is like the cheat who hides his dice and shows the dice of his opponent, calling attention to the other's shortcomings, continually thinking of accusing him - Udanavarga 27.1

I could go on and on cause there are plenty more but to all Buddhists and Christians: stop isolating yourselves from each other. The goal of happiness and of all human progress is unity, not seperation. How can either buddhist or christian claim to love everyone if they are spending more time bickering, quarreling, etc.? Love is supposed to unite. How can you if people continue to waste time finding differences and accusations then spending them with quality finding what unites man and aids toward peace and coexistence?

[Jasonds23]

OOH TV, please forgive me!!! :rolleyes:

[Strafio]

And what about the 3 wise men in the nativity scene...

Do you think they had anything to do with it?

[myki]

Do you guys all realize that they had a special a while back on the Missing Years of Christ and guess where he went in his missing years? India, Tibet, and the Himalayan Mountains! He went there to study....guess what?? Buddhism, Hindiusm, and Yoga!! Most traditionalists will say "that's not in the Bible". Well duh....that's why it's called the missing years. Actual scrolls and writings have been attributed to Christ's presence in those areas as he learned to control the breath, denounce material things, and learned to give to others. Christ masterd yoga and thus was a yogi. He also realized India is the spiritual center of the East. Martial Arts, Yoga, and Eastern Philosophy all came from India originally. Well original martial arts came from both India and Africa but you know what I mean. If you don't believe me, do a google search on Jesus India. Or Jesus Yoga. He was known as Saint Issa and Issa means Jesus. As far as arguing over Christians and Buddhist.....REAL Christians and Buddhists would never fight because they are brothers. Buddhists are supposed to love everyone and practice non-violence and Christians are not supposed to judge but instead love everyone as their brothers and sisters as well. There are more similarities between Christianity and Buddhism then there are differences. Buddha did not want people to pay attention to God because at the time too many people were relying soley on God to do everything for them instead of using their head. I personally believe in God but I also believe God gave you a brain to be independant and not need Him for everything otherwise God is a ventriloquist.

I have read the difference on the first post on this thread why Buddhism and Christianity are different. Now here are the similarities:


Christ: Do unto others as you would have them do to you - Luke 6:31
Buddha: Consider others as yourself - Dhammapada 10.1

Christ: If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other side also - Luke 6:29
Buddha: If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words. - Majjhima Nikaya 21.6

Christ: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again - Luke 6:27-30
Buddha: Hatred do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth...Overcome anger with love, overcome evil with good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth - Dhammapada 1.5 and 17.3.

That last one was particularly interesting because Buddha recognizes that there is evil and good. Quite contrary to the common belief that both are a made-up frame of mind.

Christ: Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me - Matthew 25:45
Buddha: If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick - Vinaya, Mahavagga 8.26.3

Christ: Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword - Matthew 26:52
Buddha: Abandoning the take of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword - Digha Nikaya 1.1.8

Christ: This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends - John 15:12-13
Buddha: Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, even so, cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings. Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world - Sutta Nipata 149-150

Christ: You know the commandments: "You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and mother." - Mark 10:19
Buddha: Abstain from killing and from taking what is not given. Abstain from unchastity and from speaking falsely. Do not accept gold or silver - Khuddakapatha 2

Christ: The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and makes nests in its branches - Matthew 13:31-32
Buddha: Do not underestimate good, thinking it will not affect you. Dripping water can fill a pitcher, drop by drop; one who is wise is filled with good, even if one accumulates it little by little - Dhammapada 9.7

Christ: Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, "Friend, let me take the speck out of your own eye," when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye - Luke 6:41-42
Buddha: The faults of others are easier to see than one's own; the faults of others are easily seen, for they are sifted like chaff, but one's own faults are hard to see. This is like the cheat who hides his dice and shows the dice of his opponent, calling attention to the other's shortcomings, continually thinking of accusing him - Udanavarga 27.1

I could go on and on cause there are plenty more but to all Buddhists and Christians: stop isolating yourselves from each other. The goal of happiness and of all human progress is unity, not seperation. How can either buddhist or christian claim to love everyone if they are spending more time bickering, quarreling, etc.? Love is supposed to unite. How can you if people continue to waste time finding differences and accusations then spending them with quality finding what unites man and aids toward peace and coexistence?
Perfect, Len! Couldn't have said it better!

[Strafio]

I agree.
But did you really have to quote it all just for that one liner? :p

[myki]

I agree.
But did you really have to quote it all just for that one liner? :p
I know!

A long way to go to make a point! :D

[kiaiki]

Len reinforced his argument excellently. Too many posts on MAP (mine included sometimes) make a point without quoting sources. The Indian references are excellent and let's not forget the chronology - Buddha drew from Hinduism and later Hinduism drew from Buddhism - Kali as a Hindu deity, for example came from Buddha Vajrayogini and first appeared in about 12th century, I think.

Jesus drew from Buddha's much older teachings (which were very similar to contemporary Jain teachings) and as Len showed, borrowed his script pretty extensively!

For me, I have found no evidence in any book I've read of Shakyamuni Buddha ever denouncing the worship of God or Gods. Buddhists aren't perfect, however, and even the Dalai Lama is not above some very heavy handed political and religious intolerance - look up Google references to his spat with the breakaway group the NKT with Kelsang Gyatso. Lots of nastiness all round.

Christian and Islamic intolerance and hypocrisy is pervasive in the modern world. Let's hope, for example, the new Pope leads his church towards tolerance of AIDS prevention and that he also moves them away from the Catholic Church's tolerance of its priests' child abuse (for which there is ample evidence).

Another observation is that Buddhist, Islamic and Christian groups alike are still far too slow to accept the place of women in their priesthoods. Yes, they honour women 'saints' but when will they put one in charge? When the next Pope and Dalai Lama are women we will really have evidence that intolerance is gone.

In short, I have no argument with Buddha or Christ - just organised religious groups who seem inevitably to become degenerate and hypocritical once they taste wealth and power.

[jonmonk]

I think there are some wonderfully spiritual people who call themselves Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc etc. There are also total gits who call themselves Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc etc. Why? Because we're all human.

For me the religion / spiritual practice is simply a tool used by for a purpose. For most this purpose might be described as self-improvement or communion with God. For some it might be for political / monetary gain.

My point is that it seems to me that what you believe isn't as important as how you apply the beliefs that you have and to what purpose. IF there is judgement in an afterlife, I believe that is what we'd be judged on. If not, the promise of judgement seems to be a good 'stick' to go with the 'carrot' of heaven / nirvana or whatever it is that floats your boat.

[Strafio]

Do you guys all realize that they had a special a while back on the Missing Years of Christ and guess where he went in his missing years? India, Tibet, and the Himalayan Mountains! He went there to study....guess what?? Buddhism, Hindiusm, and Yoga!!

I know that the point of your post was tha Christianity and Buddhism are different means to the same end, but... :)


There was good evidence to suggest that many of Jesus' ideas came from India, but what about all the miracles and the ressurection. How would they fit into it?

[CKava]

Jesus drew from Buddha's much older teachings (which were very similar to contemporary Jain teachings) and as Len showed, borrowed his script pretty extensively!
I seriously doubt this business about Jesus' teachings being inspired by the Buddha it smacks too much of new age wishy washy-ness. It also raises Buddhism as the soure of the teaching above Christianity and saying which religion is the best/the original is usually a rather silly and agenda stridden road to take. Len did not show that Christianity (via Jesus) copied Buddhism (the Buddha) all he showed was that some of the concepts in Buddhism also pop up in Christianity. Given the size of the Buddhist Canon its not too suprising to find quotes that match teachings from another religion but the thing is if you were so inclined you could also find plenty of quotes that demonstarate seemingly incompatible differences.

Anyway, most of Lens points I would agree with but I just dont find the case for Jesus being a student of the Buddha or Hinduism for that matter to be very convincing. Oh and the Buddha's teachings may bear some similiar to Jainism as they were both sramana movements but they differed on several major issues... the Buddha's middle path was basically a rejection of on the one hand extreme asceticism (which was promoted by Jainism) and on the other hand 'Hedonistic' philosophies.

For me, I have found no evidence in any book I've read of Shakyamuni Buddha ever denouncing the worship of God or Gods.
The Buddha didn't denounce the worship of Gods which is why you probably don't see it pop up much (though it does depend on what your reading) he did denounce people becoming too preoccupied with Gods or with becoming Gods though.

In short, I have no argument with Buddha or Christ - just organised religious groups who seem inevitably to become degenerate and hypocritical once they taste wealth and power.
Me too :) and good point about women in the priest/monk-hood even Shakyamuni Buddha was fairly sexist at times. So maybe the lesson is not everything traditional and ancient is good and that goes for religion and everything else.

[kiaiki]

CKava: I didn't mean to place Buddhism 'above' Christianity, just to point out that due to chronology we all borrow the best from our predecessors. If Jesus used a few of the best of Buddha's ideas, it doesn't detract from what he taught - it actually adds to it IMHO.

Little of the Buddha's teachings are different from past Indian teachers until we reach the Mahayana tantric teachings delivered through other Buddhas and masters. As you very succinctly state, Shakyamuni reacted against the status quo at the same time as the Jains, but proposed a way of life which was and is eminently realisable and practical. I spent several years in India with Jains whose struggle to adhere to their religion led to many, many compromises. :)

As an aside on Jains: 2 things I don't yet understand:

Why can they fly in a poisonous polluting aircraft and kill countless insects (and maybe birds) but not walk on one ant?

(I had a Jain student in the UK who flew and insisted that his food was also flown over to the UK to avoid harming life!!!)

In Rajasthan a Jain once told me at dinner that it was a fasting day - so his wife was doing it! :)