Budda V Jesus

[Captain Haddock]

Riddle me this - If a Christian belief is that one goes to H_eaven or H_ell for all eternity, isn't that a paradox? After all, eternity is time without end, and therefore without beginning, but we're here now, aren't we? So how can one go somewhere for all eternity?

Just my 2 satang... which could be a belief, or not...

[Captain Haddock]

Religion - it's what you make it.

[rockyysdt]

Riddle me this - If a Christian belief is that one goes to H_eaven or H_ell for all eternity, isn't that a paradox? After all, eternity is time without end, and therefore without beginning, but we're here now, aren't we? So how can one go somewhere for all eternity?

Just my 2 satang... which could be a belief, or not...

Good point Captain.

I think the scriptures were written without supervision, much of it well after the death of Jesus.

The important thing is not to get lost in the detail, but to seek the answers through experience.

One could suggest that our physical life, immersed in all its suffering, is our hel_l.

Heaven may be unification with infinity, and not that perfect garden where only nice things happen.

Most Christian thought appears to be from the Dark Ages.

Edited June 24, 2008 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

I recently had an email discussion about the 'kingdom of heaven' with a good friend who happens to be an evangelical Christian. It drove me to seek out every reference to heaven or the kingdom of heaven in the King James translation of the Bible.

What I found was that 'heaven' was not very clearly defined at all. Most citations are of this nature:

"Turn back to God! The kingdom of heaven will soon be here." (Matthew 4)

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5)

None of the mentions of heaven in the Bible are definitive, only attributive. Other than a recurring 'repent or else' theme, the various citations don't relate much to one another, and there isn't all that much of semiotic substance. The few attributive phrases make it sound like something on earth, rather than separate.

There is one long, very obscure passage about the KOH being like seeds of mustard or wheat, or like leavening that makes bread rise, or like a pearl, or like a treasure, or like a net. Example:

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." Matthew 13

On the other hand Biblical scholar Joseph Wheless, author of Is it God's Word?, writes:

"In the beginning Elohim [gods] created the heaven and the earth," reads the ancient Hebrew revelation, and "made the firmament, and called the firmament Heaven" (Gen. i, 7, 8).

The Hebrew notion (and other ancient, primitive, notions, the Hebrew one was copied from older myths) of the architectural scheme of their very limited universe were intimately related to their scheme of theology and of eschatology, or after-life affairs. Their notions of God, of heaven, of hel_l, and of after-life, were adapted to the narrow limits of the universe as imagined by the ancient theologians. And present-day Christian theology adopts wholly and wholly rests upon the ancient Hebrew revelation of earth and heaven and hel_l.

According to this ancient Hebrew revelation, the earth is flat and four-cornered; the sun moves around it as a center, and on occasion can be made to stand still in its course. No great distance above the flat surface of the earth is a solid arched "firmament," in which the sun, moon, and stars are somehow set and on which they move. Just within this firmament, which is a solid something which "divides the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Gen. i, 7), is heaven, where Yahveh and angels, seraphim, the "sons of the gods," and others of the "heavenly hosts" have their abode.

This heaven is so close to the earth that men could propose and attempt to build a tower which should reach into it and enable them to scale up to the gods; so close that a ladder resting on the earth actually reached into the heaven, and angels passed to and fro on it. Yahveh and his messengers can easily and quickly pass back and forth between earth and heaven; the "sons of the gods" can come to earth among the daughters of men. The voice of Yahveh can easily be heard when he cries from heaven, and from heaven he can hurl stones and thunder-bolts when he fights, like Jove, in the battles of his chosen warriors. The Spirit of Yahveh can flit dove-like from heaven to earth to accredit the Son of Yahveh to men. The living bodies of Enoch and Elijah can be "translated" into heaven, the latter in a chariot and horses of fire, before human eyes; the flesh-clothed shades of Elijah and Moses can swoop down upon the Mount of Transfiguration and back again like flashes of lightning. The human eye in ecstasy can see into heaven and behold Yahveh seated on his throne. Dives in hel_l can look up into heaven and see Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham and hold converse with him. Satan, King of hel_l, was wont to pass readily to heaven to hold Yahveh in challenging argument and defiance and to plot evil to Job. Under the "new dispensation," the souls of the newly dead found instant lodgment in heaven or hel_l, according to the deeds done in the flesh.

If this is where the Biblical notion of heaven comes from, then the religion built around the earthly arrival of the son of the Hebrew god Yahveh seems to be made up of primitive cosmological notions which modern knowledge has made obsolete. Unless it's intra-dimensional -- but we're simply not given enough information in the Bible to draw any such conclusion.

I agree that Pascal's wager ('believe because you have less to lose') is cynical. What have you won if you don't even know what it is? It's a blind wager. It seems to me that a little bit of study reveals the Christian 'heaven' to be so poorly defined that it fails as a 'safe' bet.

On the other hand, one could argue that the fruits of karma are to some degree observable in everyday life. Thus the Buddhist wager hedges one's bets based on empirical investigation.

[Xangsamhua]

Most Christian thought appears to be from the Dark Ages.

Descartes, Pascal (yes, he of the wager - an apologetic exercise, not the flippant line some posters have suggested: see Wikipedia), Leibnitz (satirized by Voltaire in Candide, but a major philosopher), J H Newman, A N Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Margaret Anscombe, Teilhard de Chardin, Bernard Lonergan, Charles Taylor, John Barrow, Charles Birch, et al - Dark Age thinkers?

For a contemporary discussion, look at Timothy Radcliffe's "What's the Point of Being a Christian" (Radcliffe is immediate past Master of the Dominicans) for a far more liberal and thoughtful view of the big questions in people's lives than is displayed in some of postings in this (a Buddhist!) forum. For a Buddhist view consider Thich Nhat Hanh's "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

[Xangsamhua]

I recently had an email discussion about the 'kingdom of heaven' with a good friend who happens to be an evangelical Christian.

Sabaijai, there's no need to dredge up a tendentious 1926 publication by an amateur biblical scholar (though he was a lawyer and we all trust lawyers, don't we) to make Christians look like idiots. They're perfectly capable of doing that by themselves, particularly those of the literalist variety (see my earlier posting about Fowler's stages of faith). Have a look at John Selby Spong's books, including "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". They're easy to read and well-informed (he is a retired Episcopalian bishop).

There's plenty to criticize, and attack if you like, in Christianity, and this fissiparous religion is starting to go through a purifying phase from which I think it will emerge much less numerous but much more reasonable and credible. To what extent it resembles the old form is a good question. Religions, institutions, forms of expression.. these things go in cycles. It'll be interesting to watch. Buddhists should do so with charity.

Edited June 24, 2008 by camerata
Fixed broken quote.

[Crushdepth]

For a far more amusing discussion of Pascal's wager, see the Dilbert Blog. :-)

If you believe God exists, the smart money says he’s backing the team with the best strategy and long term viability. Based on what I see today, I’m betting on Islam being the only religion in a thousand years. Once you can build your own nuke from stuff you buy online, don’t be betting on the Buddhists.

How can you have a 'who is right' discussion without including Jewish and Islamic faith, anyway?

Edited June 24, 2008 by Crushdepth

[sabaijai]

I recently had an email discussion about the 'kingdom of heaven' with a good friend who happens to be an evangelical Christian.

Sabaijai, there's no need to dredge up a tendentious 1926 publication by an amateur biblical scholar (though he was a lawyer and we all trust lawyers, don't we) to make Christians look like idiots. They're perfectly capable of doing that by themselves, particularly those of the literalist variety (see my earlier posting about Fowler's stages of faith). Have a look at John Selby Spong's books, including "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". They're easy to read and well-informed (he is a retired Episcopalian bishop).

There's plenty to criticize, and attack if you like, in Christianity, and this fissiparous religion is starting to go through a purifying phase from which I think it will emerge much less numerous but much more reasonable and credible. To what extent it resembles the old form is a good question. Religions, institutions, forms of expression.. these things go in cycles. It'll be interesting to watch. Buddhists should do so with charity.

Correct, all you have to do is read all the citations about 'heaven' in the New Testament.

But I do think the scholar made good points, sorry if you are so far above his scholarship as not to appreciate it

[Xangsamhua]

I recently had an email discussion about the 'kingdom of heaven' with a good friend who happens to be an evangelical Christian.

Sabaijai, there's no need to dredge up a tendentious 1926 publication by an amateur biblical scholar (though he was a lawyer and we all trust lawyers, don't we) to make Christians look like idiots. They're perfectly capable of doing that by themselves, particularly those of the literalist variety (see my earlier posting about Fowler's stages of faith). Have a look at John Selby Spong's books, including "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". They're easy to read and well-informed (he is a retired Episcopalian bishop).

There's plenty to criticize, and attack if you like, in Christianity, and this fissiparous religion is starting to go through a purifying phase from which I think it will emerge much less numerous but much more reasonable and credible. To what extent it resembles the old form is a good question. Religions, institutions, forms of expression.. these things go in cycles. It'll be interesting to watch. Buddhists should do so with charity.

Correct, all you have to do is read all the citations about 'heaven' in the New Testament.

But I do think the scholar made good points, sorry if you are so far above his scholarship as not to appreciate it

Sabaijai, apologies for my somewhat cranky and perhaps arrogant response to your earlier posting. There has, however, been an explosion in biblical studies in the past 50 or 60 years, especially since Pope Pius XII opened the door (1943) to Catholic scholars to engage in and promote critical methods in the field. Admittedly a lot of biblical studies that goes on, particularly in the conservative Christian seminaries, although meticulous, doesn't accept a lot that would be uncontested in more liberal schools.

On the question of Hebrew understandings of "heaven", I would have thought that first century Jews were more likely to have picked up ideas about "the last things" from their experience during the exile (6th century BC) in Chaldaea than they would have retained from earlier pre-Exodus biblical times. The Israelites were notorious throughout their history for taking on the beliefs and devotions of neighbouring peoples, perhaps because the cult of Yahweh was so harsh. You're quite right though, I think, in saying that metaphors about heaven in first century Temple Judaism and early Christianity were generally based on primitive cosmology. What the people actually believed it was I'm not sure. I don't think Jesus preached "pie in the sky", but he certainly taught that ethical living would be rewarded in some way, either after death or during life (especially with the coming of the kingdom). I'm not sure that he had any certainties himself about the after-life; his focus was on the Kingdom, which was to be an earthly one. We retroject onto Jesus beliefs that emerged after his followers' response to whatever happened at Easter.

[sabaijai]

I don't think Jesus preached pie in the sky, or at least we can say that what we read today in the New Testament with regard to heaven does not put that notion forth.

I probably wasn't explicit, but I was referring to the persistent folk belief in a celestial heaven among Christians worldwide, a belief no doubt based on all the folk belief that came before, including the one described by the lawyer. It seems to me that all world religions have a folk cosmology that puts earth between a heaven/paradise above and a hel_l/purgatory below (including Thai Buddhism, with its abundant temple murals and books espousing the Traiphum or Triple-World cosmology). Yet when you actually read the respective scriptures one finds little to support that cosmology (I'm presuming, having only a limited exposure overall).

[Xangsamhua]

type=simple&format=Long&q1=heaven&restrict=New+Testament&size=All"]New Testament with regard to heaven[/url]

Excellent resource. Thank you. I think, though, if we are looking for Jesus' own words about heaven we could restrict ourselves to the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke, that draw on common sources as well as their own community's tradition. John is too "theological" (rather than "historical"), Paul talks about heaven from entirely his own perspective (and reflects Chaldaean-Persian influences in referring to the "third heaven" and, in another place to the "sting" of death [a Babylonian metaphor for death as a scorpion]), the non-Pauline epistles simply reflect their authors' views, and Revelations is simply a bizarre vision or dream account that barely made it into the canon.

Browsing quickly through the quotes I think you're right that the references to heaven are not altogether clear. Is Jesus speaking of a place in the cosmos? Is he referring to a paradisiacal future state on earth? The coming kingdom he's inaugurating? A metaphor for a better state/condition than at present? It is a bit vague.

I had a look at Richard McBrien's magisterial and hugely popular work "Catholicism" (1994) and note from the index that there are 3 pages given to discussion on "heaven" in a 1200 page book; they're right near the end. I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church at work, so will check tomorrow, but I suspect there's not much in there either. As you say, the heaven/hel_l thing is probably largely folk-religion, ubiquitous and all as it may be. Interestingly, purgatory seems to stand the test of time better, because, if there is any retribution in whatever form for the sins one commits in one's life, the chance to work it off over time is more acceptable justice than an eternal punishment (or an eternal reward for someone who just gets over the line). Purgatory got a bad press in the pre-Reformation period because of abuse of the dispensations system (people could pay money to get relatives out of purgatory or reduce their time).

[rockyysdt]

Interestingly, purgatory seems to stand the test of time better, because, if there is any retribution in whatever form for the sins one commits in one's life, the chance to work it off over time is more acceptable justice than an eternal punishment (or an eternal reward for someone who just gets over the line).

Two things come to mind.

• The threat of eternal hel_l without redemption serves the purpose of frightening the hel_l out of the unfaithful.
  
• Can you imagine the psycholgical damage one would suffer spending 1,000 years in purgatory? Once pardoned and elevated into heaven, it could take an eternity of counselling to overcome.
  

[ThaiPauly]

My personal beleifs shift like the sand, I am still searching for an answer, but doubt I will find one before I die.

My current thinking is that ...if I can't remember what life was like for me in my Mother's womb, then that's what I will experience when I die......nothing, I will cease to exist. No heaven or h_ll, no re-birth...nothing.

However, I do beleive in Karma (or what goes around comes around) and do my best to be a good person, because if I help someone ......it makes me feel better about myself.

This has nothing to do with religion

Edited June 28, 2008 by ThaiPauly

[Xangsamhua]

My personal beleifs shift like the sand, I am still searching for an answer, but doubt I will find one before I die.

My current thinking is that ...if I can't remember what life was like for me in my Mother's womb, then that's what I will experience when I die......nothing, I will cease to exist. No heaven or h_ll, no re-birth...nothing.

However, I do beleive in Karma (or what goes around comes around) and do my best to be a good person, because if I help someone ......it makes me feel better about myself.

This has nothing to do with religion

Good luck, TP.

On the big question:

Schopenhauer put it nicely. He was an "atheist", much influenced by the philosophies of India.

"Every moment of our life belongs to the present only for a moment; then it belongs forever to the past. Every evening we are poorer by a day. We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can for ever draw new life and renewed time."

(Arthur Schopenhauer, “On the Vanity of Existence”, 1851)

Qoheleth, the 3rd century BCE Jewish teacher, had a way with words too.

“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

(Ecclesiastes 3:11 KJV)

On Theravada and doing your best to be a good person:

"For if one were to transcend self-centeredness completely, as the Arahat seeks to, what would be left but compassion?" (Lama Govinda, quoted in Huston Smith, "The World's Religions" (1991), p.127

[Samuian]

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.

......to call idiots idiots. True or false?

Why is he an idiot? Because he believes something different from you? Is everybody who thinks differently from you an idiot? I may not agree with somebody's belief but to call them an idiot for believing it would be a bit arrogant and ignorant.

Looks like the poster likes to look into the barrel of a loaded and cocked gun...

Funny thing is believe or not, there is a tomb in Srinagar/Kashmir... which many Cashmiris have no doubt that it is the tomb of Yussif/Jesus...for them it is no big deal, it's NOT "the son of the Almighty", it's "only" one of the prophets.

As well as there is the Tomb of Mary on Pakistani Soil, close same region.

Why not?

As some posters already agree that much of the "great Books" has been "made up" for power games as we know them to be played over the last 2000 years by what is called "the church" and it's "followers".

Common Sense and truth or not, proof or not... look out there, "look" inside who needs proof of what?

And those simple minds who need a "big Daddy" as a crutch for understanding and the need to pray to something ah' well.... let 'em as long as the do not do silly things and hurt others because of their daydream, fairytale believes!

And yes, don't worry, live, life is short!

And the really bad news are: "you will only find out how short, when it's irreversible OUT 'n OVER!

cheers and have a nice day, every day, everyone!

[Xangsamhua]

My personal beleifs shift like the sand, I am still searching for an answer, but doubt I will find one before I die.

My current thinking is that ...if I can't remember what life was like for me in my Mother's womb, then that's what I will experience when I die......nothing, I will cease to exist. No heaven or h_ll, no re-birth...nothing.

However, I do beleive in Karma (or what goes around comes around) and do my best to be a good person, because if I help someone ......it makes me feel better about myself.

This has nothing to do with religion

Good luck, TP.

On the big question:

Schopenhauer put it nicely. He was an "atheist", much influenced by the philosophies of India.

"Every moment of our life belongs to the present only for a moment; then it belongs forever to the past. Every evening we are poorer by a day. We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can for ever draw new life and renewed time."

(Arthur Schopenhauer, “On the Vanity of Existence”, 1851)

Qoheleth, the 3rd century BCE Jewish teacher, had a way with words too.

“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

(Ecclesiastes 3:11 KJV)

On Theravada and doing your best to be a good person:

"For if one were to transcend self-centeredness completely, as the Arahat seeks to, what would be left but compassion?" (Lama Govinda, quoted in Huston Smith, "The World's Religions" (1991), p.127

Apologies, the quote in red is from Bhikkhu Nyanaponika, not Lama Govinda. The bhikkhu was speaking about Lama Govinda's views.

[garro]

My personal beleifs shift like the sand, I am still searching for an answer, but doubt I will find one before I die.

My current thinking is that ...if I can't remember what life was like for me in my Mother's womb, then that's what I will experience when I die......nothing, I will cease to exist. No heaven or h_ll, no re-birth...nothing.

However, I do beleive in Karma (or what goes around comes around) and do my best to be a good person, because if I help someone ......it makes me feel better about myself.

This has nothing to do with religion

TP, my interpretaion of what the Buddha was saying is close to what you are saying. He didn't believe in a self going from life to life but he did emphasise kamma. It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion.

[GaiYaang]

What a tough subject by the title. Good thing you guys are not discussing this subject face to face.

I'll keep my 2 satangs

[vegas]

I decided when I was 8 years old that religion was not for me after another particularly nauseating school scripture class and asked my parents for permission to be excluded from future classes, which was granted. I've seen nothing over the following 35 years that would make me change my stance. I have no idea what happens when we die, but I am sure that we don't all go to our own particular brand of heaven, with our own personal god.

I'm curious. Don't believers feel just a little bit concerned that there are so many different varieties of religion out there and that if there is a god, then there are a hel_l of a lot of people that are going to be wrong and therefore go to hel_l? What's more, if there is a god, isn't this all powerful being more likely to be accepting of a person that genuinely has no belief and lives a good life than someone who preaches on TV and then drinks, whores and gambles other people's money away? Assuming that this god isn't the arrogant schoolmaster that most religions make him/her/it out to be, then an individuals circumstances would be taken into consideration when they reached the pearly gates.

Let's be honest, if I was a god and had built an unbelievably vast universe, with billions of planets, full of wonders, most likely containing millions of cultures, would I be so vain that I would ask these tiny beings, on a tiny blue planet to go to a temple/church/whatever and bow down to me on a regular basis? Does god need that sort of recognition? Stars are exploding, planets are forming, black holes are swallowing by the million and god is going to target Homer for sleeping in on a Sunday or little Johnny for having a tug in the toilet? How ludicrous.

I think of there was a god out there, then a good way of expressing himself would be to discourage ungodly behaviour like murder, rape, torture etc.

That's my 2 bob's worth anyway.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm curious. Don't believers feel just a little bit concerned that there are so many different varieties of religion out there and that if there is a god, then there are a hel_l of a lot of people that are going to be wrong and therefore go to hel_l?

You'd have to ask this on a Christian, Muslim, or whatever forum. Buddhism doesn't teach this, so no, I'm not concerned.

What's more, if there is a god, isn't this all powerful being more likely to be accepting of a person that genuinely has no belief and lives a good life than someone who preaches on TV and then drinks, whores and gambles other people's money away?

I would have thought so too, again best to ask this of people who hold those views.

Let's be honest, if I was a god and had built an unbelievably vast universe, with billions of planets, full of wonders, most likely containing millions of cultures, would I be so vain that I would ask these tiny beings, on a tiny blue planet to go to a temple/church/whatever and bow down to me on a regular basis? Does god need that sort of recognition? Stars are exploding, planets are forming, black holes are swallowing by the million and god is going to target Homer for sleeping in on a Sunday or little Johnny for having a tug in the toilet? How ludicrous.

I think of there was a god out there, then a good way of expressing himself would be to discourage ungodly behaviour like murder, rape, torture etc.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Do you have any views on non-theistic religions like Buddhism? As after all that's the topic of this forum.

[jumnien]

I would hardly call buddhism a non-theistic religion as it is practiced by the lovely Thai people. Phra Jao holds a very high place for them and the huge universe of spirits and heavens and hells is too fantastic to ignore.

[Brucenkhamen]

I would hardly call buddhism a non-theistic religion as it is practiced by the lovely Thai people. Phra Jao holds a very high place for them and the huge universe of spirits and heavens and hells is too fantastic to ignore.

True, but that's not what the Buddha taught.

I'm sure vagas's points apply just as much to modern Thai practices as to theistic religions but defining Buddhism based on modern Thai practices is a bit like defining Christianity based on Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

[Jimjim]

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

one life - one chance only

Sorry, Jesus doesn't say we will go to purgatory. That's a purely Catholic belief that is not biblical.

[Jimjim]

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

Proof?

There's no proof one way or the other. According to stringent, logical philosophy that is.

And as I just PMed to Vegas: Sorry, no logical argument has ever proved 100% there is a God or there is no God. Your argument is therefore, illogical.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Jimjim

[OlRedEyes]

They all say the same thing: Thou shalt have no fun.

[Tilakkhana]

I once read an article showing the many changes, modifications and omissions the bible has been through. One of the passages or doctrines they (the Church / Power) decided to remove during one the their councils had to do with the idea of reincarnation. I have search on Google and found this other article:

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/reincar/re-imo.htm

"Actually, the idea is found in the oldest traditions of Western civilization, as well as being taught throughout the ancient Near East and Orient. And there is solid evidence that during its first centuries, Christianity did indeed impart what it had learned about the pre-existence of souls and their reimbodiment.Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War

(3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3)

that reincarnation was taught widely in his day, while his contemporary in Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, in various of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form. Moreover, there are passages of the New Testament that can be understood only if seen against the background of pre-existence of souls as a generally held belief. For instance, Matthew

(16:13-14) records that when Jesus asked his disciples "Whom do men say that I am?" they replied that some people said he was John the Baptist (who had been executed only a few years before the question was asked). Others thought he was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or another of the prophets. Later in Matthew

(17:13), far from rejecting the concept of rebirth Jesus tells his disciples that John the Baptist was Elijah.

John

(9:2-4) reports that the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman had sinned or his parents that he had been

born

blind. Jesus replied that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be fulfilled. Or, as St. Paul phrased the thought: we reap what we sow. The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

The earliest Christians, especially those who were members of one or other of the Gnostic sects, such as the Valentinians, Ophites and Ebionites, included reimbodiment among their important teachings. For them it enabled fulfillment of the law -- karma -- as well as providing the means for the soul to purify itself from the muddy qualities resulting from its immersion in matter and the egoism we have developed in the first stages of our journey through earth life.

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100-l65), St. Clement of Alexandria ( AD 150-220), and Origen ( AD 185-254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works, especially Contra Celsum

(1, xxxii), where he asks: "Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?" And in De Principiis

he says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate

,

in his Letter to Demetrias

(a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."

[Samuian]

A good read "Why I am an Agnostic":

"For the most part we inherit our opinions. We are the heirs of

habits and mental customs. Our beliefs, like the fashion of our

garments, depend on where we were born. We are molded and fashioned

by our surroundings.

Environment is a sculptor -- a painter."

for those interested:

link:

[rockyysdt]

Also the Gospel of Thomas (no current major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative), is not dissimilar to Buddhism.

Quote:

The teaching of salvation (i.e., entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is neither that of "works" nor of "grace" as the dicotomy is found in the canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in order to be a light unto the world. (See for example, Sayings 24^[30], 26^[31])

In Thomas v.108, Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." Furthermore, salvation is personal and found through spiritual (psychological) introspection. In Thomas v.70, Jesus says, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within you will kill you." As such, this form of salvation is idiosyncratic and without literal explanation unless read from a psychological perspective related to Self vs. ego. In Thomas v.3, Jesus says,^[24] ...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.

The Gospel of Thomas also dismisses circumcision: His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."

The Gospel of Thomas does not refer to Jesus as "Christ", "Lord", or "Son of Man" as the New Testament (and Q document) do, but simply as "Jesus."^[39] The Gospel of Thomas also lacks any mention of Jesus' birth, baptism, miracles, travels, death, and resurrection.[40

[vegas]

I'm curious. Don't believers feel just a little bit concerned that there are so many different varieties of religion out there and that if there is a god, then there are a hel_l of a lot of people that are going to be wrong and therefore go to hel_l?

You'd have to ask this on a Christian, Muslim, or whatever forum. Buddhism doesn't teach this, so no, I'm not concerned.

What's more, if there is a god, isn't this all powerful being more likely to be accepting of a person that genuinely has no belief and lives a good life than someone who preaches on TV and then drinks, whores and gambles other people's money away?

I would have thought so too, again best to ask this of people who hold those views.

Let's be honest, if I was a god and had built an unbelievably vast universe, with billions of planets, full of wonders, most likely containing millions of cultures, would I be so vain that I would ask these tiny beings, on a tiny blue planet to go to a temple/church/whatever and bow down to me on a regular basis? Does god need that sort of recognition? Stars are exploding, planets are forming, black holes are swallowing by the million and god is going to target Homer for sleeping in on a Sunday or little Johnny for having a tug in the toilet? How ludicrous.

I think of there was a god out there, then a good way of expressing himself would be to discourage ungodly behaviour like murder, rape, torture etc.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Do you have any views on non-theistic religions like Buddhism? As after all that's the topic of this forum.

My wife is a Buddhist, so it can't be all that bad. Is Buddhism the topic of the forum?

[vegas]

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

Proof?

There's no proof one way or the other. According to stringent, logical philosophy that is.

And as I just PMed to Vegas: Sorry, no logical argument has ever proved 100% there is a God or there is no God. Your argument is therefore, illogical.

So you think it's possible that there are 1,000+ gods up there in the clouds, notebooks in hand, making note of every little sin that everybody makes and compiling a list so that when each person dies, they whip out the book, read them their god and bad points and explain why they are or are not going to paradise/heaven? Yeah, sounds real logical.