Buddhist monks - love your enemies

[FireDragon76]

Some Bible translations use the expression "evil nature" or "sinful nature." They are not in the original Greek.

True. Tradition Christian anthropology believed that human nature is good. That's true nut just in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, but also in the Lutheran tradition.

The New Testament uses the word sarx or flesh. This isn't referring to human nature as a whole, nor does it have purely negative connotations.

 

[Larniavc]

And in case a Buddhist is doing it by one's own ability and self-discipline, this is not depending on God's grace through Jesus; so it would not be according to God's light and sufficiency.

Doesn’t this show that it is entirely possible to do it without needing Christianity’s trappings?

For example I’m a good person; a virtuous person even. And I’m not even slightly religious.

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus said to love your enemies, something that often seemed hard and yet when China invaded Tibet that is what some of the Buddhists monks did. This is one reason I find it hard to subscribe to different sectarian views, although i understand that such views are common everywhere in one way or another

‘Compassion for My Torturer’: A Meeting With Palden Gyatso

Tibetan Buddhist monk, Palden Gyatso, spent 33 years imprisoned by the Chinese and drew deep on his Buddhist practice to survive his brutal treatment. He escaped to the West to tell his story, and …

www.wiseattention.org

With Palden, however, there is a Buddhist twist. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the book is his lack of resentment towards his tormentors. How had he been able to avoid hating the Chinese? After Tsering had translated my question, Palden shook his head vigorously. I had not understood.‘It is not that I was without hatred. Especially when I was being tortured by my guards, I had immense hatred against them because I was being hurt. But, as a religious person, after the event I could reflect on what had happened, and I could see that those who inflicted torture did so out of their own ignorance. As a religious person I have to sit back and ask myself, what is all this? Buddhist teachings say, don’t let your calm be disturbed and do not respond to anger with anger.’

Hi christian-surfer

Buddhism definitely has a lot of positive aspects to it

It reminded me of my recent talks with Muslims. Lots of talk about doing good and helping the poor

You can kind of see Islam as Christianity without a resurrected Jesus. Maybe Buddhism can be seen that way too?

But the resurrection is critical. If it's true, Christianity is head and shoulders above the rest

If it's false, it's the silliest of all religions

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 15:19 - New Century Version

If our hope in Christ is for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone else in the world.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[timf]

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

nature = phusis = natural as opposed to artifical

 

[Andrewn]

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

nature = phusis = natural as opposed to artifical

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous. 14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature [Gr: physis] the things of the law, these, although they do not have the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written on their hearts,

Non-Christians may do "by nature" the things of the law and thus be declared righteous.

As far as Eph 2:3 is concerned, the addressed cohort used to be "children of wrath by nature" before becoming Christians because they had followed Satan rather than the law, as it is clear from a careful reading of verses 1-3.

Eph 2:1And you, although you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all formerly lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the mind, and we were children of wrath by nature [Gr: physis], as also the rest of them were.

Physis here clearly refers to one's behavior, not a "sinful nature."

 

[com7fy8]

And in case a Buddhist is doing it by one's own ability and self-discipline, this is not depending on God's grace through Jesus; so it would not be according to God's light and sufficiency.

Doesn’t this show that it is entirely possible to do it without needing Christianity’s trappings?

For example I’m a good person; a virtuous person even. And I’m not even slightly religious.

But we can't die for our own sins, like Jesus died for our sins. He is so better than human, since Jesus is God's own Son. Only Jesus could die right for our sins.

And God alone is good, Jesus says >

"No one is good but One, that is, God," He says quoted in three gospels > Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19.

God who made us is so superior and better, including in the quality and strength of His love. Human love and character is weak so it can let people keep suffering deeply. And they get tricked into depending on what they and other humans can do. Even if they get away from the suffering, still they do not have the personal and emotional and spiritual goodness of God's love.

Only Jesus God's own Son could be good enough to make satisfaction for our sins. Plus, God wants to change us from how we are human, to how we are like Jesus so we are pleasing to God and enjoying being how Jesus is in God's love. This is Heaven's love that we can experience now >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

So He wants to share with us. And we do not have to depend on self effort which is not able to do all God is able to do in His effort. We rest in Him and discover all He does with us . . . better than what we could think and try to get ourselves to do.

 

[partinobodycular]

But we can't die for our own sins, like Jesus died for our sins. He is so better than human, since Jesus is God's own Son. Only Jesus could die right for our sins.

I'm sorry, but Christians continuously make this claim without seeming to realize that it makes absolutely no sense.

Which is perfectly fine, but only serves to make Christians seem irrational, and the more that they try to defend it, the more irrational they seem. Of course it's your religion, and you're free to believe whatever you want to, but don't fault non-Christians for ridiculing a story that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Larniavc]

"No one is good but One, that is, God," He says quoted in three gospels > Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19.

That’s a claim. It is not supported with evidence. That’s why faith is required.

 

[Larniavc]

Human love and character is weak so it can let people keep suffering deeply.

God also lets people keep suffering deeply. As described in this very thread.

 

[Andrewn]

For example I’m a good person; a virtuous person even. And I’m not even slightly religious.

I'm glad to hear this.

God also lets people keep suffering deeply. As described in this very thread.

You're an atheist; there is no God. Who lets people keep suffering deeply?

 

[com7fy8]

Doesn’t this show that it is entirely possible to do it without needing Christianity’s trappings?

In erroneous Christian church culture . . . there are trappings and traps. In the Bible, one writer says, about evil people >

"Let their table become a snare for them,
. And their well-being a trap." (Psalm 69:22)

So . . . isn't this interesting?! > some of the ones in political high position and prospering selfish preachers have actually gotten themselves into a trap. And we could be wise, then, not to want the power and prosperity which they have, or else we could become the way they have become in order to get it.

I remember how easy it was to get a garden-raiding woodchuck into a trap. It had that whole garden to munch on, but all it took to get it into a trap was to put a generous portion of banana slices in a line into the trap. The prosperity and convenience of that nice sweet banana overcame any sense that woodchuck might have had.

Plus, it could be that at least some things you mean by "trappings" could indeed be vain and even wrong, and trapping people.

But if you disagree with the report that Jesus died for our sins . . . you are disagreeing with something which is part of Biblical and true Christianity.

I find it interesting how ones can disagree with things which, to my knowledge, are not correct Christian beliefs and practices and realities.

It seems you do not agree that God is so more and better than we are, that we do well to purely depend on Him to correct us deeply so we can become and love entirely better than we can in our own human capability.

So, in case you do disagree with this . . . why, really?

You seem to claim you have no proof. But I have no proof . . . that I can humanly control and explain; God is so better. And I find He is able to prove Himself, way better than how humans can dictate that He must give proof. So - - trying to give human proof could be a way to get myself into a trap

 

[Larniavc]

You're an atheist; there is no God. Who lets people keep suffering deeply?

Don't play dumb; you're better than that. If you can't debate in good faith I'm out.

 

[Larniavc]

there are trappings and traps.

If you're to start acting like a student who can't answer the essay question and instead answers the one they did revise I'm out.

 

[Andrewn]

Don't play dumb; you're better than that. If you can't debate in good faith I'm out.

I didn't ask my question in bad faith.

 

[Larniavc]

I didn't ask my question in bad faith.

Then you know I can question the attributes of God without being convinced of his existence.

 

[Andrewn]

Then you know I can question the attributes of God without being convinced of his existence.

You're likely familiar with apophatic theology / God without attributes.

As an atheist, you do not reject a set of supposed attributes, but you reject God.

 

[com7fy8]

And in case a Buddhist is doing it by one's own ability and self-discipline, this is not depending on God's grace through Jesus; so it would not be according to God's light and sufficiency.

Doesn’t this show that it is entirely possible to do it without needing Christianity’s trappings?

For example I’m a good person; a virtuous person even. And I’m not even slightly religious.

What we need is God Himself. He is better than what you could mean by "Christianity's trappings". I am sure in Christian *culture* there are plenty of vain things, since we self-produce them. So, no you do not need the things which are humanly produced and cultural and outward.

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

What God does Himself with us is done right, much better than we often may try to do, ourselves.

So, likewise you do not need your own self-produced trappings.

We are equal, without Jesus

 

[dlamberth]

Well, God is so superior to us all. So, how He in us cultivates something is going to be very different than how we humanly can try to produce what we consider to be . . . something.

What ever it is that makes us a more human Human Being is something that can each one of us regardless from where ever we believe it comes from. Though we may think so, there is no religion that has Love all bundled up to it's own. And Love is cultivated in as many ways as there are Human Beings.

 

[FireDragon76]

You're likely familiar with apophatic theology / God without attributes.

As an atheist, you do not reject a set of supposed attributes, but you reject God.

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God. "Reject" is a stronger term than warranted. Merely lacking belief is not necessarily the same as rejection.

Polemical apologetics used against atheists and non-Christians are unhelpful and don't serve good ends.

 

[David Lamb]

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God. "Reject" is a stronger term than warranted. Merely lacking belief is not necessarily the same as rejection.

Polemical apologetics used against atheists and non-Christians are unhelpful and don't serve good ends.

No, I suppose it would be better to say something like, "reject the truth of God's existence." To reject God, supposes that you believe He exists.