Why don't you Believe the Gospel?

Unveiled Artist · Dec 9, 2017

Silmarien said:
Buddhism has always been a missionary religion. I came across this passage cited as Vinaya Pitaka 1-12:

"Go forth, disciples, and wander to the salvation and joy of much people out of compassion for the world, to the blessing, salvation and joy of gods, and men. Go not two together on the same way. Preach the doctrine which is salutary in its beginning, in its course and in its consummation, in the spirit and in the letter; proclaim the pure way of holiness."

Any religion that isn't interested in attracting and keeping followers isn't going to survive its founder, much less last another 2000 years afterwards. This goes for Eastern religions as well.

Proselytizing is sharing scripture to convert. The Buddha's suttas are all dialogues and he told others to test the teachings for themselves. Prys: "Come to my church to be saved"

Evangelation is spreading teachings without regard nor interest of the others faith. A one sided convo. "Let me tell you about my faith so you know the truth" is convo.

Teaching is exchanging views without the goal to convert nor a bias one sided conversation. Teacher bow to student. Student to teacher. The Buddha teachess.

Thats the difference. Culture and foundaton are different too. Buddnism no god; christianity with god.

Silmarien · Dec 9, 2017

Unveiled Artist said:
Proselytizing is sharing scripture to convert. The Buddha's suttas are all dialogues and he told others to test the teachings for themselves. Prys: "Come to my church to be saved"

Evangelation is spreading teachings without regard nor interest of the others faith. A one sided convo. "Let me tell you about my faith so you know the truth" is convo.

Teaching is exchanging views without the goal to convert nor a bias one sided conversation. Teacher bow to student. Student to teacher. The Buddha teachess.

You do realize this comes across as so much Westernized secular Buddhist propaganda, right? Especially the part where you caricaturize Christianity to make Buddhism appear so much more sophisticated and tolerant?

Both religions have always engaged in missionary activities. Both religions make some pretty forceful statements about religious freedom, and both can betray that horrifically. Nationalism and religious violence do take place in southeast Asia as well. Eastern religion is not some paradise on earth devoid of any conflict.

This does not mean that Christianity and Buddhism are similar religions. I never implied that they were, so I'm not sure why you keep on stressing doctrinal differences.

Unveiled Artist said:
Thats the difference. Culture and foundaton are different too. Buddnism no god; christianity with god.

There are plenty of versions of Buddhism that accept the existence of gods, though my interests tend to lie more with Hinduism given its explicitly theistic philosophy. Granted, I've got some theological issues with Vedic religions in general.

ananda · Dec 9, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
This question is for those who know they are not Christians, who have not believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, for redemption of your soul.
When someone shares the gospel with you, to repent of your sins, and believe on the Lord Jesus, and trust Him to forgive your sins and save you from hell, what makes you say no?
I know the spiritual reasons, but I would like to know what goes through your mind that makes you reject the message.
Thank you for any responses.

1. I can't prove the message for myself, 2. Jesus (in the common Bible) does not exemplify my idea of perfection (e.g. Luke 19:27), and 3. "eternal life" is not an answer to my most fundamental questions regarding life.

Silmarien · Dec 9, 2017

ViaCrucis said:
A similar method is in use by the LDS church, they speak of praying God to reveal to the individual that the contents of the Book of Mormon is true, and that one can know it is true by a "burning of the bosom".

I'm not offering this as a poisoning of the well, but rather to point out that this level of subjectivity of God individually "telling" someone the truth of something is hardly a guarantor of the truth of a thing; because feelings are hardly trustworthy indicators of the objective truth of a religious claim. People have convictions about many things, people of all religions have personal experiences which convince them of the truthfulness of their own position. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on spiritual experiences, or people thinking they've felt or experienced or heard the Divine communicate with them. And as a Christian, and perhaps especially as a Lutheran Christian, I consider this suggestion to be fundamentally bad.

And where does faith come from? It says right there that one cannot seek God without faith and that one needs faith to seek Him. Thus faith has to come from some place to begin with. In the Lutheran tradition we say faith comes extra nos, meaning faith comes from outside of ourselves, it is as St. Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 "not of yourselves, but the gift of God"; and that is specifically through the external means that God gives us faith, as we read in Romans 10:17, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". We call these external means "Means of Grace", consisting of Word and Sacrament. When the Gospel is preached, it creates faith. This is why we confess in our Lutheran Confessions this:

"For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc. But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us. Therefore sanctifying is nothing else than bringing us to Christ to receive this good, to which we could not attain of ourselves." - The Large Catechism, 2.III, 38-39

Asking why a person doesn't believe the Gospel boils down to the fact that they don't believe the Gospel. Approaching the subject as a Lutheran there's also the fact that one cannot believe the Gospel without faith, and so it is impossible for a person to believe in something for which they do not have faith; and since saving faith comes not from the will of man but from God as a supernatural gift, no amount of trying to argue a person into faith can or will ever work. There is no magic argument, there is no right amount of rhetoric, no proof, or test, or thing you or I can do to make someone else a believer in Jesus Christ. I cannot make another person a Christian, I cannot bring a person to Christ; it is the Holy Spirit who converts and makes people Christians.

Preaching at someone is also the wrong way to go, because preaching at a person is little more than shouting. The preaching of the Gospel is not preaching at people, it's about confessing our faith that God has, indeed, raised up Christ from the dead and that through Him there is forgiveness of sins, resurrection from the dead, and eternal life. It is called "gospel" for a reason, it is euaggelion, good news, good report, the good message of what God has done--for you, for me, for the whole world. In antiquity the euaggelion was the report, the message, that went forth of the victories of Caesar and Rome against their enemies; the Christian euaggelion proclaims a different kind of victory, of a different kind of kingdom, of a different kind of Lord and King.

-CryptoLutheran

I really don't understand this. Personal experience is not reliable, since it is equally applicable to any religious tradition, but only the Holy Spirit can convert someone. That's a pretty big catch 22, since conversion by Holy Spirit cannot be anything but experientialism. So I should not hope for the very sort of personal experience that is necessary for faith?

I'm not an atheist. I'm a pantheist who fell madly in love with Eastern Orthodoxy and then let the Thomists talk me over to classical theism. Christianity makes a lot of sense to me--more than any other option on the table--but I have very little faith that it's actually true and not just the best thing we've managed to come up with. Also, theism as a concept is pretty overwhelming if you're not used to thinking it's true.

Unveiled Artist · Dec 9, 2017

Silmarien said:
You do realize this comes across as so much Westernized secular Buddhist propaganda, right? Especially the part where you caricaturize Christianity to make Buddhism appear so much more sophisticated and tolerant?

Both religions have always engaged in missionary activities. Both religions make some pretty forceful statements about religious freedom, and both can betray that horrifically. Nationalism and religious violence do take place in southeast Asia as well. Eastern religion is not some paradise on earth devoid of any conflict.

This does not mean that Christianity and Buddhism are similar religions. I never implied that they were, so I'm not sure why you keep on stressing doctrinal differences.

There are plenty of versions of Buddhism that accept the existence of gods, though my interests tend to lie more with Hinduism given its explicitly theistic philosophy. Granted, I've got some theological issues with Vedic religions in general.

Yes. I just came from a tantric Vajrasattva ceremony at our local temple to recieve the deity and boddhisattva's blessings. I practiced with Zen and Shoshu and SGI.

According to the suttas doctrinal differences are important on both the christian and buddhist side. The Buddha taught through oral teachings with his disciples. The desciples taught others and different sects took tbeir lead. Sometime politics micued how The Buddha wanted the Dharma to be trasmitted. The buddhas and bodhisattvas teach. The manastic hold o to the teachings and transmit them from teacher to student.

Western culture-and im proud to be a westerner bor and raised-has a nasty history with christian missonaries. While the intent between tbe two faiths may be the same the foundation is not. The bible teaches them vs us view. The sutta teaches we view. Doctinal differences are important.

As soon as you make it similar it sadly insults christians. Many buddhist and hindu even dont have that mindset. "Missonary work" is totally different. No colonization. The Buddha was against hinduism. Christianity displaces all who arent with christ.

Its totally different. I mean ask a christian if tbey have Any core tenent in common buddhist. Buddhist would just frown but i cant imagine...

Totally different context. From a american view, colonization isnt a good word. People ended up dead because of it.

Silmarien · Dec 9, 2017

Unveiled Artist said:
Western culture-and im proud to be a westerner bor and raised-has a nasty history with christian missonaries.

A fair amount of that history is really just anti-Catholic propaganda and Enlightenment era anti-theism. It's not necessarily grounded in fact.

Unveiled Artist said:
Its totally different. I mean ask a christian if tbey have Any core tenent in common buddhist. Buddhist would just frown but i cant imagine...

Not exactly orthodox Christian thought, but you might find what Marcus Borg had to say about the core tenets of Christianity and Buddhism pretty interesting.

Unveiled Artist · Dec 9, 2017

Silmarien said:
A fair amount of that history is really just anti-Catholic propaganda and Enlightenment era anti-theism. It's not necessarily grounded in fact.

Not exactly orthodox Christian thought, but you might find what Marcus Borg had to say about the core tenets of Christianity and Buddhism pretty interesting.

If I were christian id be full roman catholic. Too much against the church that members say they arent accepted as christians. Theres nothing wrong with differences. Comparing buddist "ministry" and christian is like black and white. Christians taught and still do to convert. Buddhist teach to educate. Jesus was an authority. The Buddha got his realizations from not being authority to his people.

I mean scripture has a lot of authority role worldview. The Buddha said such ego, pride, etc is unnecesssary to teach.

But this is compare and contrast between the two faiths. Not many buddhist prove our facts. Christians do. Very different motivations. Differences arent bad. It is what it is.

ViaCrucis · Dec 9, 2017

Silmarien said:
I really don't understand this. Personal experience is not reliable, since it is equally applicable to any religious tradition, but only the Holy Spirit can convert someone. That's a pretty big catch 22, since conversion by Holy Spirit cannot be anything but experientialism. So I should not hope for the very sort of personal experience that is necessary for faith?

The infant that is brought to the baptismal font and receives the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is given faith, thus even the baptized infant has faith. This is an "experience" in that the infant experiences the baptism; but it is not a matter of feeling, intellect, reason, or will--but a matter of God's grace.

Faith comes externally, not internally. The gift of faith that comes from the Holy Spirit may not even be recognized in the person who receives it, but like a small mustard seed planted in a field and the evidence of this may only be seen later, or as Jesus says in the parable of the sower, it may take root but is choked out by thorns and thistles, or is plucked away by birds of the air--but the faith is there planted by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace. The person who would say, "I want to believe" is a person who has faith, because without faith it is impossible to seek God.

I'm not an atheist. I'm a pantheist who fell madly in love with Eastern Orthodoxy and then let the Thomists talk me over to classical theism. Christianity makes a lot of sense to me--more than any other option on the table--but I have very little faith that it's actually true and not just the best thing we've managed to come up with. Also, theism as a concept is pretty overwhelming if you're not used to thinking it's true.

I would say that you may not think you have much faith, but Christ says even the faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. All of us who trust in Jesus are like the man who says to Him, "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!" Faith is not in the power of the intellect, or in reason, or the human will; it is the gift of God which brings to us the full measure of Christ, His death and resurrection; not because we sought after it, not because we willed it, not because we felt it, but because God has done it for us. If one would have it phrased in more existential terms, we might look to Kierkegaard's unreasonable leap to faith. Reason cannot bring us to faith. Will cannot bring us to faith. Feelings cannot bring us to faith. Reason, will, and feeling may accompany faith to varying degrees post facto, but they cannot get us there--because the place of faith is outside of reason, outside of ourselves, beside ourselves, in grace.

-CryptoLutheran

Dan Brooks · Dec 9, 2017

ananda said:
1. I can't prove the message for myself, 2. Jesus (in the common Bible) does not exemplify my idea of perfection (e.g. Luke 19:27), and 3. "eternal life" is not an answer to my most fundamental questions regarding life.

What are your most fundamental questions regarding life?

ananda · Dec 9, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
What are your most fundamental questions regarding life?

"What is suffering (dukkha) and it's resolution?" is my most fundamental question.

Dan Brooks · Dec 9, 2017

ananda said:
"What is suffering (dukkha) and it's resolution?" is my most fundamental question.

I read the definition of Dukkha on the site you linked to, to make sure I knew where you were coming from.
Here's my humble attempt at an answer, based on the Scriptures I believe in.

Death is the direct result of sin.
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Suffering in this world is because of the fallen state of this world. And of course many times a person will suffer or endure something like a disease or something, and it has nothing to do with any particular sin that they committed. So suffering in general isn't necessarily due to a particular sin the individual committed (although sometimes it is exactly that), it is also due to the general condition of this world being in a fallen corrupted state.
Romans 8:21-23
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

So pain and suffering is the result of sin. Even the ground was cursed because of Adam's sin.
Genesis 3:17-19
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

So the resolution of suffering is the resolution of sin. To get rid of suffering, sin needs to be gotten rid of.
This is exactly what Christ did on the cross. The cross was the reason Jesus was sent here. When He died on the cross, He took on all the sins of everyone who would ever believe on Him. And to those who do believe on Him, He washes away our sins, and not only that, but He gives us His righteousness (which is completely sinless and absolutely perfect.)

Colossians 2:13-15
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

And everyone who does believe on Him is given eternal life.
John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And as for suffering and death, we deserve it, because we have all done wrong. But Jesus suffered and died, not for His sins, but for ours.
Luke 23:40-42
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

And as for eternal life, how could there be a greater resolution to suffering and death?
Revelation 21
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

So how could an eternal state of being without death, sorrow, crying or pain not be the ultimate resolution for suffering.

So, what is suffering? Suffering is the result of sin, rebellion, and wrongdoing.
What is the means of its eradication? The eradication of sin accomplished on the cross for all those who believe.
And what is it's final resolution? An eternal life completely devoid of any and all suffering whatsoever.

ananda · Dec 9, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
I read the definition of Dukkha on the site you linked to, to make sure I knew where you were coming from.
Here's my humble attempt at an answer, based on the Scriptures I believe in.

Death is the direct result of sin.
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Suffering in this world is because of the fallen state of this world. And of course many times a person will suffer or endure something like a disease or something, and it has nothing to do with any particular sin that they committed. So suffering in general isn't necessarily due to a particular sin the individual committed (although sometimes it is exactly that), it is also due to the general condition of this world being in a fallen corrupted state.
Romans 8:21-23
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

So pain and suffering is the result of sin. Even the ground was cursed because of Adam's sin.
Genesis 3:17-19
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

So the resolution of suffering is the resolution of sin. To get rid of suffering, sin needs to be gotten rid of.
This is exactly what Christ did on the cross. The cross was the reason Jesus was sent here. When He died on the cross, He took on all the sins of everyone who would ever believe on Him. And to those who do believe on Him, He washes away our sins, and not only that, but He gives us His righteousness (which is completely sinless and absolutely perfect.)

Colossians 2:13-15
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

And everyone who does believe on Him is given eternal life.
John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

And as for suffering and death, we deserve it, because we have all done wrong. But Jesus suffered and died, not for His sins, but for ours.
Luke 23:40-42
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

And as for eternal life, how could there be a greater resolution to suffering and death?
Revelation 21
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Thank you for sharing!

So how could an eternal state of being without death, sorrow, crying or pain not be the ultimate resolution for suffering.

It doesn't answer the question, because living itself is suffering.

So, what is suffering? Suffering is the result of sin, rebellion, and wrongdoing.
What is the means of its eradication? The eradication of sin accomplished on the cross for all those who believe.
And what is it's final resolution? An eternal life completely devoid of any and all suffering whatsoever.

"Dukkha" covers the whole range of suffering - from the most minor irritation to the greatest agonies. That is to say, we act in various ways to resolve some measure of dukkha, e.g. I breathe in because not having air is dukkha. I breathe out, because holding in air is dukkha. Etc.

Eternal life, IMO, equals eternal suffering.

Dan Brooks · Dec 9, 2017

ananda said:
Thank you for sharing!

It doesn't answer the question, because living itself is suffering.

"Dukkha" covers the whole range of suffering - from the most minor irritation to the greatest agonies. That is to say, we act in various ways to resolve some measure of dukkha, e.g. I breathe in because not having air is dukkha. I breathe out, because holding in air is dukkha. Etc.

Eternal life, IMO, equals eternal suffering.

If eternal life were life like it is here on earth, then it would be eternal suffering. But that isn't the kind of eternal life that Jesus offers us. That's why I shared from Revelation 21, which describes the final eternal state of all believers. No more death, no more sorrow, no more crying and no more pain. No more suffering of any kind.
And also, having new bodies, resurrection bodies, there is also no hunger, no blood, no need to breathe, or anything we need in order to live here on earth. So even minor things like breathing and eating are taken care of too.

ananda · Dec 9, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
If eternal life were life like it is here on earth, then it would be eternal suffering. But that isn't the kind of eternal life that Jesus offers us. That's why I shared from Revelation 21, which describes the final eternal state of all believers. No more death, no more sorrow, no more crying and no more pain. No more suffering of any kind.
And also, having new bodies, resurrection bodies, there is also no hunger, no blood, no need to breathe, or anything we need in order to live here on earth. So even minor things like breathing and eating are taken care of too.

No suffering = no need to perform any action ... so the idea of an active "eternal life" does not make sense to me. Also, there is this concern: "how can I not suffer if my loved ones are in hell?"

Dan Brooks · Dec 9, 2017

ananda said:
No suffering = no need to perform any action ... so the idea of an active "eternal life" does not make sense to me. Also, there is this concern: "how can I not suffer if my loved ones are in hell?"

As far as your second concern, I will not attempt to offer some type of flippant reply to that. I share that concern as well. I think maybe those are some of the tears God will wipe away from our eyes, but that's as far as I care to go in answering this, because it is a very real concern, and as I said, I share it as well.
As for an active eternal life not making sense, and the idea that not suffering entails no need to perform any action, my question is, what would be an ideal eternal life in your opinion? You said before that eternal life would be eternal suffering because life itself is suffering. But what then would not be suffering? Because the Dukkha includes death also. So if both life and death are suffering, what would not suffering be like?

ananda · Dec 10, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
As far as your second concern, I will not attempt to offer some type of flippant reply to that. I share that concern as well. I think maybe those are some of the tears God will wipe away from our eyes, but that's as far as I care to go in answering this, because it is a very real concern, and as I said, I share it as well.
As for an active eternal life not making sense, and the idea that not suffering entails no need to perform any action, my question is, what would be an ideal eternal life in your opinion? You said before that eternal life would be eternal suffering because life itself is suffering. But what then would not be suffering? Because the Dukkha includes death also. So if both life and death are suffering, what would not suffering be like?

Non-suffering is called nibbana/parinibbana in Buddhism. It is described as a state of permanent bliss and peace with no activity. (Because activity implies action which is required to improve one's situation in some way)

Parinibbana has nothing to do with either life or death (the existential level), but instead focuses on the phenomenological level.

Dan Brooks · Dec 10, 2017

ananda said:
Non-suffering is called nibbana/parinibbana in Buddhism. It is described as a state of permanent bliss and peace with no activity. (Because activity implies action which is required to improve one's situation in some way)

Parinibbana has nothing to do with either life or death (the existential level), but instead focuses on the phenomenological level.

Like an eternal spiritual existence in some sort of meditative state?

Dan Brooks · Dec 10, 2017

Where did the Buddha come up with the definition of activity being required to improve one's situation in some way? Why would all activity have to be selfish?
The apostle Paul, when writing to the Corinthians, said he would show them a more excellent way, and this is what he said.
1 Corinthians 13
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth:

Charity here is the active form of love. It could have just as easily been translated as love, and in some versions it is. The thing is that these are actions that are not done to improve one's own situation. They are done for the betterment of others. That all activity is only that which is required to improve one's own situation isn't true. There are many actions that are not done to improve one's own situation. So there's nothing wrong with an active life, and not all actions equate to suffering, and even when love suffers long, meaning that it is patient, it is for the good of others. Action or activity doesn't have to be a negative thing, a suffering thing, or a selfish thing.

ananda · Dec 10, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
Like an eternal spiritual existence in some sort of meditative state?

Permanent, but perhaps not eternal (as eternal implies it is subject to time).

ananda · Dec 10, 2017

Dan Brooks said:
Where did the Buddha come up with the definition of activity being required to improve one's situation in some way? Why would all activity have to be selfish?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I wrote about activity as evidence for suffering. E.g. we act in order to alleviate some perceived suffering in our life. If we do not perceive any suffering, we have no reason to act.

Why don't you Believe the Gospel?

Look! Its like the Nothing never was.

Existentialist

Early Buddhist

Existentialist

Look! Its like the Nothing never was.

Existentialist

Look! Its like the Nothing never was.

Confessional Lutheran

Active Member

Early Buddhist

Active Member

Early Buddhist

Active Member

Early Buddhist

Active Member

Early Buddhist

Active Member

Active Member

Early Buddhist

Early Buddhist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency