Why do good buddhist monks go to hell?

[paul becke]

Here is one of a number of quite beautiful passages from "A reading from the Constitution of the Church of the Second Vatican Council":

By an utterly free and mysterious decree of his own wisdom and goodness, the Eternal Father created the whole world. His plan was to dignify men with a participation in his own divine life. When, in Adam, men had fallen, he did not abandon them, but ceaselessly offered them help to alvation, in anticipation of Christ th Redeemer, "who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature". All the elect, before time began, the Father "foreknew and predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that He should be the firstborn of many brethren".

All those who would believe in Christ he planned to assemble in the holy church, which was already foreshadowed from the beginning of the world. In a remarkable way, the Church was prepared for throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant. Established in the present era of time, she was made manifest by the outpouring of the Spirit. At the end of time, she will achive her glorious fulfilment. Then, as may be read in the Holy Fathers, all just men, from the time of Adam, "from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect", will be gathered together with the father in the universal Church.

Finally, those who have not received the gospel are related in various ways to the People of God.

In the first place, there is that people to whom the covenants and promises were made and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers, this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes, nor of the calls he issues.

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator. In the first place among these there are the Moslems; they profess to hold the faith Abraham, and along with us, adore the one and merciful God, who will judge mankind on the last day.

Nor is God himself far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is he who gives all men life and breath and every other gift, and who as Saviour wills that all men be saved.

Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God but who strive, aided by his grace, to live a good life.

Whatever goodness or truth is found amongst them, is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the gospel, and as given by him who enlightens all men that they may finally have life".

Such clarity and beauty,to me, is redolent of the divine, of divine inspiration.

On the other hand, there are some most distinguished Catholic scholars who choose to suggest that, maybe, "wanting all men to be saved", opens the possibility of everyone finally ending up in heaven; the hallmark of the true atheist, believing themselves to be more compassionate than Christ. Origen mused on such a (notional) possibility, but had the sense to leave it at that.

What a pity nobody told Christ about this definitively universal salvation during his ministry! He might have spared himself so much anguish, fury and bitterness, been spared the most haunting fear that seemed to constantly drive him to make his impassioned and sometimes even tearful warnings concerning the inevitablity of the damnation in the deepest Hell, of those who clung incorrigibly to certain hard-hearted attitudes, relentlessly pursuing certain ways of life; Not to speak of the agony caused to himself and those nearest and dearest to him by his acceptance of that hideously painful death on the cross.

 

[vajradhara]

Whatever goodness or truth is found amongst them, is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the gospel, and as given by him who enlightens all men that they may finally have life".

Namaste paul,

thank you for the wonderful post. i shall only respond to part of it though...

this quote would seem to undermine the other traditions, from a Christian POV. i.e. so if someone has goodness, it's actually because God is preparing them to receive the gospel, not becuase their own tradition is capable of producing someone that had goodness. see how that subtly attempts to subvert the other tradition?

 

[paul becke]

Well, vajradhara, I can't argue with that in one respect, although, as the wisdom of the other mainstream religions is divinely instituted, I can't understand why you would think that our God would want to undermine them, at least undermine them in absolute terms, i.e. to no purpose; or to deny the capacity for great goodness of their adherents.

There is a very moving story - which I believe was based on his own experience - of the self-sacrifice of a Lascar seaman during a smallpox outbreak at sea, in a book by A J Cronin. I should be surprised if that Lascar seaman had been less devout than his fellows. Something that no sensible person could think about a Westerner, where Christianity is spread thin and very wide, and is not necessarily to be found most notably among those who profess it.

In fact, - because not to do so would have made Christ a liar, and he never minced his words - he quite baldly dismissed the gentiles, implicitly in terms of their religious beliefs and general spiritual development; and yet again and again, we find him in the Gospels pointing to individual Samaritans and other non-Jews, such as a Roman centurion, a Syro-Phoenician woman, etc., as paragons of love, goodness and decency, in comparison with many of his own people, excoriating the synagogue and all too many of its "leading lights" of the day, as the spawn of Satan. "Yet", he concluded, "we know that salvation is to comes from the Jews".

Some of his own parishioners had tried to throw him over a cliff, precisely because of his criticism of their lack of faith in/love of/loyalty to him, when he spoke only the truth to them, in that particular case, concerning themselves and those they despised as spiritual inferiors. In fact, of course, it was the traditions of men, which had come to overlay and nullify his own teachings, that he roundly criticised; traditions which exalted themselves in their own eyes.

God originally chose the Jews and prepared them, because they were more deserving than the rest of mankind. Ironically, in the early days, they were a simple shepherd people, while the Philistines and Egyptions were sophisticates; the types of countries that today possess relatively great wealth, art galleries, symphony orchestra, etc. So, it is sad to realise that "aficionados" of the Fine Arts today use the term, Philistine, to signify some-one for whom the fine arts excite little if any interest. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the rich man's way of saying, Well, I may be wholly unsympathetic towards the poor, even exploit them to the utmost of my capacity, but see... I must be a noble, sensitive soul... since I so apprecaite classical music, paintings, sculptures, etc. The scriptures show, nay, guarantee, that God is not fooled by that. In my experience, some of the warmest, most loving people have really kitsch artistic taste.

I do believe that there is much in the eastern religions which would greatly strengthen the spiritual development of young Roman Catholic seminarians, who are necessarily prey to a clerical culture not too closely wedded to the notion of poverty, either physical or pastoral. In fact, I would make Aldous Huxley's book, "The Perennial Philosophy" one of the core text books in all seminaries.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Paul,

my particular tradition, though mainstream, is not divinely instituted in any event, it's the implication that the Christian God is preparing them to recieve the Christian Gospel that undermines their existing tradition rather than acknowledging the spiritually positive aspects of said tradition... does that make sense?

let's say that i believe that you, by practicing Christianity are engaged in a valid spiritual path. as you practice this path, your compassion develops to such a degree that you are able to turn the other cheek when confronted and generally "walk the walk" as they say. all this seems very positive at this point. however, what would your reaction be if you were to come to understand that, your compassion developing, and your ability to be peaceful and clam in calamity, is a result of the Buddha preparing you to recieve and practice the Dharma? would you feel that a position like that would undermine the tradition of Christianity? if not to you, how about to the other Buddhists?

i got a bit lost in your response... when you say "Some of his own parishioners had tried to throw him over a cliff, precisely because of his criticism of their lack of faith in/love of/loyalty to him, when he spoke only the truth to them....." is this in reference to Jesus?

in any event... this whole "chosen" people thing seems like a red herring to me or a literary device designed to ensure adherence to a creed. i can ascertain no "superiority" between any human, let alone between entire tribes of people, and i flaty refuse to accept that any one person or type of person is somehow "better" or more "worthy" than another.

on a personal level.... that is a very unteneable position... the God in which i'm required to believe has chosen a different people as His chosen ones.. and i'm sort of included as a throw in should i profess the correct creedo. this is not a situation that many would find appealing.. to wit, the Apostle to the Gentiles went forth.

 

[paul becke]

Hello Vajradhara

How do you know your "particular tradition is not divinely instituted"? Short answer. You don't.

"....in any event, it's the implication that the Christian God is preparing them to recieve the Christian Gospel that undermines their existing tradition rather than acknowledging the spiritually positive aspects of said tradition... does that make sense?" raj.

No, it doesn't, raj. I've just conceded to you that in a sense it *does* "undermine their existing tradition", but I also pointed out it does acknowledge the spiritual aspects of them! It is you who refuse to accept that they are divinely instituted. I can't imagine why you would think that man's unaided efforts can tell us much about God. Presumably your wisdom is not even directly infused on a supra-rational level.

"...however, what would your reaction be if you were to come to understand that, your compassion developing, and your ability to be peaceful and clam in calamity, is a result of the Buddha preparing you to recieve and practice the Dharma? would you feel that a position like that would undermine the tradition of Christianity? if not to you, how about to the other Buddhists?" raj.

No, Raj, I'd be thrilled to bits to have learnt the actual truth, and been disabused of an illusion I had been labouring under. Truth is what matters, not this religion or that. As G K Chesterton said, "The purpose of an open mind is to close on the truth". After I've stated the truth to you and others, my job's finished. What you make of it is between you and God. And I wish you well.

"I got a bit lost in your response... when you say "Some of his own parishioners had tried to throw him over a cliff, precisely because of his criticism of their lack of faith in/love of/loyalty to him, when he spoke only the truth to them....." is this in reference to Jesus?" raj.

Yes, it was in reference to Jesus, and is recounted in the Gospels. It should be borne in mind that Christ's parishioners, if anything, would be likely to be more spiritual than most others, rather than less.

"in any event... this whole "chosen" people thing seems like a red herring to me or a literary device designed to ensure adherence to a creed. i can ascertain no "superiority" between any human, let alone between entire tribes of people, and i flaty refuse to accept that any one person or type of person is somehow "better" or more "worthy" than another.

on a personal level.... that is a very untenable position... the God in which i'm required to believe has chosen a different people as His chosen ones.. and i'm sort of included as a throw in should i profess the correct creedo. this is not a situation that many would find appealing.. to wit, the Apostle to the Gentiles went forth". raj.

Like it or lump it, raj. You should read the Gospels again. As a matter of fact the gentiles were noted by the Jews for their exceptional cruelty.
Personally, if I were to try to identify The Lord's Anointed among the various races, I would suggest that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the Africans are the Lord's Anointed. And we are the small fry.

But it's all nonsense *in a way*; the most important way, at that. We are what God made us. There's is nothing for us to be proud of.

As regards Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, I believe the choice of him for this role is in perfect congruence with the spiritual hierarchy established by God in mankind.

Scripture tells us, explicitly and in many different ways, that Christ chose the poor to be rich in faith. God chooses the most appropriate means for his divine purposes. Paul was a Pharisee, who, like so many of his peers, (and more so), could not see beneath the formalism of his religion, until he received a special revelation.

Most of the apostles whom Christ chose were unlettered manual workers. So it was appropriate that they should have been chosen to seek out the "lost sheep of the House of Israel", i.e. the "observant" Jews, who had been brutalised by decadence of the Synagogue of that day, or those who had been totally scandalised by it - most likely regarded by the former as riff-raff. (Although I believe Thomas, Simon and Jude evangelised in the Gentile world, at least, latterly). It remains true to this day, in my view, that the people with the optimal level of intelligence are generally those (the children of light among them, at least) who are at or near the top of the blue-collar pecking order. On top of everything else, they do not generally have to involve themselves too closely in the unambiguous criminality that characterises the business ethos of this World - particularly, alas, in the putatively Christian West.

Without going into detail, I see a very striking parallel between the Synagogue of Christ's day and some of the most dominant, institutional Christian churches. That was not what Christ meant when he said "I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it...".


I hope that clarifies at least some of the issues you raised, raj.

 

[vajradhara]

@paul becke

How do you know your "particular tradition is not divinely instituted"? Short answer. You don't.
***********
the Buddha clearly explains that this is not a divine religion, revealed from some god or godling. should i not consider the founders statment regarding his intent? i think, rather, that i should
***********

"....in any event, it's the implication that the Christian God is preparing them to recieve the Christian Gospel that undermines their existing tradition rather than acknowledging the spiritually positive aspects of said tradition... does that make sense?" raj.

No, it doesn't, raj. I've just conceded to you that in a sense it *does* "undermine their existing tradition", but I also pointed out it does acknowledge the spiritual aspects of them! It is you who refuse to accept that they are divinely instituted. I can't imagine why you would think that man's unaided efforts can tell us much about God. Presumably your wisdom is not even directly infused on a supra-rational level.
************
not correct. many of them are divinely instituted... Buddhism is not. Buddhism does not seek to adress any aspect of God in any fashion or in any form. i have no issue with others believeing that their tradition is divinely inspiried, mine is not.

i suspect that we will really hit a loggerhead when discussing wisdom as that has a totally different connotation within Buddhism. wisdom is an active component of our practice, coupled with compassion. my name goes rather to the heart of that...
************


"I got a bit lost in your response... when you say "Some of his own parishioners had tried to throw him over a cliff, precisely because of his criticism of their lack of faith in/love of/loyalty to him, when he spoke only the truth to them....." is this in reference to Jesus?" raj.

Yes, it was in reference to Jesus, and is recounted in the Gospels. It should be borne in mind that Christ's parishioners, if anything, would be likely to be more spiritual than most others, rather than less.
**************
i don't recall this at all would you mind giving me the scripture so i can read it?
**************

"in any event... this whole "chosen" people thing seems like a red herring to me or a literary device designed to ensure adherence to a creed. i can ascertain no "superiority" between any human, let alone between entire tribes of people, and i flaty refuse to accept that any one person or type of person is somehow "better" or more "worthy" than another.

on a personal level.... that is a very untenable position... the God in which i'm required to believe has chosen a different people as His chosen ones.. and i'm sort of included as a throw in should i profess the correct creedo. this is not a situation that many would find appealing.. to wit, the Apostle to the Gentiles went forth". raj.

Like it or lump it, raj. You should read the Gospels again. As a matter of fact the gentiles were noted by the Jews for their exceptional cruelty.
Personally, if I were to try to identify The Lord's Anointed among the various races, I would suggest that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the Africans are the Lord's Anointed. And we are the small fry.
****************
er... that's a phrase that i'm not famaliar with.. like it or lump it.. can you explain? in any event, that is simply one of the myriad reasons that i cannot accept a literal interpetation of the Bible. i concur that there is evidence that one of the Lost Tribes ended up in Africa... there is even evidence that one of them made it to China. have you seen the interview with the people in the Chinese village that are all Jewish? they've always been.. they don't recall not ever having not been Jewish. in any event, true or not, it's quite interesting.
****************


As regards Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, I believe the choice of him for this role is in perfect congruence with the spiritual hierarchy established by God in mankind.
***********
i suspect that we'll have to agree to disagree about Saul/Paul and his role.. though it can be argued that without Paul there would be no Christianity, however that's a conversation for another time.
***********

 

[whitestar]

From the book "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel...some questions he asked J.P Moreland, trained in philosophy and science, about hell.

"Lee: How could a loving God torture people forever in hell?

Moreland: For on thing, hell isn't a torture chamber. Hell is, first of all, about relationships--broken relationships. The Christian fiaht says that peple matter intensely to God. If people matter, then so do relationships. In the bible, hell is separation or banishment from the most beautiful being in the world...God Himself. It's exclusion not only from God but also from those who have come to know and love Him.

Lee: Is hell a punishment for having broken God's standards, or is it a natural consequence of choosing to be separate from God?

Moreland: It's both. Make no mistake: hell IS punishment--but it's not a punishiing. It's not torture. The punishment of hell is separation from God and the shame, anguish, and regret that go along with it. The pain may be both mental and phyical, but it will be the pain and sorrow of final, unending banishment from God and the good life for which we were created. Hell is the final sentence that says you refused regularly to live in relationship with God, and the inevitable results of that choice is to be sent away from God for all eternity. Si it IS punishment. But it's also the natural consequence of a life that has been lived in a certain direction.

Lee: Is hell a physical place?

Moreland: Yes. The bible says that our bodies will be raised and our souls rejoined with them at the final judgment. Hell will need ot be a physical place ot house those physical bodies.

Lee: Will people burn in flames in hell?

Moreland: I blieve that the imagery of flames the bible uses to describe hell is a figure of speech. Trying to take the flames of hell literally results in nonsense. For example, hell is described as a place of utter darkness. How can that be? Flames would light things up.

Here's a similar example: The bible says that, at His return Christ will come surrounded by flames and with a big word coming out of his mouth. Will he be unable to speak because he's choking on a sword? Few people consider that to be a literal sword. In stead, the sword in that passage of Scripture is an image that stands for the word of God. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgment.

Another example: In Hebrews 12:29, God is called a consuming fire. yet nobody thinks God is a cosmic Bunsen burner. Using the flame imagery is a way of saying he's a God of judgment.

Lee: What about hell being a place where worms constantly eat people's flesh?

Moreland: In Jesus' day, thousands of animals wer sacrificed every week in the Temple, and there was a sewage system for the blood and fat to flow outside, where it gathered in a pool. There would have been worms and maggots constantly feeding on that waste. It must have been a very ugly---and smelly---place. When Jesus was teaching, he used this metaphor as a way of saying hell is worse than that disgusting place outside the city, a place all of His listeners would have known about.

Lee: Doesn't the phrase 'gnashing of teeth" used to describe hell mean that people are in pain and torture?

Moreland: "Gnashing of teeth" is an expression of rage at realizing you've just made a huge mistake. When you hear about people grinding their teeth or gritting their teeth today, it means they's angry or frustrated, not that they are being tortured. If you've ever been around people who are relly self-centeed, you know they get angry when they don't get their way. I believe the gnashing of teeth mentioned in Scripture is an expression of the personality of the type of people who will end up in hell.

Lee: If hell isn't literally a fiery place with flesh-eating worms, what's so bad about being there"

Moreland: Any figure of speech has a literal point. What is figurative is the burning flamce. What is literal is that this is a place of utter heartbreak. It's a loss of everything. The bible is trying to communicate that hell is the worse possible situation a person could ever find himself in.

Lee: If the people in hell are self-absorbed and self centered, is it possible that for them, heaven would be hell?

Moreland: Let me put it this way? Have you ever been around somebody who was unbelievably good-looking, extremely attractive, and alot smarter then you? When the two of you ar ein a group of people, the others will weant to listen to him, not you. Suppose you don't care for that person, but you're kept in a room with him 24 hours a day for 30 year. That would be unbelievably difficult, even maddening.

Now multiply those qualities 10,000 times, and you'll get just a hint of what God is like. He knows everything. He's very attractive. He's morally pure. And if people do not fall passionatly in love with Him, then to force them to have to be around him forever...doing the kinds of things that people who love him would want to do... would make them miserable. So, yes, hell is primarily a place for people who would not want to go to Heaven.

Lee: Who does everyone suffer the same in hell? That doesn't seem fair. Shouldn't people like Hitler suffer more?

Moreland: The bible teaches that there are different degress of suffering in hell. One passage you can read about that is Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus says people wil be sentenced according to how they lved. Therr will be degrees of separation, isolation, and emptiness in hell. God's justice is porportional. Ther is not exactly the same experience for everyone.

Lee: Why are people punished forever? Wouldn't a loving God make the punishment fit the crime by not making hell last forever?

Moreland: This is a hard question to answer. When we think about the worse thing a person can do, usually we'll say its harming animals or destroying the enviroment or hurting another person. And, no question, all of those are horrible. But I believe that truly the worse thing a person can do is to mock and dishounor and refuse to love the person that we owe absolutely everything to: God our Creator.

You see, I know from experience that God is infinitely greater in his goodness, holiness, kindness, and justice that anyone esle. To think that a person could go through their whole life constantly ignoring him, constantly mocking him by the way they choose to live, saying, "I couldn't care less about what you put me her to do. I couldn't care less about your values or your Son's death for me. I'm going to ignore all that"...THAT'S the ultimate sin.

And its the only sin, when you come down to it, that lands people in hell. There wil be murderers in Heaven...like the apostle Paul. There will be adulterers in heaven--like King David. And liars like Abraham and chearters like Jacob. But what you won't find in heaven is anyone who consistently and persistently refused to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. That's that ultimate sin. And the consequence of that is everlasting separation from God."

God bless
whitestar

 

[vajradhara]

Moreland: Let me put it this way? Have you ever been around somebody who was unbelievably good-looking, extremely attractive, and alot smarter then you? When the two of you ar ein a group of people, the others will weant to listen to him, not you. Suppose you don't care for that person, but you're kept in a room with him 24 hours a day for 30 year. That would be unbelievably difficult, even maddening.

Now multiply those qualities 10,000 times, and you'll get just a hint of what God is like. He knows everything. He's very attractive. He's morally pure. And if people do not fall passionatly in love with Him, then to force them to have to be around him forever...doing the kinds of things that people who love him would want to do... would make them miserable. So, yes, hell is primarily a place for people who would not want to go to Heaven.

God bless
whitestar

Namaste whitestar,

thank you for the post.

so... your hell is my heaven and your heaven is my hell. how very interesting....

 

[paul becke]

Luke 4: 16 to 30, raj.


Yes, I'm sure you're right. If your founder states that your religion is not divinely founded, then of course it surely is not to the best of his knowledge. However, God is the source of everyting that is good in this world - and that particularly includes everything that is good in every religion, sect, denomination, etc.

There was, it seems to me, and no doubt to other forumites, a certain arrogance about my tone, particularly in my response to your earlier post; and it seemed so to me at the time, but I was too tired to explain myself more carefully. But, the fact is, raj, we could dispute from now until kingdom come, and fail to persuade, because the deepest truths are a matter of the heart, and consequently of our most basic assumptions, which are not susceptible to verbal proof. In any case, God has plans for us in terms of what we believe at different times in our life., and while I would be happy to persuade immediately, it would be surprising if I did the person I was disputing with. Though we can't normally know if we immediately make sense to others.

I should perhaps not post at all here, because a certain "given and take" is the normal polite way of posting to forums; but in these particular matters, It's a matter for me of "thus saith the Lord", and not a matter that lends itself to a sort of democratic sharing of "opinions" or "views". So, I hope you won't take it amiss if I withdraw from the discussion.

Incidentally, two things, old chap:

I meant that (obviously generalising, as we nearly always must when tryting to make sense of the world) there seems to be a host of indications that Africans - pure-blood Africans, not Jewish Africans or Jewish Chinese - are head and shoulders above the rest of us in terms of their qualities and aptitudes.

"holy resignation" is a key fruit of the Christian's interior life of prayer. The certainty at all times and in all circumstances that God's Providence is never "derailed".

 

[vajradhara]

Luke 4: 16 to 30, raj.


Yes, I'm sure you're right. If your founder states that your religion is not divinely founded, then of course it surely is not to the best of his knowledge. However, God is the source of everyting that is good in this world - and that particularly includes everything that is good in every religion, sect, denomination, etc.

There was, it seems to me, and no doubt to other forumites, a certain arrogance about my tone, particularly in my response to your earlier post; and it seemed so to me at the time, but I was too tired to explain myself more carefully. But, the fact is, raj, we could dispute from now until kingdom come, and fail to persuade, because the deepest truths are a matter of the heart, and consequently of our most basic assumptions, which are not susceptible to verbal proof. In any case, God has plans for us in terms of what we believe at different times in our life., and while I would be happy to persuade immediately, it would be surprising if I did the person I was disputing with. Though we can't normally know if we immediately make sense to others.

I should perhaps not post at all here, because a certain "given and take" is the normal polite way of posting to forums; but in these particular matters, It's a matter for me of "thus saith the Lord", and not a matter that lends itself to a sort of democratic sharing of "opinions" or "views". So, I hope you won't take it amiss if I withdraw from the discussion.

Incidentally, two things, old chap:

I meant that (obviously generalising, as we nearly always must when tryting to make sense of the world) there seems to be a host of indications that Africans - pure-blood Africans, not Jewish Africans or Jewish Chinese - are head and shoulders above the rest of us in terms of their qualities and aptitudes.

"holy resignation" is a key fruit of the Christian's interior life of prayer. The certainty at all times and in all circumstances that God's Providence is never "derailed".

Namaste paul,

thank you for your response i have enjoyed my conversation with you thus far.

it is without question, in my opinion, that you hold that God is the prime mover of all good things. this is part and parcel of being a Christian and it's not at all surprising to hear you maintain this view. we simply do not hold to such a belief and, perhaps more importantly, we see no reason for such a belief. i am not trying to pursuade you that my view is correct, though it is correct when viewed within my paradigm, rather, i'm exchanging ideas and concepts about why we think what we think and why we believe what we believe. i am always open to the idea that i'm not correct about my views or beliefs.. that is part and parcel of being a Buddhist

oh, i don't mind about dogmatic assertions of "thus sayeth the Lord" honestly i don't i've had plenty of practice saying the very same thing myself in my earlier days and, in a certain sense, you really have no other response that can be offered. now, i'm not saying "you" in particular, rather it's more of a generalized statement about Christians... but that's seems to be worded a bit oddly...

if you choose to withdraw from our discussion, that is your choice and i wholeheartedly support it.

on a personal level, i would not be happy with your decision because i've enjoyed our conversation.

in any event...

i maintain that there are no people that are more worthy or special than any other... each individual is a unique, special person that should be treated as such. i reject any notion that any one race is superior to another and i reject in totality any form of bigotry or hatred.

there are things that each race is more well suited to as is evidenced by the way that the races have evolved however, this is not the same as saying that one is better than another. in fact, i would go so far as to say that, living in the modern world, as most of the readership on this forum is, many of the racial specific benefits that have evolved are becoming less useful to the species as a whole... but that's a rather unfounded opinion

 

[paul becke]

vaj, it's good that, unlike many who call themselves Christians, even bishops, you appreciate that Christianity is not a "pick 'n' mix" religion.

However, I'm afraid you have concentrated on the lesser truth of the paradox of race, as expounded in Christian scripture. You may recall that I wrote:

"Personally, if I were to try to identify The Lord's Anointed among the various races, I would suggest that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the Africans are the Lord's Anointed. And we are the small fry. What I meant to add, however, is that if the Christian God and most of the apostles were Jewish, and scripture states that they, as a race are the Lord's anointed, don't even think of arguing. If he says a table is a chair. Believe it! Because it's sure to be as he said. This was what you latched onto - and why not? Well the reason why not, is that the deepest truths are steeped in paradox. The scientists, God bless them, have discovered it, now, as well.

The more important point I made followed the above:

"But it's all nonsense *in a way*; the most important way, at that. We are what God made us. There's is nothing for us to be proud of".

Any of us, I should add. And how right it is that that should be so, as you insist. Other people are not just saints, or potential or embryonic saints, they are each one, by virtue of their baptism (either their own or vicariously, that of others) "Other Christs", grafted into the Mystical Body, kind of like clones. So even to want to compete with them in sanctity, in spiritual gifts, whatever, or to want to patronise them as gurus, etc., is foolish beyond belief. And yet there are many people who would want greater honour than their parents or their natural siblings. So, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

And yet, it is commonplace to see religious competing against each other for approval as holy (or holier) men, so to speak. Ambition, so roundly inveighed against in the Gospels and Epistles, as singularly pernicious, has long been effectively promoted as virtually the sovereign Christian virtue. Well, the Church soon became presided over by upper class and middle classes, people who wanted the best of both worlds - recognition/exaltation here, and recognition/exaltation in the next life, so it is scarcely a matter for wonderment.

And yet, many of those people too, were, and are today, still heroic pastors, have been the agency by which the faith, in all its immense riches, has been handed down to us. Christ foresaw it happening, just as it had in the Synagogue, and he clearly wasn't going to allow it to thwart his divine purpose, and provided for it in his providential economy

Personally - though I realise Heaven by definition is perfect - if the people sleeping in shop doorways are not occupying the seats of highest honour in Heaven, I would feel quite bitterly disappointed should I reach there, and that I had misunderstood Christ quite significantly. "Where your treasure is, there your heart is". Well, it's quite clear that the children of light among them have not set their hearts on this world's riches. Indeed, since the earliest Old Testament times, the rich have vilified them as lazy, feckless, bums, wastrels, etc. And yet, it may well be that the earth has lasted this long without being destroyed by us, on account of their divinely-redemptive sufferings. We *OWE* them the wherewithal for their basic material sustenance and dignity. God made the world and all its bounty for all of us, not just for the most rapacious Mammon-worshippers, and their aspiring imitators.

In the UK, Margaret Thatcher, in what has been called "The Sermon on the Mound", expressed the opinion to Church of Scotland clergymen that the most significant thing about the parable of the Good Samaritan was that he had money in his purse"......

We don't know what graces others have been given, even ourselves for that matter, with certainty, but if only she had courted and cultivated friends here below who would welcome her into the courts of Heaven, instead of the super-rich.

 

[vajradhara]

namaste paul,

it seems we agree on the substance of this part of our conversation and i shall proceed, unless i miss something that you'd rather i address. if so, please point it out and i shall do so to the best of my ability.

Any of us, I should add. And how right it is that that should be so, as you insist. Other people are not just saints, or potential or embryonic saints, they are each one, by virtue of their baptism (either their own or vicariously, that of others) "Other Christs", grafted into the Mystical Body, kind of like clones. So even to want to compete with them in sanctity, in spiritual gifts, whatever, or to want to patronise them as gurus, etc., is foolish beyond belief. And yet there are many people who would want greater honour than their parents or their natural siblings. So, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

to a certain extent i agree with this, however, within certain paradigms, such as the Hindu, Sufi and Buddhist, a guru or teacher is usually quite important. leaving aside the technical aspects of how one ascertains a genuine guru from a false one, the guru can help clarify your understanding when you have a question and ensure you are moving in the proper direction in your spiritual progress. to utilize the advanced meditation techniques it is necessary to have instruction, it's pretty much as simple as that.

And yet, it is commonplace to see religious competing against each other for approval as holy (or holier) men, so to speak. Ambition, so roundly inveighed against in the Gospels and Epistles, as singularly pernicious, has long been effectively promoted as virtually the sovereign Christian virtue. Well, the Church soon became presided over by upper class and middle classes, people who wanted the best of both worlds - recognition/exaltation here, and recognition/exaltation in the next life, so it is scarcely a matter for wonderment.

this is not a unique situation for the Christian church to be facing, though a tough one to recover from. it is possible to do so, i believe, however it will take people of courage of conviction and sincerity to accomplish it.

Personally - though I realise Heaven by definition is perfect - if the people sleeping in shop doorways are not occupying the seats of highest honour in Heaven, I would feel quite bitterly disappointed should I reach there, and that I had misunderstood Christ quite significantly. "Where your treasure is, there your heart is". Well, it's quite clear that the children of light among them have not set their hearts on this world's riches. Indeed, since the earliest Old Testament times, the rich have vilified them as lazy, feckless, bums, wastrels, etc. And yet, it may well be that the earth has lasted this long without being destroyed by us, on account of their divinely-redemptive sufferings. We *OWE* them the wherewithal for their basic material sustenance and dignity. God made the world and all its bounty for all of us, not just for the most rapacious Mammon-worshippers, and their aspiring imitators.

i don't think i could have expressed myself with such aplomb! thank you and i think you are right on the money... pun intended

 

[leasmom]

have of others. If non-Christians aren't called heathens, devil-worshippers, we're told that our beliefs are dangerous, to be feared...and that our souls are doomed.

The fact that the original poster would even state that good buddhist monks are doomed to hell, shows how uneducated they are on buddhism.

God, Jesus and the Christian version of history and beliefs are not the History and Beliefs of the Entire World. A christians belief in the after-life, the consequence of sin, does not apply to non-Christians.

I think if Christians were to learn about other religions and beliefs, we would not have such hatred and fear of others, we may actually have understanding of one another. You won't find a buddhist monk preaching against the evils of Christianity, but yet you find Christian ministers/priests/preachers standing in pulpits teaching fear of non-Christians in every part of this country. It's a shame!!! Understanding of others is whats needed in Christianity instead of fear!!!

I've had Christians call me a devil-worshipper, a witch...I even had them chase me on the bus because I believed in reincarnation...well, if you look at Christian history, that was the original tenet in Christianity until it was later changed! Christianity was once feared and prosecuted but instead of learning from that, Christians have become the prosecuters!!! Love thy neighbor has become...Love thy Christian neighbor!!!

If the Fundamentalist Christians have their way, we will be back in the days of Witch Trials and Witch Hunts...hey it's happening right now in a different form...sneering and jeering at a different religion is one form of it! The F.C's want to revert our country to an idealistic and false Christian origin of our country from our founding Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic founding fathers...(ever hear of the Jefferson Bible?). They was no Christian founding fathers! And the pilgrims and puritians were trying to escape religious prosecution...in otherwords, they were trying to escape a Government sponsered Religion, which in England mainly was the Anglican church and in other areas, it was the Catholic church.

This hatred of other's is getting very frightening and Christians are having non-Christians run away from them in horror! Why??? This fear and bashing that is currently taking place was accepted back in the Dark Ages but is not accepted in this day and age!

Non-Christians are here, we're not going any where and until Christianity opens it's heart and becomes compassionate there will be no understanding of one another!!!

May you find peace...

 

[Reader Nilus]

have of others. If non-Christians aren't called heathens, devil-worshippers, we're told that our beliefs are dangerous, to be feared...and that our souls are doomed.

The fact that the original poster would even state that good buddhist monks are doomed to hell, shows how uneducated they are on buddhism.

God, Jesus and the Christian version of history and beliefs are not the History and Beliefs of the Entire World. A christians belief in the after-life, the consequence of sin, does not apply to non-Christians.

I think if Christians were to learn about other religions and beliefs, we would not have such hatred and fear of others, we may actually have understanding of one another. You won't find a buddhist monk preaching against the evils of Christianity, but yet you find Christian ministers/priests/preachers standing in pulpits teaching fear of non-Christians in every part of this country. It's a shame!!! Understanding of others is whats needed in Christianity instead of fear!!!

I've had Christians call me a devil-worshipper, a witch...I even had them chase me on the bus because I believed in reincarnation...well, if you look at Christian history, that was the original tenet in Christianity until it was later changed! Christianity was once feared and prosecuted but instead of learning from that, Christians have become the prosecuters!!! Love thy neighbor has become...Love thy Christian neighbor!!!

If the Fundamentalist Christians have their way, we will be back in the days of Witch Trials and Witch Hunts...hey it's happening right now in a different form...sneering and jeering at a different religion is one form of it! The F.C's want to revert our country to an idealistic and false Christian origin of our country from our founding Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic founding fathers...(ever hear of the Jefferson Bible?). They was no Christian founding fathers! And the pilgrims and puritians were trying to escape religious prosecution...in otherwords, they were trying to escape a Government sponsered Religion, which in England mainly was the Anglican church and in other areas, it was the Catholic church.

This hatred of other's is getting very frightening and Christians are having non-Christians run away from them in horror! Why??? This fear and bashing that is currently taking place was accepted back in the Dark Ages but is not accepted in this day and age!

Non-Christians are here, we're not going any where and until Christianity opens it's heart and becomes compassionate there will be no understanding of one another!!!

May you find peace...

I agree with you, it is almost like some folks like the idea of hell, it sort of makes heaven an exclusive country club, for the right kind of people. I do not think there are many if at any at all that are Christians because fear of hell fire, so I would think preaching hell fire is rather stupid and useless.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

I agree that Christians need to start accepting non-christians. I'm definately not going to become a Christian for the rest of this life, so they may as well learn to live with me and treat me with respect instead of trying to say that if I don't become Christian now that I'll always be wrong and will go to hell.

The truth is, they're not going to scare me into believing in God by saying that I'll go to hell if I don't believe in him. They seem to think that they can do that and that it needs to be done, but the truth is that if we're left alone to believe what we want to then we'll be a lot happier.

Christians like to think that we need help from God, Jesus, or something like that. However, the truth is that we don't need the comfort of something that is as real to us as Santa Clause.

I plan to become a Buddhist monk when I get older, or at least live in a Monastic community for a while. However, I'm not scared of going to a place that I don't believe exists. I do believe that hell is a state of mind though.

 

[Herecy]

Wow, I can only imagine the hurt you must be going through. First, I'd like to say that you made the right choice with breaking up. As hard as it must be to have that happen, a couple that does not believe the same thing is just asking for trouble.

Now, to answer your question. The reason is simple. Good works do not get you into heaven. Believing that Jesus died to save you from your sins and that he is the only way is what saves you. I know it can be sad, because there are some really good people out there that will not go to heaven because they do not believe the truth. That is why as Christians we must make sure we share the truth with everyone. I have just recently realized how important it is to not only believe that Jesus is the way, but to support it with knowledge, or you will not be able to stand up to others of different faiths. I am sorry for what you are going through, and will pray for your situation. Please don't give up! God is awesome and can change your ex-boyfriends heart! Pray and have faith. Research and find out how to show him the truth-make sure to support it with facts, and do it in a loving way, not condeming.

what a load of garbage!!!!!! the sole purpose in life is to be happy and be respectful of those around you. by breaking up, they are denying themselves what may be who they are mean't to be with. you do not break up because of different beliefs, that is like saying, i am sorry i can't be with you cause you like a different style of music than me. it's rediculous. part of a proper relationship is respecting and caring for each others beliefs, values and ideas. i mean really, at the end of the day, no religion is right and no religion is wrong. and also: if your god is all loving and caring and compassionate, do you honestly believe he would send someone to hell just because they had never found out about christianity or had a chance to do some research, etc???? that is a complete contradiction of the idea of 'god'. you completely contradict yourself with that statement as does the bible (in any of it's forms) for the most part.

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

Christianity is a hypocritical religion if you think about it.

 

[revolutio]

Christianity is a hyppocritical religion if you think about it.

Normally, when you make excessively broad (and grammatically incorrect) statements such as that, you are required to provide some evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

I was stating that because of what Herecy said. Don't be so rude just because I added an extra "p" in "hypocritical", which is a spelling mistake BTW. Besides, Why be so rude to me anyway?

 

[HomeBound]

God is merciful and just, none of us know how we will be judged. But I trust in his infinite mercy and compassion. Only God knows our hearts and minds and he alone will judge us.

I agree, but also add, if we have God in our hearts (which we do), we can judge ourselves.