Why do good buddhist monks go to hell?

[tcampen]

Then we must ask why doesn't God just scoop up the entire human race into heaven in His love and mercy? You are leaving out His justice.

He is completely willing to feed all 100 people starving to death. But He can't feed them if they don't accept the food. He can't save them if they don't accept Jesus. See the analogy?

I see your application, but my analogy, "food" was eternity in heaven, not Jesus. Jesus was the hoop to jump thru to get the food. By creating such a hoop at all, God is being less merciful than he would be than without it.

If you believe Jesus' concept in forgiveness, then I'm sure you believe other things He has said, such as there is no other name under heaven by which a man may be saved, and that no one comes to the Father but through Him. If Ghandi was preached the Gospel of Christ and did not forsake His ways of error and follow Christ, He has not accepted the food that was so FREELY offered to Him.

I believe in the concept of forgiveness as being a virtue. I can look at so many people who (claim to be) saved Christains and compare them to Ghandi, and they don't hold a candle. It seems odd god wouldn't recognize this.

 

[tcampen]

Of course there is a huge difference between the two and the Bible states that someone like Stalin will have it far worse on the day of judgement than Ghandi.

Says who? How can hell be worse for some than for others? What part of eternity is not as bad for some?

But nevertheless Ghandi was a good person that helped alot of people, but however important it is in this life how we treat other people, its more important how we treat God. If we have a proper relationship with Him then we will treat others as we should. Your statement also ignores the fact that however a good person Ghandi was, he still sinned, he was still seperated from God and chose not to restore that relationship with him. He was created for the sole purpose to bear Gods image and have loving relationship with Him - as we all are.

First, there is no saved christian that is any less a sinner than Ghandi, so that point is irrelevant. Second, you have no clue about Ghandi's relationship with God, other than he wasn't a christian. I believe his spirituality was extremely powerful as a Hindu and it was the power of (his) god that allowed him to act with such wisdom and compassion unmatched by a vast majority of christains. If the proof is in the pudding, I can't see how Ghandi has anything to worry about in the afterlife.

 

[TWells]

Says who? How can hell be worse for some than for others? What part of eternity is not as bad for some?

The scriptures refers many times to 'degrees' of Hell. Im not sure which version your thinking of but Biblical Hell is not the Dante's bunsen burner version that most are commonly familiar with. Hell as it shown in scripture is seperation from God and a 'reep what you sow' place.

First, there is no saved christian that is any less a sinner than Ghandi, so that point is irrelevant.

First, that wasnt my point nor did I ever say that. My point was that simply because Ghandi was a better man than Stalin it isnt his works that will restore his relationship with God and that Ghandi will not be punished as much as Stalin.

Second, you have no clue about Ghandi's relationship with God, other than he wasn't a christian. I believe his spirituality was extremely powerful as a Hindu and it was the power of (his) god that allowed him to act with such wisdom and compassion unmatched by a vast majority of christains. If the proof is in the pudding, I can't see how Ghandi has anything to worry about in the afterlife.

Then may I ask whats the point in even asking the question or participating in the thread? If your asserting the Christian God is unfair for sending people to Hell, then dont you have to at least for the sake of argument assume that Christianity is true??

 

[Caedmon]

I have a question. Why hasn't Rainangel responded in this thread?

 

[tcampen]

The scriptures refers many times to 'degrees' of Hell. Im not sure which version your thinking of but Biblical Hell is not the Dante's bunsen burner version that most are commonly familiar with. Hell as it shown in scripture is seperation from God and a 'reep what you sow' place.

If that's true then works do play a part in the afterlife. This appears to contradict what others have been saying.

First, that wasnt my point nor did I ever say that. My point was that simply because Ghandi was a better man than Stalin it isnt his works that will restore his relationship with God and that Ghandi will not be punished as much as Stalin.

Then if works are irrelevant to the issue of salvation, then there is no real consequences from god for committed immoral acts, for these acts don't get you in or out of heaven. Thus, if your god's morality is without consequences, how can it be considered immoral at all. (but I'm getting off track here, sorry.)

Then may I ask whats the point in even asking the question or participating in the thread?

Just trying to spread the good news, tho it might be a little different from your version.

If your asserting the Christian God is unfair for sending people to Hell, then dont you have to at least for the sake of argument assume that Christianity is true??

I am arguing off the stated premise, so yes. It's an "if, then" concept. However, to state "Christianity is true" presupposes there is only one concept of Christianity. Most people in America, which is 85% Christian, believe that works IS good enough to get you into heaven, rather than faith alone. This implies that a great number of christians, probably most, do not subscribe to the "salvation by faith not works" model. (see barna.org) So I'm not sure which christianity you're referring to. Yours, or that of the majority.

Perhaps it would be more intellectually honest to say "my view of Christianity," or something similar.

Finally, I'm not saying its "unfair," but rather that concept of god, and holding him to be omnibenevolent and the ultimate expression of mercy and love, is inconsistent on its face - in my opinion - evaluating the argument objectively. that's all.

 

[EltronRangamma]

Posted in another thread:

"Imagine a heaven like this:

"Hey, it's you!!"

"Yeah i didn't expect you here!!"

"How'd you get here?"

"Oh I emancipated a million people from an overbearing and intolerable dictator, established orphanages, and never swore in my life."

"You're the man!"

"Oh I know I am."

Pride, in its lowest and ugliest form, is probably the Greatest Sin in the Bible; that is why good works and ritual as sole properties will never make a man heaven-bound - heaven will be teeming with people, despite their 'divine' transfigurations, contaminated with pride ... it will be like life on earth again, except with INCORRUPTIBLE BODIES!

GOD makes no exception for ANY SIN, and that INCLUDES THE GREATEST SIN AMONG ALL SINS, PRIDE!!

That's why I believe JESUS is TRUTH; it ain't synthetic hobblegosh that the clergy passes as dogma.

So i will make a bold statement by saying I believe the Christian conception of God is right because it demarcates itself from other religions as a religion that teaches grace and humility. Grace and humility...ain't to be found in the other sacred religions...and if they are found, they are usually a means to an end..correct me if i'm wrong...that is what i ascertained."

 

[tcampen]

Posted in another thread:

"Imagine a heaven like this:

"Hey, it's you!!"

"Yeah i didn't expect you here!!"

"How'd you get here?"

"Oh I emancipated a million people from an overbearing and intolerable dictator, established orphanages, and never swore in my life."

"You're the man!"

"Oh I know I am."

Pride, in its lowest and ugliest form, is probably the Greatest Sin in the Bible; that is why good works and ritual as sole properties will never make a man heaven-bound - heaven will be teeming with people, despite their 'divine' transfigurations, contaminated with pride ... it will be like life on earth again, except with INCORRUPTIBLE BODIES!

GOD makes no exception for ANY SIN, and that INCLUDES THE GREATEST SIN AMONG ALL SINS, PRIDE!!

Fine, show me Ghandi's pride that you seem to find so clear. Yes, the record is SO CLEAR that such sacrafices by good people were done for pride, rather than altruism. What? No, I think I missed something there.

As far as the "greates sins among sins" goes...two things. That statement seems to contradict other christains in these forums who claim all sins are equally bad in the eyes of god. And two, if some sins are worse than others, I can't believe you'd put pride above mass genocide. But that's just my silly sense of morality and the value of human life creeping in. Sorry, my bad.

That's why I believe JESUS is TRUTH; it ain't synthetic hobblegosh that the clergy passes as dogma.

So i will make a bold statement by saying I believe the Christian conception of God is right because it demarcates itself from other religions as a religion that teaches grace and humility. Grace and humility...ain't to be found in the other sacred religions...and if they are found, they are usually a means to an end..correct me if i'm wrong...that is what i ascertained."

Humility most certain IS to be found in other religions, in fact most if not all of them. Grace in the christian sense is unique, very true. But if uniqueness is the basis for believing a in particular religion, then I don't see why you picked Christianity over other religions. In fact, I see Buddhism as being at least as unique as Christianity. How is Grace and Humility not a means to an end within Christianity? Guess I'm not fully appreciating the point you're trying to make. But hey, if it works for you, then by all means go for it.

 

[vajradhara]

So i will make a bold statement by saying I believe the Christian conception of God is right because it demarcates itself from other religions as a religion that teaches grace and humility. Grace and humility...ain't to be found in the other sacred religions...and if they are found, they are usually a means to an end..correct me if i'm wrong...that is what i ascertained."

Namaste EltronRangamma,

thank you for the post.

that's classic.. first you claim that no other religion teaches grace and humility. realizing that, in fact, most of them do teach grace and humility you simply discard their teachings as being "a means to an end" and quite easily discard the rest of it. priceless!

grace and humility are inconsequential to the condition of your saved soul, works are not important as you've already detailed. so.. the only reason for a Christian to behave with grace and humility has also got to be "a means to an end" i'm just curious what end it may be...

 

[tcampen]

vajradhara, that's crazy, I think we're on a wavelength here or something.

 

[vajradhara]

vajradhara, that's crazy, I think we're on a wavelength here or something.

hehe indeed... i've seen that happen on a few other threads as well it makes for interesting reading

 

[wonder111]

To the original poster, I wanted to recommend a couple of books, one is "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hahn,

and another one written by Don Richardson (a missionary) called "eternity in their hearts" which does prove that God's truth is indeed "written on our hearts and in our conscience" therefore accessible to everyone.

 

[radorth]

IMO the Bible does have some minor contradictions, such as the geneologies and in Matthew's passion and/or resurrection accounts. We can argue about it all day, but I've concluded a few small contradictions keeps the gnat swatters out of heaven. For that I do praise God. They waste far too much of my time, and would continue to do so even if saved I'm afraid.

As for Buddhists going to heaven, that is not for me to judge, and even Paul asks, "what have I to do with judging outsiders?" If we'd judge ourselves, there'd be more Buddhist conversions I suspect. Further, I find no evidence in the Bible that one who has not heard the complete Gospel as Jesus taught and demonstrated it is under any onus to believe. Jesus allowd that some only believed because of his miracles and accepted same.

Except for a single interpolated verse at the end of Mark, there is no scripture which clearly says an unbeliever is automatically ******. In fact there are several scriptures which indicate to the contrary.

Perhaps we can agree that mercy triumphs over judgement in any case. In my long considered opinion, the only clear requirement for salvation is a genuine thirst for righteousness.

Rad

 

[vajradhara]

To the original poster, I wanted to recommend a couple of books, one is "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hahn,

and another one written by Don Richardson (a missionary) called "eternity in their hearts" which does prove that God's truth is indeed "written on our hearts and in our conscience" therefore accessible to everyone.

Namaste wonder111,

thank you for the post.

Yes, i've read that book, quite good in most respects i think. though i would have to disagree that mr. richardson's book "proves" God's truth.. though it is interesting that is the same claim that Islam makes.. i.e. that God's truth is written upon your heart so you really have no excuse for continuing to believe as you do

i, as you might imagine, disagree with this claim.

 

[Caedmon]

I believe that humans have at least a basic sense for morality and conscience, and I believe that that's what the man is getting at. For instance, most people would realize that cold-blooded murder of another person is wrong, I think.

 

[Truncate]

Please me understand this question. Why should truely GOOD people who may or may not have heard the message of Jesus Christ spend eternity in hell, eternally separated from God? I am a Christian, and I recently went through a questioning phase, but have come out of it with renewed faith. BUT my questions remain unanswered. That is okay for me because I believe anyway, but what about my ex-boyfriend, who used to be an atheist and has how turned to Buddhism? He is respectful of Christianity, and has even read the Bible, but his questions and objections reguarding Christianity are too hard to counter. We broke up 2 days ago, and are both hurting over it. The reason is because I've always known in the back of my mind that I shouldn't marry him because he is a nonbeliever, and we know we shouldn't get more attached to eachother if ultimately it will not work. I am also respectful of Buddhism and have read much about it with him. Buddhist teachings are very wise and honorable, I think. They teach compassion for all mankind and selflessness. I still care deeply about my ex-boyfriend, and wish I had more to say in defence of Christianity. He is a very moral person, who is innately honest and of good, compassionate character, but he is not a Christian.

Going by empirical evidence alone, there is no such thing as hell or any afterlife-punishment. Don't allow religious texts written by humans, and other people create fear and sadness in you. The world and life is difficult enough as it is, without all this religious-fear-hatemongering.

 

[EltronRangamma]

Rainangel, you should consider the fact that people(Abraham, David, etc) went to heaven despite their taking precedence over Jesus.

Read the following, since all this is very hard to articulate, by Christian-Thinktank.com's Glen Miller:

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14.6)



"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matt 11.27)



God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished -- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3.25ff)


Notice that Jesus is somehow necessary for ANYONE's salvation--even those BEFORE His time on earth. God the Father accepted that future sacrifice (ahead of time) of the historical Jesus Christ as the basis of forgiveness in the OT. (Also, please remember that the pre-incarnate Son of God was active in creation and revelation BEFORE assuming a human body in history.)


This does NOT necessarily require (in all cases) the recipient of that forgiveness to know the name 'Jesus Christ'--obvious from the experiences of the OT saints!


Pushback: "But, Glenn, Acts 4:12 SPECIFICALLY says that there is no other 'NAME' whereby we must be saved--it looks TO ME that the name of "Jesus" IS critical! Are you denying this verse, glenn? Are you ashamed of the name of Jesus? Are you seeking to compromise the demands of the Gospel, in favor of some idol of tolerance? Are you denying the Lord in your lust for intellectual respectability, according to the standards of the world? Are you soft-pedaling the gospel to make it more 'acceptable' to reprobates? Are you [insert YOUR favorite 'pious-putdown' or Christian slander-slogan here]?


Response: Actually, I am just trying to interpret the verse according to the author's intention and historical setting. "Name" was normally used in such settings to mean "person with authority". For example, in 4.18, the Sanhedrin "commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus". "Name" referred to the status, dignity, authority of the person.


This can be seen easily by just reflecting upon the difference between " baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8.16) and " baptized into Jesus" (Rom 6.3) / " baptized into Christ" (Gal 3.27). The person is still what is in view.


So Peter H. Davids (More Hard Sayings of the New Testament, p40-41.)

We appeal to Jesus, doing so by name. No other name is appropriate, not in the sense that another of the names for Jesus of Nazareth would be inappropriate, but in the sense that calling upon any other person, religious leader or deity will not work. It will take us to the wrong address, to someone or something which cannot save... Therefore there is no mystical meaning in the name "Jesus."
Finally, note that Hebrews 1 talks about the 'superior name' that Jesus inherited ("SON") and that John speaks of Jesus' name as 'the Word of God' (Rev 19.13; John 1). If Acts 4.12 meant the phonetic word "Jesus", then these designators could not be used. Instead, we find it is perfectly okay with scripture to say things like " you that believe on the name of the Son of God;" (I John 5).

So, it seems to me that if you force this passage into some 'magical name' theory, you have missed the point of the passage and context. It DOES assert the criticality of Jesus to salvation, but in the context of the Sanhedrin--who focused alot on questions of 'where authority came from' (cf. Mt 21.23)--it focused on the exalted mission and credentials of the Messiah."

 

[EltronRangamma]

Fine, show me Ghandi's pride that you seem to find so clear. Yes, the record is SO CLEAR that such sacrafices by good people were done for pride, rather than altruism. What? No, I think I missed something there.

What Gandhi did for his people is unquestionably altruistic, and I am not in the position to determine what his ultimate motives were - but, you are missing the point.

God blessed Gandhi with the heart of compassion, and it is up to Gandhi, as a creation of God, and as an act of submission, to willfully accept his altruistic predispositions as faculties that God blessed him with and in turn, dedicate his social advances to the Person who blessed him with the very faculties that allow him to do so and FINALLY admitting that he is, apart from God, nothing. And apart from that, my friend, it is PRIDE.

As far as the "greates sins among sins" goes...two things. That statement seems to contradict other christains in these forums who claim all sins are equally bad in the eyes of god. And two, if some sins are worse than others, I can't believe you'd put pride above mass genocide. But that's just my silly sense of morality and the value of human life creeping in. Sorry, my bad.

We all have differing views on what sin is considerably the most evil but I was being ambiguous BECAUSE if there's a sin God DETESTS THE MOST, it would have to be pride. I'm not talking narcissism, vanity, or petty haugtiness; I'm talking about the kind of pride that MAKES MAN THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE; the kind of pride THAT RELEGATES GOD TO OUR INTELLECTUAL AND EXISTENTIAL WASTELANDS; the kind of pride that CONSIGNS INDIVIDUALS TO HELL.

CS Lewis, someone whom skeptics should be reading about (since he was formerly a stalwart atheist , talked about pride, as far as its status of being the most evil vice goes, with clarity and brevity:

"Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison (to PRIDE)."

"Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind."

Humility most certain IS to be found in other religions, in fact most if not all of them. Grace in the christian sense is unique, very true. But if uniqueness is the basis for believing a in particular religion, then I don't see why you picked Christianity over other religions. In fact, I see Buddhism as being at least as unique as Christianity. How is Grace and Humility not a means to an end within Christianity? Guess I'm not fully appreciating the point you're trying to make. But hey, if it works for you, then by all means go for it.

Man, I should improve on my writing skillz cause there I left so many things out to create so much misunderstanding. It is UNIVERSALLY accepted that HUMILITY AND GRACE are linchpin virtues; God made it so.

But I made a mistake in saying that, GOD'S GRACE THROUGH HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST is ONLY the ticket to heaven ... not ritualism, not works. And so, it goes, I HAVEN'T DISCOVERED ANY RELIGION WITH MESSAGE AKIN TO THE CHRISTIAN ONE; EVERYTHING ELSE ESTABLISHES THAT WORKS (INCLUDING ACTS OF BENEVOLENCE, GRACE, AND HUMILITY TO ALL OF GOD'S CREATION) AND RITUAL ARE, IN AND OF ITSELF, THE VERY THINGS THAT DESTINES A MAN TO HEAVEN.

And Tcampen, I DIDN'T CHOOSE A RELIGION PER SE, I chose Jesus Christ.

That's all.

 

[serendipity79]

Are you saying that a child molesting mass murder will go to heaven so long as he or she believes the above?

If so if really speaks bad of your religion.

Rainangle minght I suggest you read the following:
Zen for Christians: A Beginner's Guide by Kim Boykin

A child molesting mass murderer can still get into heaven, as can a buddhist, they simply need to change their ways and realize that through christ they may be with god. We tend to consider some sins worse than others, when in reality the worst sin of all is to simple deny Christ. All other sins are relatively equal in the eyes of the lord.

 

[vajradhara]

A child molesting mass murderer can still get into heaven, as can a buddhist, they simply need to change their ways and realize that through christ they may be with god. We tend to consider some sins worse than others, when in reality the worst sin of all is to simple deny Christ. All other sins are relatively equal in the eyes of the lord.

Namaste all....

the worst sin, and the only one that you cannot be forgiven for is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. this is plain. the rest of the sins are co-equal in severity, at least from what i've been able to deduce from the Bible.


Elton.... are you asserting that Ghandi did not, in fact, accept God and act in the described manner?

 

[tcampen]

What Gandhi did for his people is unquestionably altruistic, and I am not in the position to determine what his ultimate motives were - but, you are missing the point. God blessed Gandhi with the heart of compassion, and it is up to Gandhi, as a creation of God, and as an act of submission, to willfully accept his altruistic predispositions as faculties that God blessed him with and in turn, dedicate his social advances to the Person who blessed him with the very faculties that allow him to do so and FINALLY admitting that he is, apart from God, nothing. And apart from that, my friend, it is PRIDE.

So, I gather what your saying is that anyone who denies your particular concept of god is acting for his/her own personal benefit and whim. You seem to equate the term PRIDE with the act of believing the source of ones benevolent acts and intents is anything other than your concept of god. What if Ghandi's source for his altruism was Vishnu? Still not good enough?

We all have differing views on what sin is considerably the most evil but I was being ambiguous BECAUSE if there's a sin God DETESTS THE MOST, it would have to be pride. I'm not talking narcissism, vanity, or petty haugtiness; I'm talking about the kind of pride that MAKES MAN THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE; the kind of pride THAT RELEGATES GOD TO OUR INTELLECTUAL AND EXISTENTIAL WASTELANDS; the kind of pride that CONSIGNS INDIVIDUALS TO HELL.

Most people in the world have spiritual beliefs and faiths that are different than yours, or Christianity in general, yet do not "RELEGATE GOD TO OUR INTELLECTUAL AND EXISTENTIAL WASTELANDS." They feel just as you do about your god. I am among those. We have different concepts of god, just as you disagree with other Christians about material aspects of God. This over simplification of "you either believe as I do, or you're just acting out of defiant pride" argument can only work in your isolated universe. But you are entitled to your opinion.

CS Lewis, someone whom skeptics should be reading about (since he was formerly a stalwart atheist , talked about pride, as far as its status of being the most evil vice goes, with clarity and brevity:

Funny you mention C.S. Lewis, as there are many Christians within these forums that say his Christian musings are unbiblical, and that he is a dangerous influence. Are THEY acting out of PRIDE too? I've read Lewis, a while back, but I've also read many others as well. Personally, I find Thomas Jefferson to be far more enlightening. Have you tried him?

But I made a mistake in saying that, GOD'S GRACE THROUGH HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST is ONLY the ticket to heaven ... not ritualism, not works. And so, it goes, I HAVEN'T DISCOVERED ANY RELIGION WITH MESSAGE AKIN TO THE CHRISTIAN ONE; EVERYTHING ELSE ESTABLISHES THAT WORKS (INCLUDING ACTS OF BENEVOLENCE, GRACE, AND HUMILITY TO ALL OF GOD'S CREATION) AND RITUAL ARE, IN AND OF ITSELF, THE VERY THINGS THAT DESTINES A MAN TO HEAVEN.

I agree with you there. Christianity is unique in that faith, not works, is the path to heaven - and all who do not believe go to hell. True. But again, uniqueness alone means nothing, other than it obviously suits your fancy. Which is fine.

And Tcampen, I DIDN'T CHOOSE A RELIGION PER SE, I chose Jesus Christ.

Hey, no argument there! We all choose what we believe.

That's all.[/QUOTE]