Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Would you be disapointed to find a Hindu in Heaven?

Would you be disapointed to find a Hindu in Heaven?

  • 1. Yes, it would be a disapointment to find infidels in God's and my New Kingdom......

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
To Post #2: yes, Jesus clearly taught that he alone is the path to the father. For God to go against this, He would would then be going against what God (Jesus) said AKA SIN. God can't sin, so Christ must be the only way.


This only repeats the assumption that I was questioning.

Its entirely possible that the claims made in the Bible were not made by God. If that is the case, God will not be doing anything wrong if he doesn't act in accordance with the claims made in the Bible.
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
To Post #3: Hindu's Worship many gods. However, they do not rever Christ as a their only salvation, so they can not trult worship Yahweh, even if the Hindu does consider Him as one of his gods.


Your claim seems to be that Hindu's do not worship God in a way which would be acceptable to Christianity. I imagine this is correct.
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
To Post #1:True Buddhists would be atheists, because Siddartha Guartama was and expressed such.

more on the subject that I found-


Buddha: Atheist or God?

http://reluctant-messenger.com/God_buddha.htm


A common view among some Buddhist is that Buddha said there was no such thing as God. Well, he also said there is no such thing as self also. Does that mean you don't exist just as God doesn't exist? Who or what is reading this if you don't exist?

The teachings of Buddha about God have to be taken within the context of the culture of his day. Buddha grew up and became enlightened in India. Even though this event happened approximately 2,500 years ago, the religious thought of his day was already ancient. The original religion of the Indus people was Brahman worship. This is confirmed in the Vedas.
I'm not using the term Hinduism because that is a British term coined around 1830 and it inaccurately lumped all of the religious and moral teaching of India under one very broad term.

All of the quotations used here to explain the teachings of Buddha come from The Gospel of Buddha

This best selling English book was Compiled from ancient records by Paul Carus, 1894

This book combines narrative of the life of Buddha coupled with his saying as recorded in the Tipitaka (Buddhist Sacred Scripture).

If Buddha claimed there is no such thing as God, why is he discussing God with Brahmans?

The Two Brahmans

Here he is quoted as saying:

"Thus," replied the Buddha,
"the Tathagata knows the straight path
that leads to a union with Brahma.
He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it.
There can be no doubt in the Tathagata." [30]

For those not familiar with these terms:

Tathagata: The 'mind of clear and pure reflection,' or 'reality + mental body in various state of mind. The Buddha mind-nature hidden within every being.

Brahma: The creative force of Brahman.

Brahman: The trancendent absolute being that pervades and supports all reality." Another definition of Brahman is that which is Absolute, fills all space, is complete in itself, to which there is no second, and which is continuously present in everything, from the Creator down to the lowest of matter. It, being everywhere, is also in each and every individual.

In the ancient Vedic religion, God was described as having three attributes. Creator, preserver and destroyer. Over time these three attributes were personalized and became known as the Gods of Brahma (creator) Vishnu (preserver) and Shiva (destroyer).

By Buddha claiming to know the path to Brahma he was also claiming to know the path to Brahman. Another way to understand the teachings of Buddha is that he taught that there are two realms. One is the Uncreated Realm and there is the Created Realm.

The Three Characteristics and the Uncreate

"There is, O monks, a state where there is neither earth,
nor water, nor heat, nor air;
neither infinity of space nor infinity of consciousness,
nor nothingness, nor perception nor non-perception;
neither this world nor that world, neither sun nor moon.
It is the uncreate. [9]

This definition would also apply to Brahman, for Brahman resides in the Uncreated Realm. However, even these words are poor approximations of the Uncreate.

Buddha also stated that he became one with the Uncreate.

"That, O monks, I term
neither coming nor going nor standing;
neither death nor birth.
It is without stability, without change;
it is the eternal which never originates
and never passes away.
There is the end of sorrow. [10]
...
"There is, O monks,
an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed.
Were there not, O monks,
this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed,
there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. [12]

"Since, O monks,
there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed,
therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed." [13]

When Buddha said he knew the path that lead to oneness to Brahma, he was stating that through Brahma one accesses Brahman (Uncreated Realm).

Another important concept to keep in mind when contemplating Buddha is that his quest and subsequent message was how to achieve the permanent cessation of Sorrow. Buddha discovered that unless complete non-attachment to desire and the material created world was achieved, one would still cling to the illusion of self and would inevitably be drawn back to the created realm and be reborn to explore whatever it was that was still desired.

This is explained in:

Enlightenment

There is self and there is truth.
Where self is, truth is not.
Where truth is, self is not.
Self is the fleeting error of samsara*;
it is individual separateness and that egotism which begets envy and hatred.
Self is the yearning for pleasure and the lust after vanity.
Truth is the correct comprehension of things;
it is the permanent and everlasting,
the real in all existence,
the bliss of righteousness. [17]

The existence of self is an illusion,
and there is no wrong in this world,
no vise, no evil,
except what flows from the assertion of self. [18]

The attainment of truth is possible only when self is recognized as an illusion.
Righteousness can be practised only when we have freed our mind from passions of egotism.
Perfect peace can dwell only where all vanity has disappeared. [19]

Blessed is he who has understood the Dharma.
Blessed is he who does no harm to his fellow-beings.
Blessed is he who overcomes wrong and is free from passion.
To the highest bliss has he attained who has conquered all selfishness and vanity.
He has become the Buddha, the Perfect One, the Blessed One, the Holy One. [20]

*SAMSARA: The world of illusion, the opposite of Nirvana. Samsara is where lust, desire, passion and attachment exist. Nirvana by definition is free of Samsara/Illusion.

Buddha discovered that everything within the Created realm is an illusion. Especially the concept of self. The reason we are caught in the cycle of death and birth is this: As long as we participate in the illusion called reality and believe in the individual self, we will constantly incarnate and play in the illusion. If, like Buddha we can achieve total non-attachment, we too can become one with the Uncreate. Once Buddha was free from desire and saw past the illusion of self, he became the omniscient enlightened one. In western terms he became totally one with God.

"Reality is an illusion; albeit a very persistent one!" Albert Einstein

So why do some Buddhist claim that Buddha said there is no such thing as God?

Once again the teachings of Buddha must be examined in context of the culture of his day.

Anathapindika

"Who is it that shapes our lives?
Is it Isvara, a personal creator?
If Isvara be the maker,
all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power.
They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand;
and if it were so, how would it be possible to practise virtue?
If the world had been made by Isvara
there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or evil;
for both pure and impure deeds must come from him.
If not, there would be another cause beside him,
and he would not be self-existent.
Thus, thou seest, the thought of Isvara is overthrown. [5]

This appears at first that Buddha has contradicted himself. He claimed to know the path to Brahma, yet discounts the existence of the Supreme Lord Isvara, the creator.

In the context of his day. Lord Isvara corresponds roughly to the western misconception of God as the white haired, long bearded almighty dispensing justice from his throne in heaven. The Lord Isvara is a personal, understandable God Being sitting on a throne that must be worshiped and appeased. Common practice of the day was making animal sacrifice to Lord Isvara.

Buddha also taught the futility of animal sacrifice which once again relates to the worship of Isvara.

Identity and Non-identity

Kutadanta said:
"I am told that thou teachest the law,
yet thou tearest down religion.
Thy disciples despise rites and abandon immolation,
but reverence for the gods can be shown only by sacrifices.
The very nature of religion consists in worship and sacrifice." [5]

Said the Buddha:
"Greater than the immolation of bullocks is the sacrifice of self.
He who offers to the gods his evil desires
will see the uselessness of slaughtering animals at the altar.
Blood has no cleansing power,
but the eradication of lust will make the heart pure.
Better than worshipping gods
is obedience to the laws of righteousness." [6]

Buddha's teachings were totally focused on how one achieves non-suffering. The laws of righteousness that he taught are called the eightfold path.

The Eighthfold path is Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

Buddha's taught why righteousness is so important:

Chapter 53 -
"Verily, I say unto thee:
Not in the heavens,
not in the midst of the sea,
not if thou hidest thyself away in the clefts of the mountains,
wilt thou find a place where thou canst escape the fruit of thine evil actions. [63]

"At the same time thou art sure
to receive the blessings of thy good actions. [64]

Animal sacrifices to Lord Isvara will never bring an end to suffering. Only walking the path of righteousness will bring about the end of suffering. Just as all of the Created realm and your sense of individuality is an illusion, so is Lord Isvara.

Once the fullness of the teachings of Buddha are comprehended, one can understand that Buddha was not an Athiest nor did he become a god. No, he became one with the Eternal Absolute Uncreate. In western terms he became one with God.
 
Buddhism is a very strange and confounding religion. It has so many different teachings. Some Buddhists believe that there is a god but their concept of god has nothing at all to do with the God of the bible.

Most Buddhists believe in a force not a god.

It is a religion of lost people. There is only one path to God and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is a link to a Chrsitian site that has some information on this dead end religion.

http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-ar1.html#buddhism
 
All the interesting people

seem to be destined for hell. I think I would be happier there
as well. :evil:
But, to be honest, I'm willing to be surprised in the afterlife.
I'll live my Earthly life to my own drummer.
Just in case this is it! :lol:
 
Re: All the interesting people

Mr. Lee said:
seem to be destined for hell. I think I would be happier there
as well. :evil:
But, to be honest, I'm willing to be surprised in the afterlife.
I'll live my Earthly life to my own drummer.
Just in case this is it! :lol:

Most people feel the way you do...

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:13 "....for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
 
Soma-Sight said:
Would you be disappointed to find a Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, Catholic, New Ager, skeptic, communist or liberal in Heaven?

Or would you be glad to see that God's favor included the heathen?


Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
That would prove that the God I worship wasn't who He claimed to be, and that He was just as any of us, unjust. However, God can't be that way or else He wouldn't be God.


So lets say you go to heaven and your shocked to see Hindu's, Buddhists etc.

You think God has deceived you, but then God explains-

"I had nothing to do with the Bible, and I'm actually fairly miffed about some of the immoral behaviour it attributes to me".

In this circumstance, would you then be happy that the non-Christians were in heaven?
 
bibleberean said:
Some Buddhists believe that there is a god but their concept of god has nothing at all to do with the God of the bible.

Yes, that is one of the good things about Buddhism.

bibleberean said:
Most Buddhists believe in a force not a god.


A "force"? Have you been watching Star Wars?
 
DivineNames said:
Soma-Sight said:
Would you be disappointed to find a Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, Catholic, New Ager, skeptic, communist or liberal in Heaven?

Or would you be glad to see that God's favor included the heathen?


[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":4a8d4]That would prove that the God I worship wasn't who He claimed to be, and that He was just as any of us, unjust. However, God can't be that way or else He wouldn't be God.


So lets say you go to heaven and your shocked to see Hindu's, Buddhists etc.

You think God has deceived you, but then God explains-

"I had nothing to do with the Bible, and I'm actually fairly miffed about some of the immoral behaviour it attributes to me".

In this circumstance, would you then be happy that the non-Christians were in heaven?[/quote:4a8d4]

Divine, how exactly was God immoral in the Bible?

Anyway. Jesus still said He is the way to God. That will not change no matter what any religion or person says.
 
DivineNames said:
bibleberean said:
Some Buddhists believe that there is a god but their concept of god has nothing at all to do with the God of the bible.

Yes, that is one of the good things about Buddhism.

bibleberean said:
Most Buddhists believe in a force not a god.


A "force"? Have you been watching Star Wars?

I know some Buddhists and they believe in something like the Star Wars force.

And the bible is the word of the one true God...

That is the way it is...

Buddha is dead Jesus is alive and only those who have become born again will be in heaven.

No Hidus, Buddhists, or Muslims will be in heaven unless they have believed on the only one who can save them the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a Christian forum not a Buddhist one... :D
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
Anyway. Jesus still said He is the way to God. That will not change no matter what any religion or person says.


In the circumstance described, would you then be happy to see non-Christians in heaven?

This isn't a difficult question.

As for God behaving in an immoral way, I will get back to you with an example or two.
 
bibleberean said:
And the bible is the word of the one true God...

That is the way it is...



That is the claim of Christianity. Lots of other religions make lots of different and conflicting claims.

If it all comes down to "faith", well that isn't any kind of guide to truth.
 
I am quoting Michael von Bruck, who is, "a German Lutheran pastor and a systematic theologian currently involved with the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue Research Project at the University of Tubingen"-


"The Madhymika texts use the term shunyata in two different senses, which have to be distinguished though not separated. First, shunyata refers to the interrelatedness of reality. Here it has the same meaning as pratiya-samutpada and is primarily a matter of phenomenological observation and interpretation. As we have seen, science, especially the new physics, gives evidence that all phenomenal reality is actually a net of causal connections or total interrelatedness. (physics is thus contributing to a new ecological paradigm.) Nothing exists independently or can have existence on its own (svabhava). In other words, everything is emptey of self-existence - that is, everything is shunya.

Second, shunyata also refers to a level beyond all phenomenal reality. It points toward the transcendent mystery of reality. It is total beyondness. The interrelated whole as sum of all parts is not the Whole. The Whole is of a different quality altogether. All potentialities, as well as all actualities, of reality are not nirvana or shunyata, which is precisely beyond the differentiation into potential and actual, or part and whole. Tathata, nirvana, shunyata do not mean only interrelatedness, but beyondness.

This quality of beyondness is often forgotten by those who try to relate Buddhism and modern science. Ken Wilber warns against the prevalent mistake of identifying the interrelatedness that physics has discovered with the beyondness expressed by shunyata. The implicate order is not the Absolute or God. It is just the interrelatedness of phenomenal reality. What religions call "God" is beyond this duality of implication and explication and is devoid of such determinations.

...I would like to try to point toward (not describe) the positive nature of shunyata by quoting an extraordinary and profound statement by D.T. Suzuki:

"It is not the nature of prajna (mystical intuition) to remain in a state of shunyata (the void) absolutely motionless. It demands of itself that it differentiates itself unlimitedly, and at the same time it desires to remain in itself. This is why shunyata is said to be a reservoir of infinite possibilites, and not just a state of mere emptiness. Differentiating itself and yet remaining itself undifferentiated, and thus to go on eternally in the work of creation... we can say that it is creation out of nothing. Shunyata is not to be conceived statically but dynamically, or better, as at once static and dynamic."

This is probably the deepest insight into reality one can have on the basis of Madhyamika - and even on the basis of Christian experience, as I will try to explain later. In transcending the concepts of voidness and fullness, Suzuki unifies them in experience - that is, in the experience of reality as a dynamic pattern, as a uniquely differentiated wholeness.

Shunyata is, as Lama Govinda calls it, plenum-void. It is the nature of all things, oneness in differentiation. "Differentiation is as much an expression of reality as oneness, and form is as important as emptiness". Shunyata is the unifed awareness that comprehends and transcends both oneness and differentiation. Govinda therefore translates shunyata, simply yet appropriately, as transparency.

...Shunyata is not the first of two orders (implicate/explicate) - although this is implied. In the first meaning we quoted above it is also the principle of "???" and in this sense the implicate. But it is more. Shunyata must be emptied of all duality. It is beyond differentiation into implicate and explicate. It is beyondness. It is emptied emptiness. This, of course, does not mean that it is spatially or temporally beyond phenomena. It transcends spatiality and temporality in such a way that it includes them. If this were not so, we would not have a real advaita (non-duality), or a genuine polarity constituting oneness. This, by the way, is the problem with Shankara's view of the many as maya - that is, as an illusion. He views the phenomenal many as less real that the Absolute Brahman and as not taken up into a higher order of dynamic oneness. For this reason, Shankara has problems intelligibly explaining the relationship between the maya and mayin or between nirguna Brahman (the formless Absolute) and the realm of maya, as I have argued elsewhere.

I think that Nargarjuna solves this problem of the relation between the Absolute and the finite in a much more genuinely advaita-way. I would suggest that for him, shunyata is a relationship in itself, devoiding itself constantly of essentiality of substance as it constitutes itself as universal relationship. This interpretation is actually a reflection of Suzuki's central statement quoted above; we will explore it further below..."


Michael von Bruck (1990) "Buddhist Shunyata and the Christian Trinity: The Emerging Holistic Paradigm" page 44-66 in Roger Corless and Paul F. Knitter (eds), Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity: Essays & Explorations, Paulist Press.
 
bibleberean said:
I know some Buddhists and they believe in something like the Star Wars force.

Can you support this Buddhist belief in a "Star Wars like force" from Buddhist scripture?


bibleberean said:
This is a Christian forum not a Buddhist one... :D


This is a "Christianity and other religions" forum. I guess we can talk about Buddhism here. :D
 
Divine names wrote

This is a "Christianity and other religions" forum. I guess we can talk about Buddhism here."

BB responds:

We sure can talk about Buddhism here and I never said we couldn't.

Why I am reminding people that this is a Christian forum is because of this statement...


bibleberean wrote:

"Some Buddhists believe that there is a god but their concept of god has nothing at all to do with the God of the bible."

Divine Names wrote:

Yes, that is one of the good things about Buddhism.

BB responds:

I will not allow Buddhism to be promoted over the God of the bible as it is against the TOS here...

Rule 8 - No Promotion of Other Religions:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than mainstream Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Debates of these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This is a Christian Forums as the name suggest. If you cannot abide with this, please do not use our site.

John 14: 6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

BB finishes:

Statements that "one of the good things about Buddhism" is that it has nothing to do with the God of the bible constitutes the promotion of Buddhism over Christianity.

I will be more direct in the future...
 
Divine, how exactly was God immoral in the Bible?

Well I guess a common indication of "immoral" behaviour of God in the Bible would be the slaughtering of innocent children in Sodom....

Or the killing of the many babies in the Flood and that little case with the Angel of Death in Egypt......

Thats a good one for starters I suppose if you take that viewpoint....

However I believe the current Evangelical paradigm on the Nature of God is....

Since He makes all the rules and is the intrinsic value of morality through the fact that He exists.... He cannot contradict His own Perfection by any human standardized judgement....
 
bibleberean said:
BB finishes:

Statements that "one of the good things about Buddhism" is that it has nothing to do with the God of the bible constitutes the promotion of Buddhism over Christianity.


I can see your point on that. However, I had no intention of "promoting" Buddhism when I said that, as I understand the meaning of the word.

On a dictionary definition of "promotion", I am not sure that merely making the claim that X is better than Y would amount to promotion of X. Rather, there should be an intent to, "urge the adoption of; advocate".

Nevertheless, I will happily rephrase what I said, and say instead that some people do not find the God of theistic religion attractive, and its absence from Buddhism may be seen as positive.
 
DivineNames said:
bibleberean said:
BB finishes:

Statements that "one of the good things about Buddhism" is that it has nothing to do with the God of the bible constitutes the promotion of Buddhism over Christianity.


I can see your point on that. However, I had no intention of "promoting" Buddhism when I said that, as I understand the meaning of the word.

On a dictionary definition of "promotion", I am not sure that merely making the claim that X is better than Y would amount to promotion of X. Rather, there should be an intent to, "urge the adoption of; advocate".

Nevertheless, I will happily rephrase what I said, and say instead that some people do not find the God of theistic religion attractive, and its absence from Buddhism may be seen as positive.

As long as you "see the point" then we don't and won't have a problem...

Robert
 
Back
Top