Why Buddhism Is True (by Robert Wright)

[dlamberth]

That's not what Jesus said. He said, 'I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father except by me."

I understand. But what I see is what I see. And what I see is that the Light of God is much bigger than Jesus.

Either Jesus was being very arrogant about Himself or He was telling the absolute truth.

I know. [/quote]
I go with option 3. That he is being miss-understood.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Who could understand ? He Is the Light. He and the Father are Echad (One).

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily ...

https://biblehub.com/colossians/2-9.htm
For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ, International Standard Version because all the essence of deity inhabits him in bodily form.
‎Colossians 2:9 KJV · ‎Colossians 2:9 Commentaries · ‎Colossians 2:9 ESV

 

[Rajni]

I don't know of anyone in any other religion except Christianity that has a person to person fellowship with God in which they talk to God and God talks back to them. Moses talked with God face to face as one friend to another. No other person in any other religion ever had that encounter with their god. No other person other than Jesus has ever mixed with people, healed the sick, cast out demons, and said to his followers, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", in other words those who see him are seeing the Living God. The reason why Jesus was crucified is that the Jewish religious leaders objected to Him referring to Himself as God.

So, either Jesus was mad, a liar, or He was telling the truth about himself. No other religion has had a human being claim to be the Living God and then proving it by countless miraculous acts, and then coming back from the dead, which was witnessed by 500 people at the time, and then fellowshiped with His disciples for 40 days afterward and then rose to disappear into the clouds, saying that He will come again one day in the same manner as He rose up into the clouds.

I also don't know of any religion other than Sanatana Dharma where God was able to replicate Himself to dance with each individual devotee simultaneously, either (the rasa lila). Again, each religion has its own unique characteristics, as well as things in common with each other.

I have a question to ask you. When Jesus was put in the tomb and was there for three days, and then the witnesses saw the tomb empty with the grave clothes neatly folded, who actually moved the stone to allow Him to come out?

I wasn't there, so I can only go by religious conditioning / hearsay. I believe God (Vishnu, among other names) would be capable of moving the stone, but my believing that doesn't really depend on any particular religion I espouse at any given time. God is God, so He can do such things with a flick of the wrist, if even that. Hinduism credits Him for being able to lift a mountain with His pinky, so yeah...

 

[Robban]

I don't know of anyone in any other religion except Christianity that has a person to person fellowship with God in which they talk to God and God talks back to them. Moses talked with God face to face as one friend to another. No other person in any other religion ever had that encounter with their god. No other person other than Jesus has ever mixed with people, healed the sick, cast out demons, and said to his followers, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", in other words those who see him are seeing the Living God. The reason why Jesus was crucified is that the Jewish religious leaders objected to Him referring to Himself as God.

So, either Jesus was mad, a liar, or He was telling the truth about himself. No other religion has had a human being claim to be the Living God and then proving it by countless miraculous acts, and then coming back from the dead, which was witnessed by 500 people at the time, and then fellowshiped with His disciples for 40 days afterward and then rose to disappear into the clouds, saying that He will come again one day in the same manner as He rose up into the clouds.

I have a question to ask you. When Jesus was put in the tomb and was there for three days, and then the witnesses saw the tomb empty with the grave clothes neatly folded, who actually moved the stone to allow Him to come out?

"God has spoken to me"

Is probably the main cause of divisionn, strife, and all the troubles.

God communicates with mankind through prophesy,

If a prediction comes true it, has succeeded,
if a prophesy comes true it has failed.

The Prophet tells of the future that will happen if we do not mend our ways,
They do not predict, they warn.

The Prophets were not kings or members of the royal courts.

They were (usually) not priests or members of a religious establishment.

They held no office, they were not elected.

Often they were deeply unpopular,
only rarely were the Prophets heeded,

one exeption is Jonah.

They were the worlds first social critics, and their message continues through the centuries.

As Kirkegaard almost said:

"When a king dies, his power ends.
when a Prophet dies his influence begins."

 

[dlamberth]

I also don't know of any religion other than Sanatana Dharma where God was able to replicate Himself to dance with each individual devotee simultaneously, either (the rasa lila).

As I understand it, the dance of Sanatana Dharma is a dance with the entire universe. The devotees consist of all that exist.
The magic happens when we are able to dance with God as He dances with each each individual.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This in my view is one of the great strengths of Buddhism; while there are surely Buddhists who'll argue over which tradition is "best" or more true to the original etc, there really isn't supposed to be one single way that everybody must, or at least should, believe and act. When I was a Christian, there was always a question of which denomination had it Right(tm) regarding this or that theological point. One good thing I'm learning from Buddhism is that questions like that are pointless and I don't even need to ask which particular brand of Buddhism (or any other religion/philosophy for that matter) is "more true". In Buddhism I find a lot of things I can do, while in Christianity there were first and foremost things to believe. For me personally, Buddhism simply works better for achieving my goal, which is to reduce suffering and find freedom.

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?

There is no denomination that is totally correct. God is not Christian denominations, and Christian denominations are not God. They are man-made organisations set up to try and find God in particular ways. The visible church is divided up according to the different perceptions and doctrinal beliefs of groups of people. Most new denominations have occurred because a group of people have disagreed with their established denomination and gone out and formed their own group which has turned into a denomination.

God is totally separate from that. He is neutral. This is why we see little of the power of the Holy Spirit in churches (regardless of the pretenses and claims of some). It is because God will not favour one factional group over another.

God is His own person. He is totally separate from the denominational Christian church. If one is to establish contact with God it has to be from the heart and not through a denomination.

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 have just left a church which I have been associated with for the last 22 years as an elder and preacher (as the result of a bullying incident where I was the victim), but I have not left God or Jesus. I still have the same personal fellowship with Him and He with me. I was associated with that church only as long as God wanted me to be. I have withdrawn from it, because He has given me leave to do it. It is because Jesus is my Lord and not the church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Or the strong probability that the events didn't transpire at all. Or were embellished upon at a much later point.

Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" has been a pretty interesting read (or listen, in my case) on the topic. It's kept me engaged from start to finish on a subject that I thought would bore the crap out of me.

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.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There's a fourth option though: what we read about Jesus in the bible isn't in fact an accurate record of what he said and did.

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.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't know too much about the multitude of religions out there. I know a lot about Christianity and a little about Buddhism. The Christian gospel is obviously the ultimate and only way to salvation, but that presumes that you accept its premises to begin with. I mean, before talking about the only way to God, I would have to know that there is a God and that there's a way to him. Personally I don't know that.

That is because you have never sought Him with all your heart. Unless you do, you will never find Him.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Deleted,
looks like Oscarr has been called away, maybe to help the mrs,

who knows.

I took a break and watched a TV movie with my wife.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"God has spoken to me"

Is probably the main cause of divisionn, strife, and all the troubles.

God communicates with mankind through prophesy,

If a prediction comes true it, has succeeded,
if a prophesy comes true it has failed.

The Prophet tells of the future that will happen if we do not mend our ways,
They do not predict, they warn.

The Prophets were not kings or members of the royal courts.

They were (usually) not priests or members of a religious establishment.

They held no office, they were not elected.

Often they were deeply unpopular,
only rarely were the Prophets heeded,

one exeption is Jonah.

They were the worlds first social critics, and their message continues through the centuries.

As Kirkegaard almost said:

"When a king dies, his power ends.
when a Prophet dies his influence begins."

It depends on how the statement "God has spoken to me" is used. If it is used to manipulate others or to demonstrate that I am closer to God than others around me, then I am using it falsely.

There are many who say, "God has spoken to me" therefore you must listen to me otherwise you are rejecting God. What this is really saying is that "I am a god, because the Living God has spoken to me and therefore you must accept my authority because if you reject what I am saying you are rebelling against the Living God."

I see these people as false prophets to whom God has not spoken at all. They have made it up out of their own heads.

I see my friendship with God as a personal relationship in which He gives me insights and wisdom about how to live a meaningful life and how to effectively serve others.

it is not to go around dictating to others because "God has spoken to me and therefore you have to believe what I say". Anything I say here or anywhere else is just my personal view and I don't take the Lord's name in vain by putting His Name to anything I say.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As I understand it, the dance of Sanatana Dharma is a dance with the entire universe. The devotees consist of all that exist.
The magic happens when we are able to dance with God as He dances with each each individual.

Sounds like Pantheism to me.

 

[Robban]

It depends on how the statement "God has spoken to me" is used. If it is used to manipulate others or to demonstrate that I am closer to God than others around me, then I am using it falsely.

There are many who say, "God has spoken to me" therefore you must listen to me otherwise you are rejecting God. What this is really saying is that "I am a god, because the Living God has spoken to me and therefore you must accept my authority because if you reject what I am saying you are rebelling against the Living God."

I see these people as false prophets to whom God has not spoken at all. They have made it up out of their own heads.

I see my friendship with God as a personal relationship in which He gives me insights and wisdom about how to live a meaningful life and how to effectively serve others.

it is not to go around dictating to others because "God has spoken to me and therefore you have to believe what I say". Anything I say here or anywhere else is just my personal view and I don't take the Lord's name in vain by putting His Name to anything I say.

Exactly, and in line with your post #66.

I know what you mean, But we call that divine inspiration.

A lesser form of prophesy.

 

[dlamberth]

Sounds like Pantheism to me.

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

 

[dlamberth]

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?

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

 

[jacknife]

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

I've always felt an existence of eternity would be more of a punishment anyways. It would truly rob all meaning from life.

 

[jacknife]

Buddhism always interested me, I've always like how it dealt with the afterlife (at least the versions I have been exposed too.) Maybe I'll have to check that book out.

 

[MehGuy]

I'd say Christianity has it's own psychological tricks to reduce suffering, or at least transform suffering into more of a positive. Such as slave morality. Sadly Christianity is less self aware of these psychological tricks.

It would be interesting to see a study about how successful the Buddhist and the Christian (slave morality) are for enhancing one's quality of life. These two paths probably work better or worse depending on the individual.

 

[ananda]

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?

"Death" for us is not a primary problem. It is merely seen as a source of suffering - like any other problem in our lives. By resolving the root issue regarding suffering, all other problems that stem from it take care of themselves - death included.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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

Those words look like speaking in tongues to me. My doctor once made a diagnosis of a condition I had and he expressed it in medical language. I told him that he was speaking in tongues and I would try those words in church next Sunday!! He has a sense of humour and we had a chuckle about it.