Beyond Belief - A Buddhist Critique of Fundamental Christianity

[Taff]

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/beyond-belief02.pdf

I've been reading this recently and I thought it might be time for a discussion. :D

My first conclusion upon finishing this was "The author sounds bitter". It really doesn't sound like it was written by a practising Buddhist.

It also annoys me that they don't so much misquote the Bible, but they ignore what comes after their chosen quote.
For example, they use Matt 15:22-26 to illustrate that Jesus did not love his neighbour. But they claim it was the disciples who eventually convinced Jesus to help the Canaanite woman. However, in the Bible Jesus uses this as a test of the woman's faith, and when she responds to his comments by proving she has faith in God, he heals her child. Now, regardless of whether this may be harsh or not, the fact is that the PDF file is not telling the truth about what happened.
They also use John 8:15 to show that Jesus claimed to judge no one, which is true, he did make that claim. But immediately after he said something along the lines of "but when I do pass judgment, I am right, because I stand with God".
Again putting aside the argument of whether God exists blah blah blah, the point is that the PDF has just ignored the clarifying statement that came after the initial claim.

All of this brings up something interesting though...
Single lines of the Bible are often used by those who follow Christianity. But it's clear that you can't prove anything, or instruct anyone, by picking and choosing parts of the Bible, because you could be missing out something important that comes before and after your chosen verse.

Back onto the PDF file...

I did find it entertaining to read the part where the author claims that if Jesus comes back to Earth, perhaps he will gain sufficient wisdom to eventually become a Buddha! OUCH! :eek: :D

Perhaps the most interesting chapter is "How to answer the evangelists", starting at page 90 on paper, page 95 in your PDF reader. It's probably the best chapter, as it doesn't rely too much on Bible quotes (probably quoted out of context again), but more on reasoning.

I'm neither Buddhist nor Christian, but despite the stated claims of the book, I did find this an interesting read. But it's not particularly convincing. I have to say, that if someone had never heard of Buddhism and read this, it would not portray that religion in a good way.

It's basically a wasted oppurtunity.

[Strafio]

I didn't read all of it (It's quite a long read for one sitting) but I think it seemed like a good book, especially considering who it was aimed at. It was a handbook for someone who knows little about Christianity and their Buddhist faith, it analyses the common evangelical Christian arguments (I recognised a lot of them myself), their effects and suggests ways to answer them.

I didn't read the middle where the analysis of Jesus and comparisons to Buddha was made, and it's likely that Christianity in general was mis-represented. (I disagreed with some of anti-God arguments) The thing is, the most important thing about this book isn't absolute accuracy for the expert. It gives the novice a starting point and teaches them certain defenses against common attacks on their belief. If it was designed to convert a Christian into a Buddhist then it would be inadequate as it doesn't accurately represent Christianity enough to critique it properly. Instead it gives the Buddhist the basic tools they need to nonsense the 'brute force' out of certain evangelical attacks on their faith.

PS. I like the website. I've never come across such a rich source of Buddhist materials like that. I'm currently reading one of their children's books "Who's Boss". Each of the internal organs fight over who should be boss. (only the book Taff linked argues against Christianity - the rest are a lot more constructive)

[Thelistmaker]

I cant open the link :mad:

[Taff]

I cant open the link :mad:

Do you have Adobe Acrobat or Foxit?

[hillbilly79]

I actually appreciate you posting this link Taff. I skipped straight to the what to say to an evangelical section, but didn't have time to read its entireity. Just in that little bit I did learn several things about a Buddhism. I assumed that you did worship the little statue. However, some of this guy's arguments against Christianity are very weak, like one place he says Jesus gives us everything and therefore we are lazy. Yet in another place Jesus doesn't answer our prayers and Christians have just as many problems as everyone else. I also didn't appreciate his condecending tone about the "thinking person" realizes blah, blah, blah. Do I not have a brain? Anyway, I have learned something that will perhaps make it easier for me to see where you are coming from in our later discussions.

[Thelistmaker]

Do you have Adobe Acrobat or Foxit?
I have adobe reader 7.0 it opens in adobe for about 2 seconds and then it immediately closes

[Strafio]

That's a bit weird...
Right click on the link and select 'Save As'.
If there's a problem when you open it from the hardrive then you probably need to re-install Acrobat.

[Lily]

I didn't bother opening the link.

A person who calls themselves a buddhist would not 'critique' anyone else's religion. Simple as that.

[potatodemon]

I didn't bother opening the link.

A person who calls themselves a Buddhist would not 'critique' anyone else's religion. Simple as that.
What you describe is the perfect Buddhist?
From my understanding most of the Buddhist laypeople are still humans, mostly good people with the occasional fanatic or weirdo.

I’d guess Buddhism in the West would attract about the same proportion of nut jobs v. proper practitioners as kung fu and karate do.

[Lily]

potatodemon - I'm not talking about a perfect buddhist but if a buddhist cannot even understand the basic ways of compassion and tolerance then the rest of their faith falls on its butt.

But yes you're right, we're all human and sometimes its easy to say things we don't mean, act out of anger on the spur of the moment etc.

[Strafio]

I didn't bother opening the link.

A person who calls themselves a buddhist would not 'critique' anyone else's religion. Simple as that.
Hehe! He actually justifies himself against that in the introduction!
I know what you're saying about the critique-ing but I relate because I'm in the same boat as what he's experienced. When you come across an evangelical Christian, critique of their religion is the only way of being both rational and open minded. Why?

They tell you that their beliefs are right and yours are wrong.
This is their challenge to you.
Your choices are:
a) Ignoring them. You have your beliefs and you stick to them. This is closed minded and not in the spirit of Buddhism.
b) Accepting what they say. Open minded and non-conflicting in the spirit of Buddhism, but then you have to give Buddhism up.
c) Reasoning with them.
This is what the critique is all about.

[CKava]

Right Strafio, plus Buddhists tend to be humans and I've read numerous Buddhist critiques of other forms of Buddhism let alone other religions. Siddhartha Gautama was recorded as being fairly critical of other religions back in the day as well so not sure that I would agree that critiquing is completely un-Buddhist. Maybe the main problem is the guy has his head stuck up his own... (well you know what I mean).

[Strafio]

I wouldn't even accuse him of that.
The work is a bit reactionary and aggressive to be ideal Buddhist, but considering the guy has has met the brute force of evangelicism face on, it's fairly understandable. :)

(he also mentioned Siddhartha Gautama's critiques of other religions as a defense of his own)

[CKava]

Didn't read the work yet you see so I'm just going by the responses of others. As for making the same point- well you know what they say about great minds! :D.

[Lame Leopard]

These are the words from a Christian song from the 1950s that no one remembers today. The words are still true.

Jesus is standing in Pilate's hall.
Friendless, forsaken, betrayed by all.
Harken, what meaneth this sudden call?
What will you do with Jesus?

What will you do with Jesus?
Neutral you cannot be.
Someday your heart will be asking,
"What will He do with me?"

Will you betray Him as Pilate tried?
Or will you choose Him, what 'er be tied?
Vainly you struggle from Him to hide.
What will you do with Jesus?

What will you do with Jesus?
Neutral you cannot be.
Someday your heart will be asking,
"What will he do with me?"

Buddhism has some great truths to live by. No one can question a committed Buddhist's sincerity. But Jesus offers forgiveness of sins and is the only way to Heaven. :Angel:

[WatchfulAbyss]

Buddhism has some great truths to live by. No one can question a committed Buddhist's sincerity. But Jesus offers forgiveness of sins and is the only way to Heaven.

How true, unless of course it's not. :cool:

[Lily]

Blind - LMAO, that is the funniest comment I've read for a while. You're razor sharp :cool:

[WatchfulAbyss]

Blind - LMAO, that is the funniest comment I've read for a while. You're razor sharp


So, you see the genius behind the statement. :p

[Lily]

Genius would be pushing it, more like miscreant :p

[Deepsey]

I wouldn't even accuse him of that.
The work is a bit reactionary and aggressive to be ideal Buddhist, but considering the guy has has met the brute force of evangelicism face on, it's fairly understandable. :)

(he also mentioned Siddhartha Gautama's critiques of other religions as a defense of his own)
:D
Have you ever tought of that they are cooperating? ... Somehow?
I wonder what the rest is doing. :bang:

[Strafio]

Buddha back from the dead? Scheming with his disciples? :eek:
Interesting times... ;)

[Thelistmaker]

When the Dharma degenerates over time or becomes misunderstood another high profile Buddha will come to help sentient beings and show them the paths to nirvana again.

Siddhartha Gautama was only one in a long procession of Buddhas who come to teach the Dharma. To teach the ways to foster compassion for all living beings and wisdom to act on ones compassion, to rid ones self of harmful delusions, of ignorance fear and anger, thus the path to nirvana.

[aikiMac]

When the Dharma degenerates over time or becomes misunderstood another high profile Buddha will come to help sentient beings and show them the paths to nirvana again.

Siddhartha Gautama was only one in a long procession of Buddhas who come to teach the Dharma wheel.
What is SG doing in the meantime?
And what are the other buddhas doing in the meantime?

Seems to me like there'd be a little more love in the world and a little less hate if all the buddhas came to earth together, right now.

And won't we all eventually become buddhas? What then will we all do after that?

[tekkengod]

What is SG doing in the meantime?
And what are the other buddhas doing in the meantime?

Seems to me like there'd be a little more love in the world and a little less hate if all the buddhas came to earth together, right now.

And won't we all eventually become buddhas? What then will we all do after that?

ya know i agree with you here aiki, but are you being serious or sarcastic? you're not exactly in a position to be critically condecending of a religion.

[aikiMac]

ya know i agree with you here aiki, but are you being serious or sarcastic?
Serious. I'm reading up on Buddhism, and these are questions that I have. For all the talk about the Buddha leading people out of hate into compassion, it seems to me that he shouldn't have gone off to wherever he went to. This issue has not been addressed in the material I've read so far. And if there really are lots of Buddhas out there, as the religion claims, then it seems to me that staying away from Earth is the opposite of compassionate. Again, this has not been addressed in the material I've read so far.

[Thelistmaker]

What is SG doing in the meantime?
And what are the other buddhas doing in the meantime?

Seems to me like there'd be a little more love in the world and a little less hate if all the buddhas came to earth together, right now.

I’m sure you know how hard it is to convince someone to follow a certain path if they want to beleive something else.

Some may not have the mental attributes to understant the teachings or they have become attached to another system.

Thus you could say they don’t have the karma in this lifetime

There are currently many Buddha emanations around the world, some emanating as Buddhists, some non Buddhists to lead by example and give people the level of spiritual guidance they are ready for and will accept.

Buddha Siddhartha Gautama himself tought on many levels, according to the level of the student. For instance to some he thought that certain things where right and wrong but to others he taught the reasoning behind Buddhist morality.

Some Buddhists Believe that Christ was a Bodhisattva who taught in the context of Judaism and the Jewish God because that was the best way to get moral teachings and doctrines of love thy neighbour to the people at the time.

And won't we all eventually become buddhas? yes
What then will we all do after that This comes down to the nature of Nirvana. It is a state beyond conscious thought. Beyond the self. There is no way to descried it accurately but you could say it was like becoming one with the universe, a state of great bliss free from the ego.

Besides what would Christians do in heaven for all eternity ;)

[Taff]

What is SG doing in the meantime?
And what are the other buddhas doing in the meantime?

If he reached Nirvana, which they say he did, then that question is meaningless.

Seems to me like there'd be a little more love in the world and a little less hate if all the buddhas came to earth together, right now.

Yes. Same thing goes for Jesus too.

And won't we all eventually become buddhas?

Will we?

What then will we all do after that?

Meaningless question.

[tekkengod]

Serious. I'm reading up on Buddhism, and these are questions that I have. For all the talk about the Buddha leading people out of hate into compassion, it seems to me that he shouldn't have gone off to wherever he went to. This issue has not been addressed in the material I've read so far. And if there really are lots of Buddhas out there, as the religion claims, then it seems to me that staying away from Earth is the opposite of compassionate. Again, this has not been addressed in the material I've read so far.

ok, agreed, thats a good question.

[Thelistmaker]

Serious. I'm reading up on Buddhism, and these are questions that I have. For all the talk about the Buddha leading people out of hate into compassion, it seems to me that he shouldn't have gone off to wherever he went to. This issue has not been addressed in the material I've read so far. And if there really are lots of Buddhas out there, as the religion claims, then it seems to me that staying away from Earth is the opposite of compassionate. Again, this has not been addressed in the material I've read so far.
It is peoples own attatchments, ego and delusions that keep them from ully realizing the nature of the universe and keeps them in samsara IE keeps them in this world. Peoples mental states are not right for certain teachings at a cetain times.

Also what sort of Buddhism have you been reading up on? I'm not sure if all the traditions have the same opinion on this, Im a Tibetan Buddhist and I've not studied Zen or Theravada in detail.

[aikiMac]

It is a state beyond conscious thought. Beyond the self. There is no way to descried it accurately but you could say it was like becoming one with the universe, a state of great bliss free from the ego.

Besides what would Christians do in heaven for all eternity
I expect it will be much like you just described nirvana, but with a personal God in there too.


Also what sort of Buddhism have you been reading up on? I'm not sure if all the traditions have the same opinion on this, Im a Tibetan Buddhist and I've not studied Zen or Theravada in detail.
Some Tibetan specifically, and some general (book says something about all the branches). It seems easiest to find info on Tibetan Buddhism. I expect that's because the Dalai Lama is well liked.

[Taff]

I expect it will be much like you just described nirvana, but with a personal God in there too.


I don't see how this could work. If Heaven is a place where your soul resides, then it can't be the same as Nirvana, since Buddhism denies the existence of a soul.

I am also wondering, if we assume that both Heaven and Nirvana exist, would it be possible to reach Heaven but not Nirvana? It would seem so. You could get into heaven still possessing impurities in your mind that would prevent you from reaching Nirvana. So is Nirvana a higher state that Heaven?

The act of finding salvation in Christ: Is this a form of dukkha ("suffering")?
Since relying on Christ for forgiveness is a form of clinging it should be a form of suffering also.
However, I once read a definition of dukkha which simply said it is "that which is impermanent". If we assume both Christianity and Buddhism are equally valid, then Christ is NOT impermanent. Therefore, finding salvation in Christ is not a form of dukkha.

So which is it?

[Strafio]

What is SG doing in the meantime?
And what are the other buddhas doing in the meantime?

Seems to me like there'd be a little more love in the world and a little less hate if all the buddhas came to earth together, right now.

And won't we all eventually become buddhas? What then will we all do after that?
The problem of evil adapted to Buddhism? Quite novel! :)
The way I see it, there are two ways this can be answered:

1) Buddha isn't omnipotent.
To be enlightened isn't to take full control of the world, just full control of how it affects your. Buddha might possibly have some divine influence on the world but I expect it'd be subtle.
2) The reason why these Buddhas (as The List Maker described them) don't all come at once is because they are re-births of each other. It's like asking why my childhood, teenage, middle aged and senior selves didn't all come together to help me solve these logic problems! :D



I don't see how this could work. If Heaven is a place where your soul resides, then it can't be the same as Nirvana, since Buddhism denies the existence of a soul.
Buddhism doesn't deny the possibility of the soul though.
It just doesn't seem necessary to think of life in terms of 'soul'.

I am also wondering, if we assume that both Heaven and Nirvana exist, would it be possible to reach Heaven but not Nirvana? It would seem so. You could get into heaven still possessing impurities in your mind that would prevent you from reaching Nirvana. So is Nirvana a higher state that Heaven?
Part of the forgiveness process is having these impurities cleansed from your soul. I see no problem in equivilating heaven to nirvana.

[aikiMac]

I don't see how this could work. If Heaven is a place where your soul resides, then it can't be the same as Nirvana, since Buddhism denies the existence of a soul.
What Listmaker said was: "It is a state beyond conscious thought. Beyond the self. There is no way to descried it accurately but you could say it was like becoming one with the universe, a state of great bliss free from the ego."

The part about conscious thought might be an exaggeration, but otherwise, that sounds like heaven. Beyond yourself? Sure. Can't describe it? Sure. Become one with the universe? Well --- that's a subjective phrase. Define it how you like. Great bliss? YES! That's what heaven is said to be! And free from ego, too, yes.


I am also wondering, if we assume that both Heaven and Nirvana exist, would it be possible to reach Heaven but not Nirvana?
They are incompatible from the point of view of a Christian heaven. Can't have both. That makes your question invalid.


The act of finding salvation in Christ: Is this a form of dukkha ("suffering")? Since relying on Christ for forgiveness is a form of clinging it should be a form of suffering also.
From a Buddhist point of view I think it is a form of clinging, so in that sense it is suffering. However, is not adherence to the specific tradition of your Buddhist teachers also clinging? Hmmm. I was wondering that just last night. If that's not clinging, then maybe relying on Christ for forgiveness is not clinging either. I don't know. CKava might have better insight here.


2) The reason why these Buddhas (as The List Maker described them) don't all come at once is because they are re-births of each other.
No, that can't be right, because the teaching of Zen and Tibetan Buddhism is that we can all become Buddhas in this lifetime. The teaching of other traditions is that we can all become Buddhas in a few more lifetimes. That makes for a whole lot of simultaneous Buddhas.

[Strafio]

No, that can't be right, because the teaching of Zen and Tibetan Buddhism is that we can all become Buddhas in this lifetime. The teaching of other traditions is that we can all become Buddhas in a few more lifetimes. That makes for a whole lot of simultaneous Buddhas.
I see.
Whose to say that these Buddha's aren't around.
In today's world when calling yourself a Buddha would be a political claim which would cause unnecessary controversy (e.g. Buddhists would suspect of fraud and non-Buddhist people would see it as insignificant). Someone who was really a Buddha would commit themselves to practically helping people see the light as opposed to making themselves a celebrity.

[aikiMac]

But are they Buddhas, or Bodhisatvas? I thought there was a difference: Buddhas can choose to be reborn or not (via reincarnation), but Bodhisatvas are forced to be reborn like the rest of us. The work they do is likely the same, but still, is there not a difference?


Edit: I don't think I made sense.
I was picking up on this part: "Someone who was really a Buddha would commit themselves to practically helping people see the light"

There are lots of these people, but I think none of them are Buddhas.

[Strafio]

Meh!
You're probably more aquainted with Buddhist theories/theologies than I am.
(ironic isn't it - you know more about it, I just believe in it! :D)
Ultimately, Buddhism doesn't rest on any of these particular theories being true.
It's a practical guide to life and there's a potentially infinite amount of theories of the world that would fit with it/validate it.

What's convinced me about it so far is its version of morality.

[Taff]

From a Buddhist point of view I think it is a form of clinging, so in that sense it is suffering. However, is not adherence to the specific tradition of your Buddhist teachers also clinging? Hmmm. I was wondering that just last night. If that's not clinging, then maybe relying on Christ for forgiveness is not clinging either. I don't know. CKava might have better insight here.


Good question....

[Satori81]

Wow! I just finished reading the "Message from God" thread...

...and compared to that, you guys are REALLY impressing me!

Considering that each of you has a well known religious bias, I'm amazed at the depth of open-mindedness within this thread!

Now that my buttkissing is done, maybe I can contribute.

If Heaven is a place where your soul resides, then it can't be the same as Nirvana, since Buddhism denies the existence of a soul.

This is a tricky distinction here...and seven buddhists will give you seven different answers...most of which will be equally confusing.

First off, the concept of a buddhist denying the existence of a "soul" is a bit tricky...the belief itself is called "Anatma".

To understand "Anatma", we need to understand "Atma".

Atma: the self

Synonyms for "Self"

Identity, individuality, character, circumstances, coherence, distinctiveness, existence, identification, integrity, ipseity, name, oneness, parentage, particularity, personality, seity, self, selfdom, selfhood, selfness, singleness, singularity, status, uniqueness

So now we have an idea what "Self" is. Sure, it could mean "Soul"...and I'm sure a LOT of buddhists have defined it as such.

Moving on, "an" is the exact inverse of a word...sort of like "Anti", but without negative connotations. "Lack of", "inverse", etc...

So...if we use "An" as "Anti" and "Atma" as "Self", we get "Anti-Self". Sounds like a science fiction novel, doesn't it?

However...instead of thinking "No Soul"...what if we instead used the very first synonym for "Self"...

We end up with "No Identity".

Rather than "No Soul", I personally identify (HA!) better with "No Identity".

Lets look at "Identity".

Identity: Individuality

Individuality:
1. The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality.
2. An individual or distinguishing feature.
2. The quality or state of being individual; singularity: She was so absorbed by the movement that she lost all sense of individuality.
3. A single, distinct entity.
4. Archaic. Indivisibility.


So now we could interpret that "Atma" means "A Single, Distinct Entity"...which would make "Anatma" what?

The denial of "Individuality"...denial of a "Separation"...denial of a "Uniqueness".

Does this mean the lack of an inner spiritual essence?

Does this mean the denial of an inner divinity?

What does this mean to you?