Buddhist thoughts on christian bible
-
Originally posted by hasene:
Not all are chosen by God to be his children. I hope you respect the decision of choice of their religions.
So many contradictions in the bible.
I am glad that you finally see the light at the end of the tunnel as an ex christian. that chap is too deep into it that he wont get to see the day of light anytime soon.
yes there are too many paradoxes, inconsistencies and the biblical stories just doesnt made any sense and logic/rationale at all. too many loopholes and simply unsustainable.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
if one were to use buddhist perspective to read the bible than one would completely missed the point similarly if one were to use christian perspective to study buddhist than one would also completely missed the point.
I am using logic and rationale. there are just too many loopholes and inconsistencies.
when state can give convicted criminals second chance to rehabilitate and reformed, why doesnt god give a second chance and condemned to eternal hell? doesnt make sense when a good person all his life, just because he doesnt believe and accept it, is condemned to eternal hell? where is the justification in doing this? there is favouritism as other believers of other faiths goes to hell, not to mention the Jews are god's favoured people.
-
for a religion to attract new followers, I believe leading a good example or showing exemplary conduct should be the way to go instead of just using your mouth to shoot off some ridiculous dogma like you are going to eternal hell. after all, actions speaks louder than words. empty vessels made the most noise.
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:and the reason why god kill the first born of the Egypt is part of the ten plaques to force pharaoh to release Israelites from captivity.
If the almighty god were to say "Let the Israelites out from captivity" then there would be no killings. So the almighty is afterall not that mighty at all.
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
for me, you know why God sent his son to die for sinners like us, John 3:16 " for god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life", he loved us so much that he gave his son for our sins, to clear us of the wages of sins (Romans 6: 23), it is the only way for us to enter the gates of heaven as sinners like us cannot even face god on earth
and the reason why god kill the first born of the Egypt is part of the ten plaques to force pharaoh to release Israelites from captivity.
This is what i always say, atheists always dun noe the bible that fully and any how make baseless statements to back their arguments up.
Shalom
why so biase ? to rescue some must kill others ?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
I am glad that you finally see the light at the end of the tunnel as an ex christian. that chap is too deep into it that he wont get to see the day of light anytime soon.
yes there are too many paradoxes, inconsistencies and the biblical stories just doesnt made any sense and logic/rationale at all. too many loopholes and simply unsustainable.
And you think that karma is logical? You think being compassionate is logical? -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
And you think that karma is logical? You think being compassionate is logical?You will think that compassionate is logical when in your life time you need someone to be compassionate to you. There will be a day (especailly when you are old) when you are helpless and need people's help. Likewise for karma.
-
Originally posted by Insg:
If the almighty god were to say "Let the Israelites out from captivity" then there would be no killings. So the almighty is afterall not that mighty at all.
let me explain, God always want to give people a chance to repent, he want to use plaques to move Pharaoh heart. God can just call out, but if he does that pharoah will be totally vanished, no matter what god does, he will at first give you a chance to repent, not repent, den you prepared to face the consequences
-
Lots of issues arise because instead of using faith to understand God, you are using your own finite logic and rationale..........It's like using the wrong tools for the wrong job.............. To each his own lah. What's all this comparing of apples and oranges by TS......? This only arouses contempt and breeds malice........
-
just look at the white lotus sect in china. if people dun use their brains to know what is right or wrong, and use faith, look at what happened in history? people at that time followers thought that their leader of the white lotus sect was descended from heaven. faith without rationale is like believing the leader of the sect was from heaven. we should know better what rubbish that claim is.
-
Originally posted by Fenixx:
Lots of issues arise because instead of using faith to understand God, you are using your own finite logic and rationale….......It’s like using the wrong tools for the wrong job…...........
To each his own lah. What’s all this comparing of apples and oranges by TS…...?
This only arouses contempt and breeds malice….....
using wrong tools? well didnt god give u a brain for you to think and analyse? ya using faith when one is sick, but one doesnt see a doctor for treatment, but prayed to god that god will be able to cure one's sickness. brilliant isnt it. there were such people in this world, who relied on faith healing when they were sick. science tell us the so called faith healing is a placebo effect, not some miracle healing after all.
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
let me explain, God always want to give people a chance to repent, he want to use plaques to move Pharaoh heart. God can just call out, but if he does that pharoah will be totally vanished, no matter what god does, he will at first give you a chance to repent, not repent, den you prepared to face the consequences
I can think of many ways to make Pharaoh repent and rescue the Israelites without killing a single person.1) God can use his power to rescue whoever he wish to rescue since he is so powerful.
2) "Kidnap" the 1st born without killing them and threatened Pharaoh.
3) "Kidnap" Pharaoh and brought him to hell to have a look, he would sure repent.
4) God should show his power in front of Pharaoh and let him know how powerful he is.
The lists go on and on. Many other ways without the need to kill a single soul.
-
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
I can think of many ways to make Pharaoh repent and rescue the Israelites without killing a single person.1) God can use his power to rescue whoever he wish to rescue since he is so powerful.
2) "Kidnap" the 1st born without killing them and threatened Pharaoh.
3) "Kidnap" Pharaoh and brought him to hell to have a look, he would sure repent.
4) God should show his power in front of Pharaoh and let him know how powerful he is.
The lists go on and on. Many other ways without the need to kill a single soul.
dun bother replying because that is his opinions. if you ask the same questions to christians, each will give you their own separate opinions. anyway it is not god's reply and we are still awaiting for god's reply to the many questions asked.
-
It is interesting to ask Buddhist about book of another religion! Comparatively,how lay Buddhist read that much about Buddhist scriptures, let alone, the bible?!
The basis of Buddhist faith is eradication of suffering, and that suffering is due to delusions arising from ignorance. To be "enlightened", simply put, is to understand.
Practice consist primary of settling one mind and stilling it, gaining better focus and concentration. With the sharpened mind investigate. To investigate, verify, and personal experiencing of awareness of.Added benefit is a certain groundedness, higher EQ, less unhappy, some faster, some slower.
Back to the bible, the basis of belief cannot be verified, therefore constitute hearsay. Certain facts herein are just what they are,certain facts, They cannot construed to be the whole truth, or wisdom.
One issue I have with monotheism, is that it should be all inclusive, but it is not. The problem is; because is the belief in god is true,there good and right. Not believing in god is there false, bad and wrong.
In the name of the christian god alone, how many people are victimised in the inquisiton, Harlem witchhunts. Forcible conversion and colonizesation of indigenious peoples of Africa, Americas and Asia. In the name of god justifies anything.
If you do not believe or obey god's words, you will destroyed. Destruction mentioned is the bible is usually wholesale obliteration of cities and tribes, done in anger. Now, if god is just a patron deity of a certain tribes or people, it is understandable .
But god is love, father of all, and just you because you do not believe and obey, you will receive your father wrath and punishment. There may be fathers who would do that with their children, but do you believe is right? Man behaving is flawed, but what about GOD, who is LOVE ?
Another question, what constitute death? When you die, the entity known or labelled you no longer exist. There was story of woman asking Buddha to revive her son, in which the Buddha requested the woman to get him a cup of mustard seeds for a family which experience no death. When you die, that's it. So either you die or you do not die. One may recover from a coma, but no one comes back from death.
-
just 1 cents worth, hopefully not too controversial.
when considering such a thread title, we are automatically set in a frame of agreement or disagreement, two extremes.
while we train to walk in the middle path, what should be the right approach to consider such questions, IF they are worth considering?
just as the word 'Emptiness' arouses so many apparently wrong interpretations without direct experience, isn't it the same to be said of the meaning of the word 'God'?
kindly comment :)
-
The problem lies in the concept of realness or permanence of phenomena.
Sorry if I sound critical, this is how I confront myself,but if I am klutz, I have accept the fact I am klutz. I may not like myself being so, but to grow I need to accept before I can deal with myself!
-
Originally posted by geis:
just 1 cents worth, hopefully not too controversial.
when considering such a thread title, we are automatically set in a frame of agreement or disagreement, two extremes.
while we train to walk in the middle path, what should be the right approach to consider such questions, IF they are worth considering?
just as the word 'Emptiness' arouses so many apparently wrong interpretations without direct experience, isn't it the same to be said of the meaning of the word 'God'?
kindly comment :)
after dinner i thought my post might be misunderstood. im directing this question to fellow practitioners, not to challenge any Christian beliefs.
what is meant is could all that has been written be interpreted wrongly because of the limitations of language and the conceptual mind? if it is possible, then is it even worth thinking about since its back to concepts again.
add to that, could 2 seemingly different descriptions be just a result of error in translations, limited by languages' capacity to describe the absolute aptly, but in reality are the same in actual experience?
i have utmost faith in the Buddha's teachings, while at the same time have this feeling that some other religions may also point towards the same direction, though expressed in different ways. Jack Kornfield seems to suggest this in his book After the Ecstacy, the Laundry, where he cited many personal experiences of practitioners of Christianity and other Faiths.
any comments are welcomed :)
-
Originally posted by hasene:
Not all are chosen by God to be his children. I hope you respect the decision of choice of their religions.
So many contradictions in the bible.
In the Bible, God is biased in favour of the israelites. If God is the creator,why can't he be fair to all the races?
Would it be logical to deduce that the old testament is written by the jews?
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
And you think that karma is logical? You think being compassionate is logical?Some of these things, like compassion, will not be logical to a mind enclosed by ego. It needs to be experienced. The egoic mind can never understand anything beyond its own boundaries, it can never understand or have awareness of the suffering of others. Karma, likewise. But before you experience karma, it is important to have faith in it in Buddhism. Karma and rebirth are two things that must be taken by faith first if one is a Buddhist - even though they can also be experienced by our own practice and many did including those in this forum..
-
While we are on the topic...
I guess many of you will have noticed by now, the depiction of God in the Old Testament and the depiction of God in the New Testament are very different.
Why? Because the philosophies and religions come from different era, and the human development of consciousness are at different levels. Their understanding of God is likewise different. The Old Testament God is more like a personal God who intervenes with human affairs - and someone you can meet up, have coffee, and discuss matters with. It is also a God with all the human emotions like anger, jealousy, etc. The Old Testament belongs to an era where the 'mythic' level of consciousness is the predominant mode of consciousness.
Based on the different levels of consciousness... how people interprete and experience God differs.
A Christian mystic will likewise have a totally different interpretation and experience of God. He will talk about God based on his experience of mystical union. They also talk about transcending self - see Bernadette Roberts.
As Ken Wilber puts it:
Human beings are born and begin their evolution through the great spiral of consciousness, moving from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to... perhaps integral, and perhaps from there into genuinely transpersonal domains.
-
Found an even more powerful quote by Ken Wilber:
- Human beings undergo psychological development. At each level or stage of development, they will see the world in a different way. Hence, each level of development has, as it were, a different religious belief or worldview. This does not make God or Spirit the result of human development; it does, however, make the ways in which humans conceive of God or Spirit the result of development. And this is where it gets really interesting. The lower stages are more fundamental and the higher stages are more significant, but leave out any one of them and you're in trouble...
- Put bluntly, there is an archaic God, a magic God, a mythic God, a mental God, and an integral God. Which God do you believe in? An archaic God sees divinity in any strong instinctual force. A magic God locates divine power in the human ego and its magical capacity to change the animistic world with rituals and spells. A mythic God is located not on this earth but in a heavenly paradise not of this world, entrance to which is gained by living according to the covenants and rules given by this God to his peoples. A mental God is a rational God, a demythologized Ground of Being that underlies all forms of existence. And an integral God is one that embraces all of the above. Which of those Gods is the most important? According to an integral view, all of them, because each "higher" stage actually builds upon and includes the lower, so the lower stages are more fundamental and the higher stages are more significant, but leave out any one of them and you're in trouble. You are, that is, less than integral, less than comprehensive, less than inclusive in your understanding of God.
- Human beings undergo psychological development. At each level or stage of development, they will see the world in a different way. Hence, each level of development has, as it were, a different religious belief or worldview. This does not make God or Spirit the result of human development; it does, however, make the ways in which humans conceive of God or Spirit the result of development. And this is where it gets really interesting. The lower stages are more fundamental and the higher stages are more significant, but leave out any one of them and you're in trouble...
-
More good quotes by Ken:
I began my previous Beliefnet column with the line, "Throughout history, religion has been the single greatest source of human-caused wars, suffering, and misery. In the name of God, more suffering has been inflicted than by any other manmade cause." I was, of course, using the word "religion" in its sociological meaning, as any belief invested with "ultimate concern," in which case not only Islam, Christianity, and Shintoism are religions, but Marxism, Nazism, and Eco-terrorism are all versions of religions or religiously held beliefs. Seen as such, the opening sentence is obviously true.
..........
If humanity is ever to cease its swarming hostilities and be united in one family, without squashing the significant and important differences among us, then something like an integral approach seems the only way.
-
Seriously, majority of Christians and non-Christians alike, all over the world, for thousands of years, have no true understanding and experience with Creator/Source/God. Reading books and texts does not make one a more spiritual person. All the academic debates are pointless. There are more fruitful things that people (Christians and non-Christians alike) can do to improve their own lives and characters. For people who are so keen on debating and hoping to win such debates, ever consider what they stand to gain from it?
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
-
Originally posted by Cck689461:
In the Bible, God is biased in favour of the israelites. If God is the creator,why can't he be fair to all the races?
Would it be logical to deduce that the old testament is written by the jews?
no question on that. r u an ex christian?
-
Originally posted by Rainbow Jigsaw:
Seriously, majority of Christians and non-Christians alike, all over the world, for thousands of years, have no true understanding and experience with Creator/Source/God. Reading books and texts does not make one a more spiritual person. All the academic debates are pointless. There are more fruitful things that people (Christians and non-Christians alike) can do to improve their own lives and characters. For people who are so keen on debating and hoping to win such debates, ever consider what they stand to gain from it?
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life
this is exactly one of the points some of us are making.
it may sound idealistic but sharing some questions and ideas through some of these debates may be helpful for some fellow practitioners? perhaps some challenging pointers posed by fellow Buddhists might trigger us to change our usual perspectives?
