Why Buddhism Is True (by Robert Wright)

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A promise of eternity.
I don't buy it.
We're in this life now.
Yes, Buddhism works very well in this life.

Trouble is that no Buddhists have ever come back from the dead to tell us if it works in eternity.

 

[dlamberth]

Trouble is that no Buddhists have ever come back from the dead to tell us if it works in eternity.

Neither has any Christian for that matter.

 

[holo]

Maybe I'll have to check that book out.

Highly recommended.

 

[holo]

The principles of Buddhism may work well for a person in this life. But death has to come to us all. What then? Will it take you out into eternity to a bright and joyful future there?

I don't know that there is an afterlife, or a God for that matter. But I think if there is a God who is both interested and capable, then my destiny after death will be up to him, not me. What happens after death, if anything, is a matter of pure speculation.

If you are judging God and Jesus Christ through a denomination, then you are mistaken and it is no wonder that you became frustrated and disillusioned with the whole shebang.

I wouldn't say I'm judging God through denominations, but rather the very idea of thinking that you can know something about God. For one thing it was hard to figure out who was right about what. And could I trust my own personal interpretations to be better than a gazillion other personal interpretations? I began wondering why God wouldn't just give everybody the same message if there was something he wanted us all to know.

 

[holo]

Luke's research was as thorough and scholarly as any other historical research, and he had an advantage over other church and secular historians, he interviewed the people who were there and witnessed first hand the things Jesus did and said. So his account is more accurate of the events than any other history that relies just on documents which were written by the victors in most situations and therefore biased. Luke based his account of Jesus on eye witnesses, while most historians can only offer personal opinions about what has happened throughout history.

That may be true, I'm not educated enough to know. I'd probably believe it still if I had more direct evidence, like answered prayers. While Christianity isn't science, it still often comes with a lot of claims that are testable in principle. For example, does God in fact heal sick people? Not that I've ever seen, so I doubt it.

 

[holo]

That is because you have never sought Him with all your heart.

Oh, I did. I was a believer for more than thirty years, and nothing mattered more to me than God. The most painful thing I've ever gone through was when I lost faith. Jesus was everything to me. I didn't expect to find any kind of peace apart from Christianity.

 

[Robban]

I don't know that there is an afterlife, or a God for that matter. But I think if there is a God who is both interested and capable, then my destiny after death will be up to him, not me. What happens after death, if anything, is a matter of pure speculation.I wouldn't say I'm judging God through denominations, but rather the very idea of thinking that you can know something about God. For one thing it was hard to figure out who was right about what. And could I trust my own personal interpretations to be better than a gazillion other personal interpretations? I began wondering why God wouldn't just give everybody the same message if there was something he wanted us all to know.

You probably would not make a good farmer then.

What,s the point of putting a seed in the ground,

Who knows what will happen to it?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oh, I did. I was a believer for more than thirty years, and nothing mattered more to me than God. The most painful thing I've ever gone through was when I lost faith. Jesus was everything to me. I didn't expect to find any kind of peace apart from Christianity.

I wonder what the trigger was that caused you to lose your faith after more than 30 years? I am not going to speculate on it, but it does intrique me.
I've been through a divorce which separated me from my daughter for 14 years, three redundancies, discrimination because of my Christian faith, and just last week left my church because I was severely and unfairly bullied. None of those things caused me to lose my faith.

It is interesting that my brother, 5 years younger than me, regularly attended the same Sunday school I did, and after that a teenage Bible study. Then something happened to turn him right against the church and against God. He has never told me. He says that even walking past a church makes him very angry. So it must have been a fairly strong trigger that turned him like that.

It's a mystery, but very interesting.

 

[holo]

You probably would not make a good farmer then.

What,s the point of putting a seed in the ground,

Who knows what will happen to it?

If I plant a seed, I have very, very, very good reasons to believe that it'll probably sprout and produce a plant if the conditions are right.

 

[holo]

I wonder what the trigger was that caused you to lose your faith after more than 30 years? I am not going to speculate on it, but it does intrique me.

I don't want to derail the thread, but on the other hand it's rare that a thread sticks to the subject of the OP for more than a few pages.

There wasn't one single trigger or incident that caused me to lose faith. It was a long and very painful process. But there were a few things that contributed more to it than others. For example when I decided to stop praying, to see whether or not prayer had any effect. As far as I could tell, it didn't (other than the feeling of comfort you can get in "pouring out your heart to God" etc). I didn't see anything happening in my life or in the lives of those around me that could reasonably be said to be the result of prayer, yet we would constantly talk about them as if they were. Like if someone's tumor turned out to be benign, or they got a job or whatever. I stopped praying, and didn't notice any difference at all. That doesn't mean nobody's prayers are working, but it does mean mine weren't, even though I thought I had seen it work my whole life. It turned out to be confirmation bias.

 

[Robban]

If I plant a seed, I have very, very, very good reasons to believe that it'll probably sprout and produce a plant if the conditions are right.

What then is faith?

"The secret of faith"

Which is faith that transcends interllect,
this concept cannot be grasped interllectually,
but only through faith.

 

[Zoness]

Luke stated plainly that his research for his gospel was meticulous and thorough and he had interviewed all the eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection. He was there while many of these witnesses were still alive and who witnessed the ministry and miracles of Jesus, heard His teaching. Some were there at His crucifixon and His resurrection. Luke would have interviewed many of the 500 who saw Jesus after his resurrection. His research was just as thorough and scholarly as any other historian whom we accept as genuine.

In fact, there is much more evidence that Jesus lived and was who He said He was, then there is for proving that Julius Caesar was actually a real person.

So if Ehrman is saying something different, then his book is a lot of claptrap and I wouldn't take the time to even read the back cover much less the rest of it.

Well Ehrman is well respected biblical scholar, even by conservative Christians. The gospel itself was written nearly a generation and there's no obvious indication that Luke wrote it at all, though it does appear to be written in his name.

In fact I was surprised to learn most of Paul's Epistles were written before the gospels which is weird to me since the order of the books doesn't imply that.

Still I'm no biblical scholar, I could be wrong. Either way the gospels don't interest me all that much so I generally keep discussions of them to the people who are more interested.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't want to derail the thread, but on the other hand it's rare that a thread sticks to the subject of the OP for more than a few pages.

There wasn't one single trigger or incident that caused me to lose faith. It was a long and very painful process. But there were a few things that contributed more to it than others. For example when I decided to stop praying, to see whether or not prayer had any effect. As far as I could tell, it didn't (other than the feeling of comfort you can get in "pouring out your heart to God" etc). I didn't see anything happening in my life or in the lives of those around me that could reasonably be said to be the result of prayer, yet we would constantly talk about them as if they were. Like if someone's tumor turned out to be benign, or they got a job or whatever. I stopped praying, and didn't notice any difference at all. That doesn't mean nobody's prayers are working, but it does mean mine weren't, even though I thought I had seen it work my whole life. It turned out to be confirmation bias.

What I learned was that 90% of life is just normal routine, no highs or lows - just the normal routine of getting up, having a shower, breakfast, then off to work, come home, stroke the cats, have dinner, watch TV, then off to bed. Day after day.

it's a bit like an airline pilot - mainly routine, but 30 seconds of blind panic!

I can say after 52 years as a Christian, I have not seen a particular answer to prayer, and I have prayed almost without ceasing over that time. I prayed for reconciliation when separated from my first wife, but that didn't happen. I learned that prayer does not change the will of another person who is free to make their own choices. I also have prayed for people with cancer, and not seen them healed.

So, I stopped asking God for stuff, treating Him like a vending machine. My prayer life has been discussions, sharing thoughts, asking for wisdom, help in making decisions. Just last night I told the Lord that my wife would be much happier being closer to our daughter who lives in another city, and it would be good if we moved there. But I can't persuade her because she may feel obligated to comply with my wishes. I told the Lord that the idea had to come from her, and then I would know that it was right to move house to that other city. At our age (me 71, and my wife 69) the logistics of moving house are going to be huge, and so there are a lot of ducks to get in a row for that to happen. If it happens it happens, if not, well, it won't.
There are two Scriptures that come to mind:
"Those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God." What this means to me is that we are being led all the time, and most of the time we don't realise it. It is only when we look back over say the last couple of years that we see some sort of pattern of events what have led us up to this point. Proverbs say that a man may plan his way, but the Lord directs his steps. I think the man is never conscious of being directed.

The other Scripture was that Paul said he was content in whatever circumstances he found himself in, whether positive or negative (my paraphrase).

A good preacher once said that 99% of us will never be famous, never have a great ministry, but will be a small fish in a big pond somewhere just getting on life doing what they can to fellowship with the people around them.

I guess the issue is one of expectation - what we expect from God. I expect nothing. Jesus said that blessed are those who have seen, but also blessed are those who have not seen. I am one who has not seen anything unusual or spectacular but I am assured that I am blessed, nevertheless.

I hope that is helpful in some way.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What then is faith?

"The secret of faith"

Which is faith that transcends interllect,
this concept cannot be grasped interllectually,
but only through faith.

I think that your definition of faith may be "faith in faith"; in other words, "If I can believe it, then it must be true." Technically it is called "existential faith" - faith without a firm foundation. It is a type of a leap of faith where reason is bypassed. Reason, based on evidence or lack of it, may say that something is not true or real. Existential faith bypasses reason and says, "It is true and real because I believe it is."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well Ehrman is well respected biblical scholar, even by conservative Christians. The gospel itself was written nearly a generation and there's no obvious indication that Luke wrote it at all, though it does appear to be written in his name.

In fact I was surprised to learn most of Paul's Epistles were written before the gospels which is weird to me since the order of the books doesn't imply that.

Still I'm no biblical scholar, I could be wrong. Either way the gospels don't interest me all that much so I generally keep discussions of them to the people who are more interested.

When the canon of Scripture was decided by councils of church bishops (around the 4th Century), it involved the cream of the most competent Bible scholars of their time. They would have researched the original of the different books very meticulously and made their decisions accordingly. I really don't think that the finest Biblical minds of the time would have accepted a gospel or epistle unless they knew for a fact that it was genuine.

As far as Luke is concerned, there is a lot of "first person" narrative, especially in Acts, which show that what was written originated from Luke. Although the earliest Greek manuscript we have is from the 4th Century, it is a copy of manuscripts written much earlier, but now are lost. It is quite certain that the originals were written while the eye witnesses were still alive and who could have quite easily confirmed or denied what was written. The fact that no denials happened that would have changed the later copies, shows us that the 4th Century manuscript is faithful to the original (except maybe for a few "cosmetic" typographical errors).

I don't have a problem with the gospels written after the epistles. Paul wrote for the churches he was involved with at the time of his ministry and his time in prison. The originals would have been copied and distributed around the churches, and so the copies we have would have been copies of copies if the earliest ones we have are from the 4th Century.

There would have been no need to have written accounts of the life of Jesus while the actual witnesses of His life and ministry and of the actual events were still alive. But the written accounts of the gospels were necessary for succeeding generations who were not there at the time when Jesus was present, and were to testify to His death and resurrection so that these successive generations would believe in Him.

It was only in the 19th Century that "Higher Criticism" of the Bible emerged, and that is when the doubts as it the authenticity of the accounts started to emerge. This higher criticism has been corrupted by the views of Aristotle and Plato, pagan Greek philosophers and therefore is not a reliable way of attesting the truth of what has been written in the gospels and epistles.

 

[Robban]

I think that your definition of faith may be "faith in faith"; in other words, "If I can believe it, then it must be true." Technically it is called "existential faith" - faith without a firm foundation. It is a type of a leap of faith where reason is bypassed. Reason, based on evidence or lack of it, may say that something is not true or real. Existential faith bypasses reason and says, "It is true and real because I believe it is."

Nope.

 

[Robban]

Nope.

A faith that transcends interllect.

Why is the head connected to the body by a narrow channel?

To allow what is Godly to trickle down to Godly part of the soul,
Which may be thirsting.

The mind and heart of man is never empty,
if there is no nourishingwater/Torah
there are snakes and scorpions.

They cast him into the well, (Joseph)
the well was empty, there was no water in it.

 

[dlamberth]

I think that your definition of faith may be "faith in faith"; in other words, "If I can believe it, then it must be true." Technically it is called "existential faith" - faith without a firm foundation. It is a type of a leap of faith where reason is bypassed. Reason, based on evidence or lack of it, may say that something is not true or real. Existential faith bypasses reason and says, "It is true and real because I believe it is."

Just trying to understand what was written here and it isn't how I understood Robban's words. I think he's going a bit deeper than you are.

 

[Rajni]

Panenthesim, actually. It's a picture of the Divine as Immanent.

Immanent and Omnipresent. The following image is from a blog of mine (one I
haven't updated in ages), illustrating this. The quote, which sums it up well,
is from Tozer.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Just trying to understand what was written here and it isn't how I understood Robban's words. I think he's going a bit deeper than you are.

Faith is not a power in itself. Faith is a dependence on something tangible. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, because the conclusive evidence is that it rises every morning. I could adopt a belief that the sun won't rise tomorrow morning and if I was a subscriber to existential faith, then I would expect there to be no sunrise, because I have decided to believe it.

I can believe that if I take a lotto ticket I have a chance of winning a prize. This is substantial faith. But if I decided to believe that if I take a lotto ticket I will win first prize in next Saturday's draw, that is faith without a foundation. It is true for me because I believe it, not because it would be objectively true based on substantive evidence. I might win on Saturday and then because the odds of winning in my country are 3.5 million to one, it is not likely.