Is life a good or bad thing for Christians?

[FireDragon76]

Christ in us is doing it all. We make our confessions of faith according to God's promises, and He watches over His word to perform it.

What we do is find out the promises of God, then we labor in faith. We live by faith. Not by works of the flesh.

Fair enough, but it's a bit intellectual dishonest to say that Buddhism for instance, is a religion of "works", but Christianity is not.

 

[fwGod]

Fair enough, but it's a bit intellectual dishonest to say that Buddhism for instance, is a religion of "works", but Christianity is not.

On the contrary, what you've done is intellectually dishonest. You read my posts, say "fair enough but".. then try again to compare Buddhist works with Christianity works.

As I've stated previously, Buddism has works for the person to make effort on their own to better their life.

While the works of Christianity are the deeds that are wrought by God (see my previous post with all quotes of God doing the work).

The difference between the two is
Bhuddist: self works
Christianity: God works

Not the same.

 

[FireDragon76]

On the contrary, what you've done is intellectually dishonest. You read my posts, say "fair enough but".. then try again to compare Buddhist works with Christianity works.

As I've stated previously, Buddism has works for the person to make effort on their own to better their life.

While the works of Christianity are the deeds that are wrought by God (see my previous post with all quotes of God doing the work).

If they are deeds wrought by God, then why do you describe expectations of what the believer does after they are "saved"?

The difference between the two is
Bhuddist: self works
Christianity: God works

Whatever. Have your smug satisfaction that we are just idiots at the grindstone.

Such a "God" is meaningless anyways.

 

[fwGod]

If they are deeds wrought by God, then why do you describe expectations of what the believer does after they are "saved"?

Where did I do that? Except in replying to someone's question that was similar to yours right here.

Whatever. Have your smug satisfaction that we are just idiots at the grindstone.

On the contrary the Bhuddist be prideful in him/herself because what they achieve is by their own efforts.

Such a thing is not possible with Christianity
The text is written as the wisdom of God speaking personally.
Prov.8:13 "To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech."

For God to do works in a believer takes humility before God, faith in His promises and patience in expecting Him to perform the works.
Rom.4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about-but not before God."
Rom.4:3 "For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

There's no pride to those who rely on God. There's no pride to those who speak what God's word says in response to a question.

Such a "God" is meaningless anyways.

The God of the Bible who does His work through the believer is not meaningless when compared to the religion that has no God in it at all., but merely the words of a mortal man named Bhuddah who has no claim to divinity.

In contrast the Judeo-Christian religion is of Triune Divinity.. Jesus said in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life."

 

[FireDragon76]

Where did I do that? Except in replying to someone's question that was similar to yours right here.
On the contrary the Bhuddist be prideful in him/herself because what they achieve is by their own efforts.

What a ridiculous polemic. You understand very little about Buddhism.

There are countless beings that follow the Dharma for the benefit of themselves and others. That is far, far away from spiritual narcissism. I would say you are the one projecting that onto us. You are the one that believes in an eternal hell for everybody but people like you... Buddhists do not believe in that.

The God of the Bible who does His work through the believer is not meaningless when compared to the religion that has no God in it at all., but merely the words of a mortal man named Bhuddah who has no claim to divinity.

Buddha was the teacher of "gods and men". That makes him superior, in the Buddhist eyes, to any god.

 

[fwGod]

What a ridiculous polemic. You understand very little about Buddhism.

By the same reasoning I could say that you understand very little about Christianity.

Your opinions against me [that I'm being smug] is ad hominem which is not permitted.

and against God [that He's meaningless] is likewise a ridiculous polemic.

There are countless beings that follow the Dharma for the benefit of themselves and others. That is far, far away from spiritual narcissism.
I would say you are the one projecting that onto us.

Except that I was not the one who hinted that you were narcissistic.. you hinted it concerning me. Therefore you are projecting onto me.

All of this is aside from comparing your venerate book passages with the Bible.

The matter of what Bhuddists do came directly from the person who stated in his post that he was working his way to peace, which would mean, by his own efforts.

You are the one that believes in an eternal hell for everybody but people like you... Buddhists do not believe in that.

That is opening up another can of beans.. as if we don't have enough on our plate now.

Buddha was the teacher of "gods and men". That makes him superior, in the Buddhist eyes, to any god.

That doesn't make him superior in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian Most High God who is far above any name that is named.

Unless there is a cessation of scattershots of accusations from you and rather an offering of verses in your book for me to compare with the Bible, I will leave you to give your opinions to others.

 

[FireDragon76]

By the same reasoning I could say that you understand very little about Christianity.

And you would be wrong. I'm very familiar with Christian theology of various denominations.

All of this is aside from comparing your venerate book passages with the Bible.

So? Buddhists do not believe in infallible books, it's not the basis for the religion. Buddhism is rooted in actual human experience.

That doesn't make him superior in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian Most High God who is far above any name that is named.

I'm saying not all religions or philosophies are concerned with a Creator God. Buddhism is not. It's just as meaningless from a Buddhist perspective to assert what God does or doesn't want, just as it would be to assert what the Great and Powerful Oz commands. Neither are the basis for Buddhist praxis or ethics.

Unless there is a cessation of scattershots of accusations from you and rather an offering of verses in your book for me to compare with the Bible, I will leave you to give your opinions to others.

I'm not into comparing books. The spiritually blind base their life off books.

 

[fwGod]

And you would be wrong. I'm very familiar with Christian theology of various denominations.

saying that hardly matters since you don't quote from any of them to prove it.

So? Buddhists do not believe in infallible books, it's not the basis for the religion.

Buddhism falls into the group of religions that have multiple holy texts and the vast amount of Buddhist scriptures treasures the teachings of the Buddha, his disciples, the monks and the different sects of the religion that evolved eventually. Thus, talking of the scriptures of Buddhism on the whole, we can list the Pali Canon, Sanskrit Canon, Mahayana scriptures, Tantric scriptures and the Tibetan and Mongolian Canon.

Buddhism is rooted in actual human experience.

My life has been rooted in human experience too. The times that my parents took me to church. The day that I asked Jesus into my heart. Every day that I pray to my heavenly Father and study from a copy of His words.

I'm saying not all religions or philosophies are concerned with a Creator God. Buddhism is not.

That is what I've been saying.

It's just as meaningless from a Buddhist perspective to assert what God does or doesn't want,

Yet you can no doubt assert what Bhudda wants for his disciples.

just as it would be to assert what the Great and Powerful Oz commands.

The comparison equally has nothing to do with Christianity.

Neither are the basis for Buddhist praxis or ethics.

I haven't heard of anyone making a religion out of the sayings, teachings, life and times of the wizard of Oz.

I'm not into comparing books.

But you are not reluctant to use twoo as a non-comparison.

The spiritually blind base their life off books.

That would include all bhuddists who value Bhudda's books. And therefore include you.

The spiritually blind don't have any spiritual direction, an example would be atheists.

But those who follow the teachings of religious leaders have direction, therefore they would tell anyone that they are not blind.

 

[ananda]

Buddhism falls into the group of religions that have multiple holy texts and the vast amount of Buddhist scriptures treasures the teachings of the Buddha, his disciples, the monks and the different sects of the religion that evolved eventually. Thus, talking of the scriptures of Buddhism on the whole, we can list the Pali Canon, Sanskrit Canon, Mahayana scriptures, Tantric scriptures and the Tibetan and Mongolian Canon.

If the word "scripture" implies infallibility, then our actual scriptures are the laws governing reality itself (the Dhamma). All of the various Buddhist writings - even those attributed to the Buddha Himself - are essentially commentaries by masters of various ability on those laws, the actual scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

saying that hardly matters since you don't quote from any of them to prove it.
Buddhism falls into the group of religions that have multiple holy texts and the vast amount of Buddhist scriptures treasures the teachings of the Buddha, his disciples, the monks and the different sects of the religion that evolved eventually. Thus, talking of the scriptures of Buddhism on the whole, we can list the Pali Canon, Sanskrit Canon, Mahayana scriptures, Tantric scriptures and the Tibetan and Mongolian Canon.
My life has been rooted in human experience too. The times that my parents took me to church. The day that I asked Jesus into my heart. Every day that I pray to my heavenly Father and study from a copy of His words.
That is what I've been saying.
Yet you can no doubt assert what Bhudda wants for his disciples.
The comparison equally has nothing to do with Christianity.
I haven't heard of anyone making a religion out of the sayings, teachings, life and times of the wizard of Oz.
But you are not reluctant to use twoo as a non-comparison.
That would include all bhuddists who value Bhudda's books. And therefore include you.

Buddha wrote no books.

You are very wrong when you try to equate the Pali canon or the Agamas with the Bible. Buddhists do no have doctrines such as infallibility or inerrancy of the scriptures, nor do we have a doctrine of inspiration and are open to honest, scientific inquiry about the world... unlike many Christians.

The spiritually blind don't have any spiritual direction, an example would be atheists.

That amounts to libel against an entire group of people, merely because their ideas about the world don't match up with what you think they should be.

 

[FireDragon76]

If the word "scripture" implies infallibility, then our actual scriptures are the laws governing reality itself (the Dhamma). All of the various Buddhist writings - even those attributed to the Buddha Himself - are essentially commentaries by masters of various ability on those laws, the actual scripture.

Indeed, the Buddha himself in the Kalama Sutta dismisses the notion that scriptures can be an ultimate authority- he was against "sola scriptura".

 

[Kaon]

I will just put you in ignore for a few days. Maybe things get better after that.

I had to do the same thing.

 

[fwGod]

Buddha wrote no books.

You are very wrong when you try to equate the Pali canon or the Agamas with the Bible. Buddhists do no have doctrines such as infallibility or inerrancy of the scriptures, nor do we have a doctrine of inspiration and are open to honest, scientific inquiry about the world... unlike many Christians.

The following portion was a quote taken as a result of using the search engine, I didn't write it myself.

Buddhism falls into the group of religions that have multiple holy texts and the vast amount of Buddhist scriptures treasures the teachings of the Buddha, his disciples, the monks and the different sects of the religion that evolved eventually. Thus, talking of the scriptures of Buddhism on the whole, we can list the Pali Canon, Sanskrit Canon, Mahayana scriptures, Tantric scriptures and the Tibetan and Mongolian Canon.

The above teachings of Bhudda were not oral teachings only that were passed down from person to person who had extraordinary powers of memory.

That amounts to libel against an entire group of people, merely because their ideas about the world don't match up with what you think they should be.

You are going out of your way to erroneously accuse me of something. But you'll have to take it up with those who put Bhudda's teachings in books.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello,

Is life a good or bad thing for Christians?
And if it's a good thing, how do you explain that the “Paradise“ of one of the major religion of the world consist in getting out of the cycle of life (Nirvana with Buddhism) ?
If it doesn't happen like that in Buddhism, correct me please, I am ignorant about this religion.

Thank you for your answers!

Yes, life is a good thing in Christianity. We think it's such a good thing that our hope is that it's forever, that is why we put our hope in the resurrection of the dead.

You'd have to ask your question about samsara to a Buddhist. As a Christian I can't speak for Buddhists and what and why they believe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gogogo]

Thank you all for your answers!

Yes, life is a good thing in Christianity. We think it's such a good thing that our hope is that it's forever, that is why we put our hope in the resurrection of the dead.

But I believe in Christianity only the good sides of life are conserved in the life after death, no more evil people nor health problem nor death.
So that's not the same life.

 

[Quackduck]

Thank you all for your answers!


But I believe in Christianity only the good sides of life are conserved in the life after death, no more evil people nor health problem nor death.
So that's not the same life.

The Biblical god is evil, imo.