Budda V Jesus

[banyahorn]

ok...

we are all grown ups here

so dont get offended if someone shines a light on your beliefs

[and dont pull the shutters down and go crying to the mods]

budda says that we come back next life according to our behaviour in this life.

many lives - many chances to get it right

jesus says we go to heaven, hel_l or purgatory depending on what we do this life

one life - one chance only

so who is right?

they cant both be.

or are they both stretching it a bit and there is nothing to look forward to.

belief is one thing - truth is another [not to confuse the two]

its an age old question

but im sure theres enough grey matter on this forum to sort it out once and for all

over to you...

[Maigo6]

I think it's a great topic, if you're looking for an answer to the age old question of " Is there really a God ", you won't get any answers here or anywhere else.

It's a belief, maybe a comfort to some, a reason to actually ever been born to others and a load of BS to many.

My personal belief......is there a god?

If there was , he would have given up on humans a long time ago.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Maigo6

[soundman]

belief is one thing - truth is another [not to confuse the two]

Proof?

[sgtpeppers]

I think it would be safer to believe in Christianity. If you failed to acknowledge God and Jesus, there is a higher chance you will go to hel_l. The punishment is much more severe.

if it turns out that the Christians were wrong all along, then at least you have another chance in the next life to get it right. If the Christians are correct and you didn't believe in God, pray to him etc, made a few mistakes in life etc, then you are in real trouble. Basic risk management.

[garro]

It is my view that truth is something found inside of ourselves. A guide is very useful in this search, and I can't think of a better one than that provided the Buddha - but that's just my opinion. Like all guides though it is only useful if it makes our lives easier. If it makes my life more difficult then it would be useless.

Karma is useful if it makes us live better, and it makes perfect logic to me. If I do good then good things will happen while if I do bad then bad things will happen. Perfectly reasonable. If believing in heaven makes somebody happy, and causes them to live well, good luck to them.

If at the end of the day there is nothing there will be no prizes for those who guessed right. While on the other hand...

Edited June 22, 2008 by garro

[Maestro]

I am moving this topic from "General topics" to the "Buddhism" forum.

--

Maestro

[apetley]

If one is right then the other is wrong simple as that.

Personally I believe in neither.

Just one life then nothing so make the most of this one.

[Xangsamhua]

jesus says we go to heaven, hel_l or purgatory depending on what we do this life

one life - one chance only

Jesus never said anything about purgatory. That is a doctrine that was developed over many years by the church.

Jesus didn't say we'd "go to heaven" if we did the right things in this life. He spoke of heaven as the abode of his father. He said of the poor in spirit that theirs is the kingdom of "heaven" (Matthew) or "God" (Luke). The kingdom of God would be God's reign on Earth, something that Jesus believed himself to be inaugurating and to which he called all to follow him. Jesus didn't actually talk about what happens after you die. Eschatology, the study of the "last things", is something developed by the church. Remember, Jesus only preached his mission over a short period of probably one to two years. He didn't reach a vast audience and it seems that what he said was not written down at the time, but passed on orally and in a now lost compendium of sayings ("Q") before the first of the Gospels (Mark) was written about 30 years after Jesus died. (Paul, who started writing epistles about AD50 showed little interest in the actual events of Jesus' life or in what he actually said.)

I can't remember what Jesus said about hel_l. As a first century Jew he may have accepted the idea of punishment after death; the image of Gehenna, the rubbish dump beneath the walls of Jerusalem, was one often used at the time. The idea of hel_l as a form of eternal punishment is one developed by the church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1990) retains the doctrine of hel_l as eternal punishment, but describes it in such a way that one would have to be a raging psychopath to get there, and then you probably wouldn't because a psychopath is probably not fully responsible for his actions. The church has never made any statement that anyone has ever actually gone to hel_l.

Millions of people ascribe statements and beliefs to Jesus that we can't be sure he actually held. Even the Gospel writers were dependent on their sources and they were writing for different kinds of audience and with their own axes to grind. Much of what is ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels he probably never said at all.

Let's keep our minds open about these things and not get caught up in debates over questionable propositions.

[thomast]

Jesus got it right, but not this version, which was changed from his original teachings. They also changed his name from Ymmanuel long after his death in Kashmir, well aged. This version is meant for control. His version would have set you free. Read The Talmud Ymmanuel published by B Meier for the original notes from Ymmanuel. Budha is almost right. you come back the same character as you were in last life, maybe in a different sex body, BUT if you progress spiritually in the next incarnation, then there is no need for further incarnations. Your spirit then becomes one with spirit. Each life in a body is only to allow the sprit to evolve and develop, to learn and to experience. IMHO.

Edited June 22, 2008 by thomast

[vegas]

I think it would be safer to believe in Christianity. If you failed to acknowledge God and Jesus, there is a higher chance you will go to hel_l. The punishment is much more severe.

if it turns out that the Christians were wrong all along, then at least you have another chance in the next life to get it right. If the Christians are correct and you didn't believe in God, pray to him etc, made a few mistakes in life etc, then you are in real trouble. Basic risk management.

So religion is your safety net? You don't believe in christianity but if it turns out that there is a god, then you will point to this posting and try to convince your god that you are sincere?

[lannarebirth]

I think it would be safer to believe in Christianity. If you failed to acknowledge God and Jesus, there is a higher chance you will go to hel_l. The punishment is much more severe.

if it turns out that the Christians were wrong all along, then at least you have another chance in the next life to get it right. If the Christians are correct and you didn't believe in God, pray to him etc, made a few mistakes in life etc, then you are in real trouble. Basic risk management.

So religion is your safety net? You don't believe in christianity but if it turns out that there is a god, then you will point to this posting and try to convince your god that you are sincere?

Don't forget to do a backup on an external hard drive. Jesus saves and so should you.

[sgtpeppers]

I think it would be safer to believe in Christianity. If you failed to acknowledge God and Jesus, there is a higher chance you will go to hel_l. The punishment is much more severe.

if it turns out that the Christians were wrong all along, then at least you have another chance in the next life to get it right. If the Christians are correct and you didn't believe in God, pray to him etc, made a few mistakes in life etc, then you are in real trouble. Basic risk management.

So religion is your safety net? You don't believe in christianity but if it turns out that there is a god, then you will point to this posting and try to convince your god that you are sincere?

My stance, as a low faith Christian, is somewhat like an low cost insurance policy. If it turns out there is a heaven and hel_l after we die, I will be far better positioned to avoid hel_l than the unbelievers. If I am wrong about it all, no big deal, just get reborn.

[jumnien]

As to the OP, I'm not really sure that buddha or jesus said anything. It was before my time. i've tried some of the practices attributable to both of them and they work pretty well. Stick with teachings and self-discovery and let the teachers go in peace.

[Brucenkhamen]

ok...

we are all grown ups here

so dont get offended if someone shines a light on your beliefs

[and dont pull the shutters down and go crying to the mods]

budda says that we come back next life according to our behaviour in this life.

many lives - many chances to get it right

jesus says we go to heaven, hel_l or purgatory depending on what we do this life

one life - one chance only

so who is right?

they cant both be.

or are they both stretching it a bit and there is nothing to look forward to.

belief is one thing - truth is another [not to confuse the two]

its an age old question

but im sure theres enough grey matter on this forum to sort it out once and for all

over to you...

Firstly it would be helpful if you get your facts right.

As Xangsamhua pointed out Jesus didn't really teach the die and go to heavean or he// scenario you presented here, this is a dumbed down Sunday school interpretation of his teachings in my opinion.

Also if you are thinking that the Buddha taught that after we die our soul gets popped into another body and sent on it's way this is not correct, this is more the Hindu way of seeing things, and a dumbed down Sunday school interpretation of his teachings in my opinion.

So if you believe one or the other of those teaching what do you have?... a belief.

In my opinion the important thing to consider is does belief have any value, if you believe that Jesus dies for your sins what do you have?... a belief, if you believe that if you are good you will be reborn to a better life what do you have?... a belief, if you believe that if you kill enough capitalist Americans in a plane crash you'll go to paradise what do you have?... a belief, if you believe that if you are good Santa will come down the chimney and bring lots of presents what do you have?... a belief.

I don't see any difference in any of the above and all have the potential to fall into fundamentaism which is not only dangerous to non-believers but puts an end to human growth and spiritual evolution.

I don't think it's a matter of who is right and who is wrong but who can go beyond blind belief and come to understand what their life really is and live it as fully and awakened as possible.

So I don't really care who is right and who is wrong and I've got my hands full trying to understand and make the most of this life so haven't given much thought on what comes after.

Jesus and the Buddha both had useful teachings on how to live your life now.

[ariesram74]

I have a vague memory in some religion class talking about the influence of Buddhism on Jesus... will have to go research that topic.

Good discussion.

Perhaps in afterlife all our words and understanding cannot be applied. All religions contain truths essential for the human soul - that those religions seem to conflict is possibly an illusion. As well any intellectual theorizing on ultimate reality is doomed to failure.

On that note I am going to bed...

[vegas]

I guarantee you all 100% that there is nothing after this life. If anyone seriosuly believed that there was, there would be zero crime, cruelty etc of any kind. Religion is only relevant to anyone when individuals depressed, lonely, suffering etc. You can take that to the bank!!

[camerata]

I guarantee you all 100% that there is nothing after this life.

But where is the proof?

[camerata]

but im sure theres enough grey matter on this forum to sort it out once and for all

If the greatest minds in human history couldn't come to a definite conclusion, I doubt thaivisa members will do any better.

According to the Pali Canon, the Buddha taught at two levels. To his serious followers (the monks) he taught a system of mental cultivation that led to a state of being without suffering in this lifetime. For the rest, he taught an easier path that could be followed over more than one lifetime but which didn't include continuation of personal identity. So if we look at the real focus of his teaching, it was all about the here and now.

The Level 1 teaching didn't require blind faith, Level 2 teaching did. Perhaps the Buddha got it wrong in the Level 2 teaching, or perhaps it was inserted into the scriptures later by monks who wanted to make everything easier for the laity. We'll never know. The one thing we do know is that the primary teachings were essentially atheistic and required no blind faith.

[vegas]

I guarantee you all 100% that there is nothing after this life.

But where is the proof?

Proof? Proof! Try logic. We accept that there is no Santa Claus, Easter bunny or boogie man (after we reach 8 years of age). Yet people insist that something equally ludicrous such as a magical god that can do anything exists, despite the fact that 1,000+ different cultures all all claim to have one of their own (we can't all be right). This is just common sense.

[AnnyLing]

Jesus got it right, but not this version, which was changed from his original teachings. They also changed his name from Ymmanuel long after his death in Kashmir, well aged. This version is meant for control. His version would have set you free. Read The Talmud Ymmanuel published by B Meier for the original notes from Ymmanuel. Budha is almost right. you come back the same character as you were in last life, maybe in a different sex body, BUT if you progress spiritually in the next incarnation, then there is no need for further incarnations. Your spirit then becomes one with spirit. Each life in a body is only to allow the sprit to evolve and develop, to learn and to experience. IMHO.

Is there no law or forum rules that prevent morons from posting??? Oh yes... please ban me for flaming. I deserve it. Nobody is allowed to call idiots idiots. True or false?

[rockyysdt]

Proof? Proof! Try logic. We accept that there is no Santa Claus, Easter bunny or boogie man (after we reach 8 years of age). Yet people insist that something equally ludicrous such as a magical god that can do anything exists, despite the fact that 1,000+ different cultures all all claim to have one of their own (we can't all be right). This is just common sense.

vegas

Aren't you expressing a belief?

Those who absolutely disbelieve can be just as wrong as those who do.

The logical stance can only be to have an open mind.

Let's view this scientifically.

Infinity.

We live in an infinite universe where possibilities are infinite.

Infinity can't be measured or understood by our finite thought.

You might be just as wrong as you ascert the believers to be.

The way I understand it Buddha taught a practice by which you are able to experience enlightenment.

He taught that by practicing self awareness you will discover the answer.

No indoctrination or belief, but by actual experience.

Until you have actual experience then you'll never know the answer.

Remember, we are talking about a realm beyond the fourth dimension.

NB: God is our way of representing something which is infinite.

As we live in a finite environment we can't even begin to to understand it in our current form.

If you can't measure or understand infinity how can you make your claim?

It has been said, God comes by many names.

Edited June 23, 2008 by rockyysdt

[happyending]

but im sure theres enough grey matter on this forum to sort it out once and for all

If the greatest minds in human history couldn't come to a definite conclusion, I doubt thaivisa members will do any better.

According to the Pali Canon, the Buddha taught at two levels. To his serious followers (the monks) he taught a system of mental cultivation that led to a state of being without suffering in this lifetime. For the rest, he taught an easier path that could be followed over more than one lifetime but which didn't include continuation of personal identity. So if we look at the real focus of his teaching, it was all about the here and now.

The Level 1 teaching didn't require blind faith, Level 2 teaching did. Perhaps the Buddha got it wrong in the Level 2 teaching, or perhaps it was inserted into the scriptures later by monks who wanted to make everything easier for the laity. We'll never know. The one thing we do know is that the primary teachings were essentially atheistic and required no blind faith.

well said

teaching on 2 levels

like sunday school or the parables

budda

level 1 = quieten the mind to the state of no mind to attain peace, of mind [1%]

level 2 = follow the teachings and youll escape any further bad luck/karma [99%]

jesus

level 1 = do the right things and you will be at peace within yourself [1%]

level 2 = do good and you will go to a wonderful place [99%]

sad that the authorities/churches jumped on the level 2 bandwaggon

and keep on milking it for all its worth

but with 99% of willing donors - its a good money/power maker

no buttons in the plate, please

[camerata]

This is just common sense.

If you are going to offer a 100% guarantee, you have to offer some proof. What's common sense to you or I might not be common sense to someone else, especially someone from a different culture.

I think there is a pretty strong statistical argument that there is no interventionist deity answering people's prayers and helping the good/faithful on Earth, because if there were, we'd see the effect (i.e miracles) all around us. But the same can't be said for a deity who might get involved after death of the body. It's the same with the traditional Buddhist idea of karma. Karmic consequences may come in future rebirths, so there's no proof of it one way or the other.

[rockyysdt]

ok...

we are all grown ups here

so dont get offended if someone shines a light on your beliefs

[and dont pull the shutters down and go crying to the mods]

budda says that we come back next life according to our behaviour in this life.

many lives - many chances to get it right

jesus says we go to heaven, hel_l or purgatory depending on what we do this life

one life - one chance only

so who is right?

they cant both be.

or are they both stretching it a bit and there is nothing to look forward to.

belief is one thing - truth is another [not to confuse the two]

its an age old question

but im sure theres enough grey matter on this forum to sort it out once and for all

over to you...

The answer is that there are many paths to the same place.

Buddha taught that one can attain enlightenment through self awareness.

Jesus taught that enlightenment can be bestowed through true faith in the Creator.

There is no reason why they can't both be correct.

They are simply different paths.

There is only one God.

Pergatory was an invention by the Catholic Church.

The Catholics believed that once you go to hel_l it is for eternity.

Pergatory was like hel_l, but you retain the option of going to Heaven through good behaviour.

Edited June 23, 2008 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Is there no law or forum rules that prevent morons from posting??? Oh yes... please ban me for flaming. I deserve it. Nobody is allowed to call idiots idiots. True or false?

Try reading the forum rules. What we want is opinions on the topic at hand, not flames directed at other members.

[lost_in_space]

I think it would be safer to believe in Christianity. If you failed to acknowledge God and Jesus, there is a higher chance you will go to hel_l. The punishment is much more severe.

if it turns out that the Christians were wrong all along, then at least you have another chance in the next life to get it right. If the Christians are correct and you didn't believe in God, pray to him etc, made a few mistakes in life etc, then you are in real trouble. Basic risk management.

This is a well known hypothesis called "Pasqual's Wager."

It has been clearly shown to be a shallow, insincere way of belief.

If there were a God, he/she'd spot you in a minute as an imposter.

[camerata]

Stick to the topic, folks (Budda V Jesus, karma or heaven) or the thread will be closed.

[wolf5370]

I guarantee you all 100% that there is nothing after this life.

But where is the proof?

Proof? Proof! Try logic. We accept that there is no Santa Claus, Easter bunny or boogie man (after we reach 8 years of age). Yet people insist that something equally ludicrous such as a magical god that can do anything exists, despite the fact that 1,000+ different cultures all all claim to have one of their own (we can't all be right). This is just common sense.

Good post rockyysdt (post 26).

Vegas, nearly everything we take for granted (knowledge wise) is something we've been taught, not something we 'know' or have proof of. The Earth goes around the Sun, can YOU prove this - probably by scanning he web you could find a mathematical proof etc, but is this proof? How many mathematical theories were de facto until they were disproved or improved etc (just look at what the ancient Greeks theorised that the world in general took as red for centuries). Atom means indivisible, yet its made of neutrons, protons and electrons, these were indivisible until we discovered quarks and gluons and so on. Newton was right until the 19th century mathematicians 'corrected' him and Einstein put it all together). What I'm trying to say is that there isn't much proof of anything.

Somethings we invested for children - everything from Father Christmas to the Bogey Man to help teach them or keep them in line. We know that these are made up (sorry kids), I don't think it fair to equate this with belief in God any more than it is to equate them to proof in science.

I think the real problem is that religions are all so old. They were so long ago that there was little or nothing written down at the time and over the millenia has been rewritten and twisted to some authority's use. Imagine if there was one God (bear with me atheists) and s/he decided to give his/her message all those years ago, imagine the Chinese whispers through time and between languages, with all those embellishments and mis-remembrances, let alone the intentional corruptions - is it any wonder we would have so many mixed and contending messages today?

Why only give the message so long ago, why not renew it - what makes us think s/he hasn't, but with such ingrained beliefs, such prophets are thought insane - the last one believed en-masse was Mohamed, and what did he return with - that all the prophets before were correct (including Jesus and Abraham), but their words were twisted and embellished and not kept pure. This has happened to all religions since (including Mohammed's message too, even though the Qur'an forbid it).

Edited June 23, 2008 by wolf5370

[garro]

I think that the problem I would have with a heaven is who would go there? The me now or the me yesterday? The me next year or the me when I was six? All these seem like different people to me who are only connected by shared memories. I prefer to believe that the only continuation of this me is the karma that I generate. The idea of a dead me (soul) going somewhere just doesn't make sense. Of course I could be wrong, but the ideas of the Buddha are what I find when I try and look deep inside.

[Xangsamhua]

I think that the problem I would have with a heaven is who would go there? The me now or the me yesterday? The me next year or the me when I was six? All these seem like different people to me who are only connected by shared memories. I prefer to believe that the only continuation of this me is the karma that I generate. The idea of a dead me (soul) going somewhere just doesn't make sense. Of course I could be wrong, but the ideas of the Buddha are what I find when I try and look deep inside.

Yes, the idea of "going to heaven" is, as Brucenkhamen suggested, Sunday School stuff and, yes, it's still taught to children that way by adults who appear to believe it themselves. Camerata referred to levels of teaching depending on the maturity of those taught. James Fowler proposed 6 stages of faith, as follows:

Stage 0 - "Primal or Undifferentiated" faith (birth to 2 years), is characterized by an early learning of the safety of their environment (ie. warm, safe and secure vs. hurt, neglect and abuse). In addition, sharp attention is paid to mammalia (e.g., wooly sheep)

Stage 1 – "Intuitive-Projective" faith (ages of three to seven), is characterized by the psyche's unprotected exposure to the Unconscious.

Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage three persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic.

Stage 3 - "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence) characterized by conformity

Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for their beliefs and feelings.

Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems

Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment".

I think most posters here are concerned about adults who are still stuck in stages 2 and 3. Perhaps most of us think we are in or aspire to stages 4 and 5, whether we be disciples of the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad or whoever. Is anyone in stage 6?