How to politely decline invitations to church?

• yamizi

  8 Sep 08, 10:16

  Originally posted by Zerg:

  Hi Maggie,

   

  Nice explanation, so can i conclude from your understanding, in Christian, to go heaven there is no a must to be a Christian, non-Christian can go heaven by exercising kindness, love, joy etc (whatever related to good deed) ?

  The reason i ask this because i ask few of my Christian friends, they go Church a lot, but their understanding is Only by become Christian and Accepting Jesus then you can go to heaven. I even find in some forum, the forumer dare to said, beside Christian God, all other religion is devil, which only make me shake head when i reading the topic.

  or maybe like you said you 1/2 Christian

  Your explanation about kingdom of God have some similliarity with my mind thinking that peace, joy, happiness is come from within our self (If i get your point right)

  My personal take about the idea of cannot go to heaven simply not christian is that, it is an idea borned out from the church rather than from the Bible itself.

  From the NT, it is evident that one can only go to the Heavenly Kingdom through Christ, however, NT doesn't say that to go through Christ, you have to go through church.

  However, I guess church-going is a much easier group to manage and a way to strengthen the organisation.

  Nevertheless, the idea of 2-life, present and afterlife only, makes the christians, especially the born-again ones more zealous in sharing their new found belief and reliance.

  As compared to the many-many lifetimes that buddhists have, some just backslide or slack away.

  =)

• yamizi

  8 Sep 08, 10:18

  I seriously don't believe christianity was like this when Jesus was around.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwkmu6EJlTE&eur

   

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDoQaCDMtuo&feature=related

   

  How commercialised christianity has evolved.

• yamizi

  8 Sep 08, 10:19

  Originally posted by wilsonhao:

  Dont forget im still a sentient being and not a buddha =)

  Pls dont have too high expectations on me because im human and i have faults, even though i learn buddhism

  But anyway, you have pointed out something that i know im wrong of. Your pickpointing is appreciated.

  So next time before hitting the 'save reply' button, take 3 deep breathes, visualise the image of a Buddha, then review what you had typed before you send.

  It helps =)

• deathmaster

  8 Sep 08, 10:39

  IMO, most people nowadays are too superficial of their religion, taking it to be the absolute truth. I observed that most people commit themselves to a religion, without really understanding the virtues of the various religions. and that i despise. for me, i don't believe in any of the religions, but i simply view them as various sets of moral values and code of conducts. each religion has its own set of commendable strengths and weaknesses.

  Many people enter a religion because they were born into it, or they were influenced by peer pressure. i think that we should question ourselves before we step into the religion, "are the teachings true?". and choose our religion according to which sets of values we find most agreeable. it is not right to blindly adopt a particular religion "cos my parents, my ancestors were all followers of this religion".

  i seriously doubt the truth of the so called holy books, the Bible, Koran etc... they are afterall the works of men, not God. yes, you may say that they are the results of God's inspiration, but how do we truly know so? they may be simply written by the madmen of their respective time.

  and a question i have here.

  who created God?

  is it humans who created God, which therefore come into conflict with the notion that God created Man. which therefore mean that God did not exist.

  Or is there a even higher being which created God? if so, we are then not worshipping the true Almighty. also, it would bring about a never ending chain of answers regarding who created God.

  the question is base upon the assumption that like Man, God cannot simply exist on His own. He must be created somehow, by something, or that he does not exist.

  so, does God exists?

• An Eternal Now

  8 Sep 08, 14:20

  Originally posted by deathmaster:

  IMO, most people nowadays are too superficial of their religion, taking it to be the absolute truth. I observed that most people commit themselves to a religion, without really understanding the virtues of the various religions. and that i despise. for me, i don't believe in any of the religions, but i simply view them as various sets of moral values and code of conducts. each religion has its own set of commendable strengths and weaknesses.

  Many people enter a religion because they were born into it, or they were influenced by peer pressure. i think that we should question ourselves before we step into the religion, "are the teachings true?". and choose our religion according to which sets of values we find most agreeable. it is not right to blindly adopt a particular religion "cos my parents, my ancestors were all followers of this religion".

  i seriously doubt the truth of the so called holy books, the Bible, Koran etc... they are afterall the works of men, not God. yes, you may say that they are the results of God's inspiration, but how do we truly know so? they may be simply written by the madmen of their respective time.

  and a question i have here.

  who created God?

  is it humans who created God, which therefore come into conflict with the notion that God created Man. which therefore mean that God did not exist.

  Or is there a even higher being which created God? if so, we are then not worshipping the true Almighty. also, it would bring about a never ending chain of answers regarding who created God.

  the question is base upon the assumption that like Man, God cannot simply exist on His own. He must be created somehow, by something, or that he does not exist.

  so, does God exists?

  I posted this before regarding the notion of a Creator (now updated):

  First of all Buddhism does not accept the Judeo-Christian or other theistic religions' idea that there is a personal Creator, means the Old Testament kind of God that has a personality of its own.. and you can actually meet him up for coffee . If there is a personal Creator it brings a lot of questions into mind. Therefore, Albert Einstein supposedly said (though whether he really said it I do not know),
  
  "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"
  
  and..
  
  “If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”
  
  Regarding the question of Personal God in Buddhism,

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
  
  Slightly edited from the first topic in our forum regarding Creationism: How the Brahma believed He was God?
  
  In Buddha's days there were many many different teachings, one popular one was Brahmanism. In fact the Brahma was still worshipped nowadays. Brahma was known to be "The Supreme One, the All-mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of All".
  
  In Buddhism, the Mahabrahma resides in the 1st Jhana plane, the first plane among the 8 jhanic planes. There were higher realms above where he lives that he was unaware of, and above it all, beyond the 8 Jhanic planes and all Samsaric planes, is Nirvana. Nevertheless all the devas below the 1st Jhana planes considered him as the Creator God. Buddha did not subscribe to the belief of such a notion that the Universe and its Inhabitants were the Creation of the Mahabrahma. He met with the Brahma, asked him questions which he could not answer. Eventually he has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
  
  The Buddha was also known to have said this,
  
  If the creator of the world entire
  They call God, of every being be the Lord
  Why does he order such misfortune
  If the creator of the world entire
  They call God, of every being be the Lord
  Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
  And he such inequity and injustice create?
  If the creator of the world entire
  They call God, of every being be the Lord
  Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
  Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
  
  When the previous universe was destroyed and this universe was formed, the Mahabrahma was first to be reborn. Other subsequent brahmas/devas were to be reborn.
  
  'On this, brethren, the one who was first reborn thinks thus to himself: " I am Brahmà, the Great Brahmà, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days the Father of all that are and are to be. 'These other beings are of my creation. And why is that so? A while ago I thought, 'Would that they might come!' And on my mental aspiration, behold the beings came." DN 1 2:5
  
  In reality, the universe works by the law of Karma and he has no control over the system of karma.
  
  The Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, a highly renowned Myanmar scholar-monk of the first part of this century, gave a careful analysis of the powers of Maha Brahma in his Niyama Dipani (MB pp. 138-39). He states that although Maha Brahma can perform all sorts of transformations, he cannot actually create independent creatures, change the kammic law of cause and effect, or keep anyone from growing old or dying. Brahma can use his special powers to transport a man to the brahma plane for a short visit, but he cannot ensure that someone will be reborn there.
  
  from http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no3f.htm:
  
  When he came to know about Sakyamuni Buddha in the human world who speaks of the universal truth, he was curious and arrived at the human world with the intention to debate with the Buddha. The Buddha, with his ability to know another's mind, knew his intention and asked, "You claim to be the creator of the human race and all things in the universe, is this a fact?"
  
  The king replied, "Yes, it is."
  
  Buddha continued to question him, "Since you created life, why did you also create death? Is death created by you too?"
  
  The king paused for while, and thinking that everyone loves life and nobody welcomes death, he replied, "I did not create death."
  
  Buddha asked him again, "All human beings experience sickness, did you create sickness also?" The king knew that nobody likes to be ill, and he replied, "I did not create illness."
  
  Buddha asked many questions in succession, but the king denied that he created them. Eventually, he admitted that he did not create the universe and all things in it, and certainly not the human race. The king of heavens was full of regrets and he felt ashamed. Finally, he accepted Buddha as his teacher and invited Him to spread the Dharma in the heavens.

  (continued below)

• http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
  
  "To those who talked about the first cause of this world, the Buddha responded by saying that it is impossible to find a first cause since everything is changing, interdependent and conditioned by other things. Something that acts as the cause in the present may become the effect in the future. Later that same effect may again become the cause. Such phenomenon continues ad infinitum. It is called the universal law of Anicca or impermanency.”

  -----

  http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/dharmajim/analysis.html

  The question is whether or not the view of pratityasamutpada (Dependent Origination), the General Theory I am discussing, infers a final cause, or source, either logically or temporally, or both, from which emerge all phenomena. If the General Theory does infer this, then rendering the General Theory with the term “dependent” would be accurate. I say this because in the monotheistic traditions, as well as in the platonic traditions, all things exist dependently; but what the monotheistic tradition means by this is that all things exist by the grace of an ultimate source, and that source is God.

   

  On the other hand, if the General Theory does not infer such a final source or ground, then I need to ask the location of that which brings forth the appearances of this world. When I contemplate the General Theory I do not observe any inference for a final cause or source of existing things, and to which existing things return. The General Theory simply points to other things as the source for any particular thing. “When this exists, that comes to be,” draws our attention to other existing things. Once again, I see no reason, given the General Theory, to infer that the Buddha meant to imply the existence of a final source.

   

  In addition, there exist very good historical reasons for rejecting the idea, in a Buddhist context, for an ultimate source interpretation of the General Theory. For example, Buddhism never developed a creation myth or story. Instead, Buddhism frequently refers to existence as beginningless and endless. This lack of a creation mythos, from the perspective of the various monotheisms, is quite distinctive. But this lack of a creation mythos in Buddhism is consistent with the view of the General Theory; I think I can infer that the lack of a creation mythos in Buddhism is directly derived from the central role of the General Theory.

   

  The lack of a creation mythos in Buddhism reflects the General Theory’s focus on the appearance of things due to the existence of other things. Those other things, in turn, exist due to the appearance of other things, which are also existing due to other things, etc. This generates an infinite regress, which is logically self-referentially consistent, and has no beginning and no end. Notice also that the General Theory does not require the intercession of an ouside agency in order for this river of relationships to begin. Because the Buddha considered the General Theory as an elucidation of the very nature of things and existence as such, no special catalyst for this onward flowing is necessary. The location, therefore, of the source for the appearance of things is simply other things, spread out over all of existence, both in time and in space. In some of the ancient Indian exegeses they refer to this as “unlocated nirvana”; unlocated because this ultimate nature does not confine itself to any particular thing or corner of existence, nirvana because it is precisely this ultimate nature and its realization which brings about the peace of the cessation of all sorrow.

  -----

  http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/dharmajim/DharmaView.html

  The principle here, derived from the core insight of Interdependent Transformation, is that all things appear from a causal base. This understanding is extended to the existence of entire universes or world systems. The Dalai Lama makes this same point in his commentary on Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, the Ninth Chapter on Wisdom. Verse 124 speaks directly to this discussion:

  124. ... [I]f Creation were dependent upon conditions, the complete collection of those causal circumstances would be the cause, and not Ishvara [Note: Ishvara was a common name for God in ancient India, similar to Yahweh.] If the complete conditions were assembled, Ishvara would be powerless not to create; and if they were absent, there would be no creation.

  The Dalai Lama’s Comment:

  If creation and destruction are dependent upon a collection of causal conditions, the totality of those conditions would be the cause, and not a God who is independent of and uninfluenced by events. If the causal conditions were assembled, Ishvara would be powerless not to create the resultant phenomena; and if they were not assembled, those phenomena would not be produced.

  ( Transcendent Wisdom, the Dalai Lama, translated by B. Alan Wallace, Snow Lion, Ithaca, New York, 1998, page 93.)

  -----

  In Visuddhimagga XIX:

  Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple
  sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the
  concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the
  volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no
  recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is
  well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language,
  when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or
  with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the
  result.
  
  No doer of the deeds is found,
  No one who ever reaps their fruits;
  Empty phenomena roll on:
  This only is the correct view.
  
  And while the deeds and their results
  Roll on and on, conditioned all,
  There is no first beginning found,
  Just as it is with seed and tree. ...
  
  No god, no Brahma, can be called
  The maker of this wheel of life:
  Empty phenomena roll on,
  Dependent on conditions all.

  
  In Buddhism, we believe that pondering over such things brings no benefits at all to our spiritual practice, enlightenment, and liberation from samsara.
  
  Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives
  
  "Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these -- talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not -- he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
  
  "Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these -- 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' -- he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
  
  -- DN 2
  
  Ten wholesome topics of conversation
  
  "There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."
  
  -- AN X.69
  
  -------
  
  "Malunkhyaputta Sutta stresses that whether the universe was created or uncreated, finite or infinite, is irrelevant to our main spiritual concerns: the cause and cessation of suffering:
  
  "Therefore Malunkhyaputta, bear the undeclared as undeclared. Malunkhyaputta, what are the not declared? The world is eternal, is not declared by me. The world is not eternal, is not declared by me. They are not essential for the principles of the holy life, they do not lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, what are the declared by me? This, is unpleasant, is declared. This, is its arising, is declared. This, is its cessation is declared. This is the path to its cessation, is declared. Malunkhyaputta, why are these declared by me? These are the essentials for the principles of the holy life; they lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, I declare them." MN 64"

  Therefore in Buddhism, these kind of speculations about a Creator is useless. Instead, like a scientist, the Buddha encouraged the Buddhist practitioners to find out for themselves the truths that the Buddha said, to put it to test, and to see for ourselves, and to get enlightened. Buddhism does not encourage any blind belief and dogmas (see Kalama Sutra), and also encourages analytical questioning -- whether this teaching actually helps us. If it does, then we should put it to practice.

  When we truly realise the truth of Dependent Origination, the question of Creator/Creation will no longer arise, because we understood the principle in which everything arises and pass away -- which is by conditioned 'genesis'. By realising the nature of reality (empty of self and phenomena, dependent arising) we will also be liberated from all sufferings of samsara and the cycle of rebirth.

  Kalama Sutra
  
  "Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the
  spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you
  have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do
  not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is
  written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
  elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
  conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
  
  - the Buddha
  
  Note: this is just a summary, please read the entire sutra here: http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/kalama_sutra.html

  There are countless enlightened persons from Buddha's times till today, some of them even posting in this forum (not me), who have awakened to the ultimate reality and seen for themselves the truths that the Buddha taught. Beliefs in divine etc are not important and irrelevant in Buddhism, Buddhism being a man-centered (means having great love and compassion for all sentient being, as well as to practise for one's own spiritual development) rather than God-centered teaching, which is a reason why it is the only religion that does not have a history of having fought religious wars, --

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
  No fanaticism
  
  Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
  
  - Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism"