Can Buddhism be more reliable than Christianity?

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Jenyar

Whatever was believed before the Bible was "tampered with", has been changed anyway with the coming of Christ.

Belief is not the issue here, it has, is, and being changed constantly, the truth is the issue, which cannot be changed.

He has paid for our debts of sin - the penalty of sin is death, and he paid the price in full.

So now we can sin as we like, because Jesus has paid the price by being crucified?
Somehow it doesn't sound or feel right.

We are both perfected and striving for perfection, if that makes any sense.

In a "we are full but still hungary" kind of a way. But i doubt that is the correct way of looking at it.

If we could attain that freedom for ourselves, Jesus either had no purpose on earth, or was mistaken in his purpose and identity.

His purpose was to show that we should not be a slave to the material phenomena, including our physical bodies, that once we understand our true relationship with God, we are not affected by the onslaught of material nature, including death. He said, "I am the light and the way", meaning if we follow in his path, we can realise this in truth and experience, but we have to adopt his way. So we can attain freedom through faith and knowledge, then the gift of God is bestowed, failing that, we die.

But He was resurrected with the same body as the one he died with - with the scars to show for it.

It wasn't the same body. He appeared to his disciples all over the world, simultaneosly.

As you say, we are trapped in our physical bodies, and we are ensnared by the trappings of sin - but death no longer has a hold on us (not once, or ever, if you believe in reincarnation).

Of course death has a hold over us. Me, you and every living being is sure to die, that is a fact, regardless of how holy we are. The death being talked about, has to be in the form of another body, otherwise there is no point in warning us that we will die, as we already know.

We will be judged after our resurrection

Please elaborate.

We only need one life - the one given to us by God - the one we are conscious of at this moment - to realize that death has no hold on us.

What happens if we waste this one life?

Sin has no power after death - how will it survive transmigration?

It is carried by the heart and mind to suitable parents, by suitable i mean by quality, and at the time of conception the soul is injected into the semen of the male. This is described in the Srimad Bhagavat Purana.

Maybe I should ask you how you define 'sin' first...

Sin, is actions performed to acheive selfish desires.

If physical life is only an illusion, why did God create and take part in it?

The life itself is not the illusion, our belief that this is the be all and end all, and our actions which facilitate this idea, is the illusion.
God creates the material manifestation for us to act out our desires, because we cannot live in a pure, spiritual environment. He takes part to help us revive our original, spiritual identity which is blissfull, eternal, fully knowledgable.

If you deny the reality of our existence, you also have to deny the reality of physical suffering and pain.

I am denying neither, in fact i am not denying, period. Our bodily existence is real, but it is temporary, we think the temporary is real, but it cannot be, as it is temporary. Would you spend your hard-earned money renovating a rented property only to be told some time after that you have to vacate it? I don't think you would. But we are putting everything into this rented (bodily) situation, only to find that at some stage we have to vacate the premises. This is the illusion.

Everything must be equally real to be equally valid. Or am I making some kind of philosophical mistake somewhere?

The only things that are real, are things that never change, imho.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Red Devil]

The thing here is that Buddhism is not a "warring" religion whereas Christianity and others are. The point being that the virtues of Buddhism outbid any other religion - by far.

 

[Jenyar]

Belief is not the issue here, it has, is, and being changed constantly, the truth is the issue, which cannot be changed.

Please clear up for me what these "changes" constitute? The Bible is translated over and over - mostly from the same manuscripts - but that hardly qualifies as change. (PS. I put all my Bible quotes at the end for those who don't like to read them.)

So now we can sin as we like, because Jesus has paid the price by being crucified?
Somehow it doesn't sound or feel right.

No it doesn't, and Flores came to the same conclusion. It does not follow. If you read the letter to Romans, this is made abundantly clear. I'll try to use language you can agree with: to be free from sin is sort of like being free from the illusion and the slavery of material phenomena, as you put it. You don't see Buddhists or holy men instantly disappear in a puff of smoke the moment they reach enlightenment - the illusion is always there to be had - the temporary might be temporary, but it is brutally real nontheless. I'll come back to this. What Jesus compensated for was the amount of effort we lack to achieve this freedom.

It is a constant process - the very nature of faith is perseverance. The Bible teaches that hope is not hope if it has been realized. What the gospel message is, is hope for salvation. You live for hope, you hold on to it - Paul puts it plainly*
I don't like the word 'illusion' - I think the emphasis should be on "what is real". We don't have to flee illusion, but we do have to take hold of what is truly real. In this I have great respect for Buddhism. I just don't believe in the escapist mentality. I would embrace suffering if it meant I could lessen the suffering of others. It takes more strength to fight it than to flee from it, but that is what we are given strength for.

What happens if we waste this one life?

As I said earlier. The life you are conscious of, whether it is illusion or not, is the one you have to take responsibility for. The past won't save you, and the future has no hope but the present. You get plenty of chances every second to turn away from sin. You are tempted and challenged and suffering every moment of your life. But faith, hope and love - these three - remain (1 Cor. 13:13). These are our tools. Don't waste this life, you might not have another chance. There is an end to it all, but it is not one that you will bring about, and we don't know when it will happen. The disciples went out with a message: "be ready now". If you can't do it now, a lifetime of lifetimes won't be enough - or worse, you might even regress and drift further away. God did not leave us to our own devices. The gift of God has already been bestowed, and it was His son.

You asked me to elaborate on judgement after resurrection. This is what our hope is tied to: Jesus came to establish the way, but all "ways" lead somewhere. We believe He is the way to the Father and the Kingdom of Heaven (eternal life with God). But all injustice will be accounted for, and judgement passed before then. Muslims believe it is only then that they will know whether they have 'passed the test'; they can't have hope in anybody but themselves. God wants us to place our hope in Him - and that it shouldn't be just empty words filled with doubt. Through Jesus we inherit what He has received, and we have seen the promise of life fulfilled in Him**

*Philippians 3:12
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
1 Timothy 6:19
In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.


**Hebrews 6:10
God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. 12We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

and the clincher:
Hebrews 6:17
Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf.

 

[Red Devil]

Jenvar - regarding biblical translations - you have to place yourself in the "minds" of the people doing the translation. What did they read? Did it agree with what they believed at the time? Who, in power, decided that such and such could not be right therefore it was to be "amended". The Catholic bible and the St James bible do not equate. And I am absolutely positive that the so called original texts do not look one iota like what is written in the bible as "we" know it.

We already know that the "Red Sea" of the Exodus was in fact the "Reed Sea" but was firstly mistranslated into Greek; then translated from Greek into English - wonders what else is mistranslated. And what was the beliefs of the person who actually transcribed the "original"? As we all know, the Bible was handed down verbally for years and years before someone somewhere decided to write it down. Another popular misconception is the so called "Holy Trinity" which did not even exist in any shape or form, in any texts, until 325 years AFTER JC is supposed to have been beamed up, and was "decided" upon in the Nicene Conference at that time.

So, if the "Holy Trinity" didn't exist until then - what else has been changed/amended/deleted?

 

[Siddhartha]

I don't like the fact that so much of Christianity is in the form of rules, and most of them are decided upon by man's interpretation of what is believed to be the word of god. There's far too many assumptions there, and similarly there is no evidence or indeed anything that even suggests the existence of a god. If that one assumption is incorrect, the whole house of cards falls. On the other hand, Buddhism is simple, it is merely guidelines. It claims not to have the final answer, it doesn't judge you, it merely says: Try this, it might help you become a better person. Judging the history of conduct of Buddhists against Christians, I'd say it works.

 

[atheroy]

jenyar

"in terms of violence" people in general have committed more atrocities than any specific group of people. True, more people have used some aspect of Christianity to justify their evil, than have used Buddhism. Some things just lend themselves more to providing a good excuse than others. But what people use to justify their actions, is no excuse for them. The 'religion' is almost irrelevant. The Chinese or Mongols did not have Christianity, and were no less cruel for the fact.

religion is not irrelevant to the people who caused pain and inflicted cruelty. where in the past christians have slaughtered and killed they did it in the name of their religion feeling what they were doing was totally right. buddhism to my knowledge is the opposite. take that with a bit of salt and it is easy to see within christianity it is or was ok to kill people, to maim and slaughter- this hasn't happened in buddhism because the teachings are obviously much better to create this much of a divide between what has happened in the respective faiths. you cannot deny that.

If Jesus was immortal - how did he manage to suffer and die?

he did not die. he knew he was going to be ressurected or whatever. that is no sacrifice.

to cover our shame Jesus had to die. All within God's will, but for our sake.

honestly. an omniscient god- who knows everything- lets or allows this. doesn't that seem at all perverse to you?

Another perspective: when a policeman or fireman dies saving someone from a criminal or a burning house, does their sacrifice (notice the word) mean any less if the victims would have died anyway from natural causes a year later? It is the sincerity and love shown at the required moment that makes the act valid. Should people be left to die because they will die someday anyway?

you have the idea wrong. they don't willingly scarifice themselves. they do a courageous job- with the hope of living might i add- but while they succeed in saving another they don't make it themselves. that is not a sacrifice but an extreme show of bravery. they are not suicidal, ten bucks say they never go into a situation going "i'm definately sacrificing myself today"- bull.

 

[Jenyar]

Atheroy - you're right, of course, but then the best option would be 'no personal convictions at all', after all misplaced patriotism, imperialism, revenge, hatred, etc. - these things are the mentalities that kill. They underlie any political or religious belief. If you push Stephen Segall far enough, I'm sure he would throw off his buddhist robe and punch you a good one.

What you are advocating is pacifism, using buddhism as your prop - even justifiably - but my point is: no belief system overrides human nature, and harmlessness is not human nature. You can't remove controvery from life. You can flee from conflict, oppose or challenge it, but you can't remove it.

You say that God allows suffering? No, God's allows life and free will, He allows us to make our own decisions. The reason you see suffering is not lack of God, it is lack of compassion.

Isaiah 59
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.
The LORD looked and was displeased
that there was no justice.
16 He saw that there was no one,
he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;

If Buddhism can evade this problem, then great - it is doing what Chrisitanity should be doing, and what all people should be doing - but it does not address why we have this problem of suffering. The only solution seems to 'escape yourself'.

Bravery is knwoing the odds are against you and still going on. It is acting against your nature, your desire to protect yourself. Of course nobody is saying "I want to die", but they are willing to. The sacrifice is selfishness. Jesus sacrificed his omniscience, his omnipotence, his godliness, in order to become human, and He sarificed human nature - selfishness, sin - to become God again. The knowledge of salvation does not lessen the sacrifice - it demonstrates complete faith.

Which is what we should have if we desire peace. Let me illustrate: If you don't believe that you are making a difference, that your perseverance could help someone else, will you resist the temptation of your natural impulses - your instinct to preserve your own life and flee - when you are faced with the decision of the policeman or the fireman? You can say they are conditioned to be brave, prepared and equipped. And that's true - it comes with practice and application. But do they just hope that when disaster strikes their natural instinct will be to save other people? No, they can hope they will be able to help, but they base that hope on lots of things.

I can just see a scientist trying to convince a policeman that his hope to save someone is futile, since statistics and probability dictates that he will fail, and the other person wil die anyway. But the policemand believes his training is sufficient, his willingness to help is there, he is equipped both mentally and physically to do what is required, and that is what he will do. That my friend, is the sacrifice - the moment when he runs through a hail of bullets to rescue a trapped person is only the result of that choice.

 

[atheroy]

Atheroy - you're right, of course

peace? i'm sorry if i seem a little offhand sometimes.

pacifism is no answer, especially against human nature. i will preserve myself at most costs because i don't believe there is anything for me after this life- however, if someones life was in danger and i could save them (you know, if there was a chance that i could save them within my capabilites) i would try. i still don't agree about using the term sacrifice to descride what police officers or firemen do but i guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Jesus sacrificed his omniscience, his omnipotence, his godliness

did he truly? he knew he would be resurrected after dying because before he was human he was omniscient. he knew that he would be raised again. knowing something like that means his actions weren't exactly a sacrifice, but a knowing venture down into human land with the knowledge that he would be ok at the end of it. i'm not trying to pick a fight but do you see my point?

You say that God allows suffering? No, God's allows life and free will, He allows us to make our own decisions. The reason you see suffering is not lack of God, it is lack of compassion.

i hope that is enough of an answer to people in places of turmoil or hardship where suffering is a way of life. for me i don't lack the compassion, i lack the ability to do jack all about it. that is the way off life though, that is letting suffering continue. a nice cloud full of rain could do wonders for places deep in the grasps of a dry spell, but those clouds never seem to eventuate. that is in god's power correct? so if he is doing nothing about it is he not letting suffering continue?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jenyar,

Please clear up for me what these "changes" constitute? The Bible is translated over and over - mostly from the same manuscripts - but that hardly qualifies as change.

I wasn’t referring to the Bible, I was referring to the various doctrines that have arisen, not only in Christianity but in most religions. An example is, some Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, when it is clear that he isn’t.

What Jesus compensated for was the amount of effort we lack to achieve this freedom.

Being crucified, I would say, is not a compensation for anything. As Jesus was on the cross, he asked God to forgive those people because they were in ignorance, they thought they could somehow benefit, they didn’t know the real consequence of their actions, “for they know not what they do.” The intention of these people were evil, they had created a terrible wrath upon the earth. It was Jesus, who, from their perspective, was suffering in such a terrible and dispicable way, who saved the entire world through his unconditional love, by his prayer.

What the gospel message is, is hope for salvation.

Hope is a good thing, but we cannot live our lives with any amount of success, through hoping, there must be some practical measures in order to achieve results. If the slaves just hoped that one day their slave masters, would suddenly have an attack of compassion, and just set them free, black people would still be in captivity today.

I don't like the word 'illusion' - I think the emphasis should be on "what is real". We don't have to flee illusion, but we do have to take hold of what is truly real

If we are not focused on what is “real”, but believe what we perceive as real, then that perception is an illusion, it is the perfect word to describe that situation. Our illusion is that we accept the body, and therefore anything in relation to the body, ie family, friends, society and so on……..to be the truth, there is a nice verse in the bible, spoken by Jesus himself, which explains this;

Mark,

3:32 A crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, "Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you."
3:33 He answered them and said, "Who are my mother and my brothers?"
3:34 And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother."

Jesus came to establish the way,

But being crucified is not what he came to establish, it was part of a whole picture.

*Philippians 3:12
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

This verse does not explain or elaborate on “judgement after resurrection”.

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
1 Timothy 6:19
In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

Again these verses do not elaborate or explain.

and the clincher:
Hebrews 6:17
Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf.

With all due respect Jenyar, none of these verses, including “the clincher” does not explain the resurrection after judgement.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

They weren't meant to explain judgment after resurrection - that comes mostly from Revelation and other apocalyptic books, and aren't really the issue here - unless you deny that we will eventually be held accoutnable for what we do in this life.

I wanted to show you the the message is hope, and that Jesus came to give hope. Jesus came to forgive sins, yes, but the answer to his prayer was His resurrection from death. Otherwise we would not have the same hope, and only those people present - who were guilty of ignorance - were forgiven. When we sin today, we are crucifying Jesus again, but it is not out of ignorance - because we now know what He did and why He did it.

All Christians believe that Jesus is who his disciples believed He was: the Son of God. God who became flesh and blood in character, with the ability to forgive sins, but without the priviledges of being God. And that wasn't an illusion.

And this is why Jesus isn't the example you think he is: He was God and yet limited himself to what you call illusion, so that we don't have to be trapped in it. He showed us the truth which will set us free: and that is that He died for the sins of the world, so that through Him we can have hope of eternal life.

 

[EvilPoet]

Christian Buddha

One of master Gasan's monks visited the university in Tokyo. When he returned, he asked the master if he had ever read the Christian Bible. "No," Gasan replied, "Please read some of it to me." The monk opened the Bible to the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew, and began reading. After reading Christ's words about the lilies in the field, he paused. Master Gasan was silent for a long time. "Yes," he finally said, "Whoever uttered these words is an enlightened being. What you have read to me is the essence of everything I have been trying to teach you here!"

Source: Zen Stories To Tell Your Neighbors

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Jenyar

They weren't meant to explain judgment after resurrection –

But they were meant to elaborate on judgement after resurrection, but failed to. Could you please kindly elaborate?

unless you deny that we will eventually be held accountable for what we do in this life.

This is the meaning of “karma”, which is the reason for reincarnation.

the answer to his prayer was His resurrection from death. Otherwise we would not have the same hope,

Jesus told his deciples that after his death, they would be persecuted and murdered, and after 3 days they would rise again.

Mark,

8:31 Then Jesus began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
8:32 He spoke openly about this.

Again,

Mark,

10:33 "Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and experts in the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles.
10:34 They will mock him, spit on him, flog him severely, and kill him. Yet after three days, he will rise again."

Resurrection, is not exclusive to Jesus, but to any person who leaves their body (death), therefore his mission had to be to spread God-consciousness to whoever had the ears to hear, because resurrection is a natural process. Hope, or faith is essential, because we are trying to understand things that are beyond our worldly experience, but they cannot be the only thing we rely on. This is why Jesus “taught”, and by "example".
One cannot teach faith or hope.

When we sin today, we are crucifying Jesus again,

That makes no sense, when we sin, we are crucifying ourselves because we are moving further away from God.

All Christians believe that Jesus is who his disciples believed He was: the Son of God. God who became flesh and blood in character, with the ability to forgive sins, but without the priviledges of being God. And that wasn't an illusion.

Could you point this out for me in the Bible?
And could you tell me what Jesus thought, regarding himself being the Almighty God?

And this is why Jesus isn't the example you think he is: He was God and yet limited himself to what you call illusion, so that we don't have to be trapped in it.

If you read the words of Jesus, then it is very easy to understand what and who he was, and his reasons for descending on to the earth. As a Christian, or someone who is interested in serving God, his words (Jesus’) should be the be all and end all of your/our philosophy, it is not good that you twist his words to suit your particular doctrine.

He showed us the truth which will set us free: and that is that He died for the sins of the world, so that through Him we can have hope of eternal life.

That doesn’t make sense, his sole purpose was to die so we can have hope of eternal life? Why did he spend 33 years, possibly 20 of those, tirelessly teaching, right up to his subsequent death.
Another question before I sign off. Why don’t you ever quote Jesus, as he is the immediate point of the Christian faith?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

Jan,

I know you are not a Christian, probably you are Hare Krishna, but you respect Jesus' teachings. There's the difference between you and me. I believe that Jesus was the "Son of Man", and it is based on what His disciples and followers believed and cherished, as recorded in the gospels, and prophesied in the Scripture. As I don't know how much of the Bible you have read, I must assume you base your beliefs about the resurrection not on the Bible, but on other texts. You use the Bible, and Jesus, to justify your beliefs, and not the other way around. Am I wrong? I can't quote the whole New Testament - it won't help! I'll try my best to clear up what I believe:

If you study Jesus' life, you'll see that it was leading up to His death in a very determinate way.

Karma is a self-supporting judgement, I don't see why you believe that God enforces it as a law.

Jesus told his deciples that after his death, they would be persecuted and murdered, and after 3 days they would rise again.

Jesus was talking about himself (notice it does not say sons of Man/men):
Jonah 1:17
But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Mark 9:31
because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.
Mark 14:58
We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'
John 2
19 Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.
20 The Jews replied, It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

So you see that denying the importance of our bodies - even just calling it illusion, is to deny the importance God attributes to it.

You'll also recall that Jesus said: "A sinful generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given them but the sign of Jonah". This points to his death and resurrection.

Jesus' resurrection was also prophesied, and this would not have been necessary if it would have happened anyway, and to everybody:
Ps. 16:10 because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

You can see it refers specifically to the "Holy One", not to David who uttered these words. Can you explain this?

Isiah 53
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

James 1:15
Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is fullgrown, gives birth to death.
Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

This does not seem to indicate a belief that death isn't what it seems to be, the end of your physical life on earth. What would resurrected souls do in the sea or the grave? And how can death give birth to life again? What life is there in death?

Job 7
8 The eye that now sees me will see me no longer;
you will look for me, but I will be no more.
9 As a cloud vanishes and is gone,
so he who goes down to the grave does not return.
10 He will never come to his house again;
his place will know him no more.

Anyway, what difference would it make if you were to come back in another body... you can't cross the same river twice. I think half of who you are is who others experience you to be... but's that's a personal philosophy.

 

[EvilPoet]

Birth and Death

Goshu came to Zen master Yui-e and said, "I have been studying Zen for many years, but have not yet succeeded. Please give me some guidance." Yui-e said, "There is no secret trick to Zen study. It's just a matter of freedom from birth and death." Goshu asked, "How does one pass through birth and death to freedom?" Raising his voice, Yui-e said, "Your every passing thought is birth and death!" At these words Goshu went into ecstacy, feeling as if he had put down a heavy burden.

Source: Zen Antics

 

[Saint]

Buddhism wants you to become a freeman through your own effort, not by kissing the ass of God.

 

[Jenyar]

Buddhism is a system of looking at life, not at God. It presumes nothing about the nature or mercy of God. Karma is not merciful, but God is. What mercy is there in living a hundred lives, trying to 'get it right'? No one can help you... everybody knows better and is showng you 'the way' (including Jesus), but ultimately it's up to you. Nirvana becomes an elitist paradise. I just wonder what will happen to those who haven't made it if the earth is destroyed. What hope does Buddhism give?

John 11:25-26 I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

This isn't the claim of Christianity, it's the claim of Jesus himself.

 

[EvilPoet]

Buddhism and the God-idea

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jenyar,

There's the difference between you and me. I believe that Jesus was the "Son of Man", and it is based on what His disciples and followers believed and cherished, as recorded in the gospels, and prophesied in the Scripture.

How could he actually be “the son of man”, when he was not conceived by man, but by God. I would agree that he represented God, by acting as a “son of man”.

As I don't know how much of the Bible you have read, I must assume you base your beliefs about the resurrection not on the Bible, but on other texts.

No, my understanding of resurrection comes from the Bible, to be more precise, from the teachings of Jesus.

Mark.22:

28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had married her."
29 Jesus answered them, "You are deceived, because you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

It is quite clear from this verse, that resurrection is a natural process, as it is the wife who will be resurrected. The next verse shows that everybody ressurects;

John 5:

28 "Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
29 and will come out-the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.

The next verse, IMHO, shows that the purpose of spiritual life, is to cease all reactions, or in Biblical terms cease from having to pay anything back, even to your family. This is the philosophy of “Karma.”

Luke.14:

12 He said also to the man who had invited him, "When you host a dinner or a banquet, don't invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbours so you can be invited by them in return and get repaid.
13 But when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.
14 Then you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

You use the Bible, and Jesus, to justify your beliefs, and not the other way around. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. Basically, I read the Bible because it contains God-consciousness. All I am doing here, is quoting some of the teaching Lord Jesus Christ, and accepting what he says, without putting my own spin on it Unfortunately, you aren’t.
However, please feel free to show me the errors I am committing.

If you study Jesus' life, you'll see that it was leading up to His death in a very determinate way.

The determination came from those who sought to kill him, plus, he was representing God, as a “man”, and mans worst fear is death, so his death, which was perfect, in that, he showed how one must die. But in reality, death is a part of life, and has no special place in the heart of a liberated man, not more than any other aspect of life anywayz.

Karma is a self-supporting judgement, I don't see why you believe that God enforces it as a law.

Because we are not these bodies, the bodies deteriorates and vanishes due to the forces of nature, this cannot be stopped, but the soul is a different entity, it does not die or age, it is not under the control of nature, the soul belongs to, and comes from Gods Own Self, Who is cent per cent spiritual. Therefore, the soul has to reside somewhere, because it has to act. It isn’t until the person/soul becomes fully God-conscious, that the natural law of karma will cease to act, this is why Jesus could perform such wonderful, seemingly magical, and miraculous things, because he was not under the control of material nature.

Jesus was talking about himself (notice it does not say sons of Man/men):

If he was talking about himself, then he would have said, “I will be……” In other teachings, when he talks about himself he uses the correct terminology, so why all of a sudden is he talking about himself, but using terminology that does not imply that, how is it possible to teach someone.

So you see that denying the importance of our bodies - even just calling it illusion, is to deny the importance God attributes to it.

I am not denying the body, the body is the temple of the soul and God. They cannot kill Jesus, because his body wasn’t born of man, he was perfectly God-conscious, and so was not affected by nature, it only appeared that way for the purpose of his teaching.

You can see it refers specifically to the "Holy One", not to David who uttered these words. Can you explain this?

Isiah 53
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

Do you know what it means to be “born again in Christ/God?”
It means you are becoming self-realized, becoming aware of ones self and ones relationship with the Supreme Self, through the mercy of a spiritual master, a go-between the spiritual kingdom and the material world, someone who is cent per cent dedicated to the service of God, someone who truly loves God with all of their being. The spiritual master opens the eyes of his disciple, with the light of knowledge, through knowledge, he understands what love of God means, and in time with the guidance of his master, becomes a lover of God.
Because he has become “new” so to speak (the disciple), he becomes totally reliant on his master, his master, therefore becomes totally responsible for the welfare of this soul, like a father is responsible for the activities of his infant child. At this point, when the disciple commits a sin, the spiritual master accepts the responsibility and the sin is put upon him. Jesus was very merciful, and accepted the sins of his disciples.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

This part basically says what I stated above, but what it does not mention is that, although they may have been healed, or free from sin, they would have to remain that way, they couldn’t do as they pleased and still be sin free.
When Jesus healed people, part of his instruction to them, was to maintain the faith that made them well, otherwise they would become ill again.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Same as above.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

How could he actually be “the son of man”, when he was not conceived by man, but by God. I would agree that he represented God, by acting as a “son of man”.

"Son of Man" (Greek ho huios tou anthropou) is a poetic expression. Although used in the Old Testament by God when talking to the prophets, it designates Jesus 81 times in the New Testament. It is also only Jesus himself who uses the term, like God had in the Old Testament:
John 9:35
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

... the only other place is in Acts:
"Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God" (7:55) This is repeated by Jesus himself in Matt.26:64. If it meant mere men, Jesus wouldn't have been accused of blasphemy!

So you see, the term included everything that was understood by the Messiah, as being a man, a prophet, and the suffering servant prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus was not a god-consciousness, He was both a real man and the image of God.

No, my understanding of resurrection comes from the Bible, to be more precise, from the teachings of Jesus

Good, then we can explore the concept from a Biblical perspective. I don't want to be any more selective or 'twist' meanings any more than you would want to...

You seem to equate resurrection with reincarnation, but they're obviously not the same thing. And definitely not the same expectation! Based on Jesus' teaching, his disciples believed in the resurrection (as Paul testifies in Acts 23:6) at the Last Judgement:
Hebrews 9:27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. "

Also, Jesus would not talk about the promise/hope of eternal life and eternal punishement, if it were a natural phenomenon. But the best refutation of reincarnation comes from the book of Job:
Job 14:10-12
But man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more. As water disappears from the sea or a riverbed becomes parched and dry, so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep.
Job 19:26
I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God.

As you can see, it is hard for reincarnation or even enlightenment, to come to mind when you read this. It's not 'my own spin'...

The determination came from those who sought to kill him, plus, he was representing God, as a “man”, and mans worst fear is death, so his death, which was perfect, in that, he showed how one must die. But in reality, death is a part of life, and has no special place in the heart of a liberated man, not more than any other aspect of life anywayz.

The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus believed he came to fulfill a prophecy, and stated his intention to "rebuild the temple". This belief carried him though his life... even though as you say, He greatly feared it (otherwise He would not have asked God to "let this cup pass by him if possible"). While we are here, it occurs to me Jesus' prayer was "not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one." (John 17:15)

Struggling to escape the trappings of this world goes against Jesus' prayer, while struggling against sin doesn't. This is my understanding.

Because we are not these bodies, the bodies deteriorates and vanishes due to the forces of nature, this cannot be stopped, but the soul is a different entity, it does not die or age, it is not under the control of nature, the soul belongs to, and comes from Gods Own Self, Who is cent per cent spiritual. Therefore, the soul has to reside somewhere, because it has to act. It isn’t until the person/soul becomes fully God-conscious, that the natural law of karma will cease to act, this is why Jesus could perform such wonderful, seemingly magical, and miraculous things, because he was not under the control of material nature.

I understand this philosophy - and it makes sense:
John 10:38
But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

This would seem to describe a "god-consciousness" if you don't take it literally... but earlier Jesus says:
25..."I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me"

Jesus did not claim to do the miracles by his own power. This "god-consciousness" would be the Spirit of God: the Holy Spirit. And as you know, He is not attained, but given to us as his disciples:
Acts 19:11
God did extraordinary miracles through Paul...

and his own testimony was?
Romans 15
18I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done-- 19by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.

Paul did not attain perfection (by his own admonition), yet he was able to perform miracles. It was
Hebrews 2:4
... gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to [God's] will.

Which brings me to the last point, on which I agree with you:

This part basically says what I stated above, but what it does not mention is that, although they may have been healed, or free from sin, they would have to remain that way, they couldn’t do as they pleased and still be sin free.
When Jesus healed people, part of his instruction to them, was to maintain the faith that made them well, otherwise they would become ill again.

It is by faith in God's mercy (as accomplished through Jesus) that we are freed from sin. The Holy Spirit maintains this faith ("and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit" 1 Cor.12:3) We can't do as we please and still be free of sin. We should be controlled by the Spirit (Rom 8:13). It is not just an internal condition or control - God's guidance is not to control or master Him internally or mentally, but so that He can be the master of us.

I will end with this question:

Hebrews 7:11
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people) [or by attaining god-consciousness through your own efforts], why was there still need for another priest to come–one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

 

[EvilPoet]

"It is proper to doubt. Do not be led by holy scriptures,
or by mere logic or inference, or by appearances, or by
the authority of religious teachers. But when you realize
that something is unwholesome and bad for you, give it
up. And when you realize that something is wholesome
and good for you, do it." -The Buddha