Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Christianity, Bible verse, is my young "niece" too young to learn about hell?
Has anyone taken a look at the different translations of the Bible in English, and compared them? Sometimes they actually change the text in small details.
I have several different kinds, and they due differ. KJV seems more archaic and uses less-used language than NVE, for example.
Note: KJV actually has unicorns in it. lol It has a lot of odd translations.
I meant that you wouldn't get into a fist fight with someone. I'm alluding to your logic skills and ability to debate, also the fact you were an educator.
I'm implying that I will go ghetto on this woman teaching little kids about hell...you may have to pull me out! And yes I was that girl, in your school.
@dakini...I made her watch "grimlins" and she squirmed!
Makes me want to go up to that carhechism teacher and go old school with her a few rounds.
And I don't mean the @vinlyn way. I mean Honky tonk rodeo.
I meant that you wouldn't get into a fist fight with someone. I'm alluding to your logic skills and ability to debate, also the fact you were an educator.
I'm implying that I will go ghetto on this woman teaching little kids about hell...you may have to pull me out! And yes I was that girl, in your school.
i mean yeah. if it was up to me christianity would be banned across the board. but what can you do. we have freedom of religion and that's a religion and the only way they gain new members now is through children being raised in that. they're not gonna get that many adult converts, get my drift? just let the parents decide and live with the consequences of raising a mentally deficient child...
i mean yeah. if it was up to me christianity would be banned across the board. but what can you do. we have freedom of religion and that's a religion and the only way they gain new members now is through children being raised in that. they're not gonna get that many adult converts, get my drift? just let the parents decide and live with the consequences of raising a mentally deficient child...
If it were up to you, you would ban Christianity. So under your principle, some other person would be free to ban Buddhism.
If it were up to you, you would ban Christianity. So under your principle, some other person would be free to ban Buddhism.
No, he'd ban people from banning other things.
That's not what he said.
if i was in control i would ban christianity and make buddhism the state religion. i mean people ban drugs and other things, right? so just add christianity to the list.
@pineblossom, That's a bit of a childish cop-out. first of all you engage another member in a discussion by responding to their post - then when they reply to your various points, piecemeal, you state that 'silence is a better option'....
should you have considered that point before deciding to post?
A little unfair, don't you think...?
Fairness has nothing to do with the issue.
It was clear that the poster failed to think through the issues and responded with a lengthy counter argument which culminated in an admission that he/she did not agree with many of the morals or ethic taught by the Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
My response to such an admission what that perhaps they had much to learn to which the posted wanted to know to which 'part' I might be referring.
If the poster has problems in accepting the morals and ethics as taught by the monotheists religions then there is nothing I can add in the face of such ignorance. Rather than stating the obvious I elected to remain mute.
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I have found silence is a better option.
I have found silence is a better option.
@pineblossom, That's a bit of a childish cop-out. first of all you engage another member in a discussion by responding to their post - then when they reply to your various points, piecemeal, you state that 'silence is a better option'....
should you have considered that point before deciding to post?
A little unfair, don't you think...?
Fairness has nothing to do with the issue.
It was clear that the poster failed to think through the issues and responded with a lengthy counter argument which culminated in an admission that he/she did not agree with many of the morals or ethic taught by the Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
My response to such an admission what that perhaps they had much to learn to which the posted wanted to know to which 'part' I might be referring.
If the poster has problems in accepting the morals and ethics as taught by the monotheists religions then there is nothing I can add in the face of such ignorance. Rather than stating the obvious I elected to remain mute.
Have you any idea how patronising you sound? This is a discussion forum. so discuss. either comment, and engage, or don't. but don't be supercilious, because it's not clever.
Well, I would definitely ban scaring little children with notions of eternal damnation and such, whatever religion is espousing them. I didn't mean to pick just on xianity. Sorry... Christianity can be good if properly administered, I suppose.
Well, I would definitely ban scaring little children with notions of eternal damnation and such, whatever religion is espousing them. I didn't mean to pick just on xianity. Sorry... Christianity can be good if properly administered, I suppose.
So, since in Thailand -- the most Buddhist country in the world -- there are many temples with horrific depictions in both paintings and statuary depicting Buddhist hells, that you would ban Buddhism?
Well, I would definitely ban scaring little children with notions of eternal damnation and such, whatever religion is espousing them. I didn't mean to pick just on xianity. Sorry... Christianity can be good if properly administered, I suppose.
So, since in Thailand -- the most Buddhist country in the world -- there are many temples with horrific depictions in both paintings and statuary depicting Buddhist hells, that you would ban Buddhism?
are they teaching little children that they're going to go to hell if they don't accept buddha as savior? didn't think so...
Well, I would definitely ban scaring little children with notions of eternal damnation and such, whatever religion is espousing them. I didn't mean to pick just on xianity. Sorry... Christianity can be good if properly administered, I suppose.
So, since in Thailand -- the most Buddhist country in the world -- there are many temples with horrific depictions in both paintings and statuary depicting Buddhist hells, that you would ban Buddhism?
are they teaching little children that they're going to go to hell if they don't accept buddha as savior? didn't think so...
You know, when I visited and then lived in Thailand for a couple of years, there were a number of times that I had conversations with monks about Christianity...interestingly, they brought it up to me. Several monks told me that you can be Buddhist and Christian. And not a single monk ever said an unpleasant thing about Christianity. They simply were confident about Buddhist principles and felt no need to be negative about Christianity or Christians.
You might want to consider that.
You may go ahead and have the last word. Continuing the conversation with you would appear to be rather unproductive.
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
This is one thing that always impressed me about Buddhism. In Christianity, if you repent at the last minute, on your deathbed, you still get home free, no matter what you've done in your lifetime. In Buddhism, you always have responsibility for your actions.
``Buddhist never try to introduce Buddhism by frightening people through hell-fire or enticing people by pointing to paradise. Their main idea is character building and mental training. Buddhists can practise their religion without aiming at heaven or without developing fear of hell.''
let children grow up in their own space and time and don't shove stupid ideas into their little minds that have no basis on reality and are designed to scare them... capice.
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
This is one thing that always impressed me about Buddhism. In Christianity, if you repent at the last minute, on your deathbed, you still get home free, no matter what you've done in your lifetime. In Buddhism, you always have responsibility for your actions.
But keep in mind that it has to be true repentance.
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
This is one thing that always impressed me about Buddhism. In Christianity, if you repent at the last minute, on your deathbed, you still get home free, no matter what you've done in your lifetime. In Buddhism, you always have responsibility for your actions.
But keep in mind that it has to be true repentance.
Isn't that obvious? Just mouthing the words isn't repentance.
Several monks told me that you can be Buddhist and Christian. And not a single monk ever said an unpleasant thing about Christianity.
Which Christianity? There are obvious so many variations. Thankfully I was spared a catholic upbringing, but I hear many adults who feel they were early in life violated by that particular brand of Christianity. Others on this forum also suffer from the narrow-mindedness or ruthlessness of various brands of Christianity practiced in the US.
Those monks, I bet, have never been on the receiving end of the damage Christianity has wrought on some unsuspecting, good people who simply have different opinions or life styles. Therefore, I wouldn't really care much about an uninformed opinion. People can easily be above the fray if they don't know what they are talking about. I will say upfront, I do not know if those particular monks studied Christianity, and this is just my best guess, given they live in a mostly Buddhist society, as you point out..
However, in general, I don't see why Buddhism has to be seen as all forgiving towards a religion that has caused a lot of harm to this day. (And no, I'm not saying *only* harm.) I for one am grateful for the ethical education I received early in childhood, due to being taught values of right and wrong, but that's the end of my praise for Christianity.
When it is said e.g. by the Dalai Lama, that people should best stick to the religion they were brought up in, I assume it does not give all religions a carte blanche and instead is just a way to avoid huge conflicts between religions on a personal level, esp given the difficulties of understanding and practicing Buddhist teachings experienced by the typical newcomer. Point in case, all the questions in this forum by people of higher than average intelligence and the many people who cause themselves hardship and pain by misunderstanding "attachment" and "non-self" for example.
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
This is one thing that always impressed me about Buddhism. In Christianity, if you repent at the last minute, on your deathbed, you still get home free, no matter what you've done in your lifetime. In Buddhism, you always have responsibility for your actions.
But keep in mind that it has to be true repentance.
Isn't that obvious? Just mouthing the words isn't repentance.
I think to "thoughtful" people it's obvious, but not everyone is "thoughtful". I've heard people, when this is discussed, say, "So Hitler can just say 'Oh, sorry', and he gets off scot-free?"
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
This is one thing that always impressed me about Buddhism. In Christianity, if you repent at the last minute, on your deathbed, you still get home free, no matter what you've done in your lifetime. In Buddhism, you always have responsibility for your actions.
But keep in mind that it has to be true repentance.
Isn't that obvious? Just mouthing the words isn't repentance.
I think to "thoughtful" people it's obvious, but not everyone is "thoughtful". I've heard people, when this is discussed, say, "So Hitler can just say 'Oh, sorry', and he gets off scot-free?"
The thief on the cross was saved, it was kind of like a death-bed confession, wasn't it?
Several monks told me that you can be Buddhist and Christian. And not a single monk ever said an unpleasant thing about Christianity.
Which Christianity? There are obvious so many variations. Thankfully I was spared a catholic upbringing, but I hear many adults who feel they were early in life violated by that particular brand of Christianity. Others on this forum also suffer from the narrow-mindedness or ruthlessness of various brands of Christianity practiced in the US.
Those monks, I bet, have never been on the receiving end of the damage Christianity has wrought on some unsuspecting, good people who simply have different opinions or life styles. Therefore, I wouldn't really care much about an uninformed opinion. People can easily be above the fray if they don't know what they are talking about. I will say upfront, I do not know if those particular monks studied Christianity, and this is just my best guess, given they live in a mostly Buddhist society, as you point out..
However, in general, I don't see why Buddhism has to be seen as all forgiving towards a religion that has caused a lot of harm to this day. (And no, I'm not saying *only* harm.) I for one am grateful for the ethical education I received early in childhood, due to being taught values of right and wrong, but that's the end of my praise for Christianity.
When it is said e.g. by the Dalai Lama, that people should best stick to the religion they were brought up in, I assume it does not give all religions a carte blanche and instead is just a way to avoid huge conflicts between religions on a personal level, esp given the difficulties of understanding and practicing Buddhist teachings experienced by the typical newcomer. Point in case, all the questions in this forum by people of higher than average intelligence and the many people who cause themselves hardship and pain by misunderstanding "attachment" and "non-self" for example.
Here's where we can agree, I think: There are many versions of Christianity...just as there are many versions of Buddhism.
Here's where I think we disagree: The monks that I talked with about this seemed to be saying that as a principle they thought it was wrong to disparage other religions or people of other religions, just as it is wrong when Christians disparage Buddhism and Buddhists (and I do think it is disparaging to attempt to convert people).
I also think that the monks I talked with probably saw Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion. And it seems very possible to me that you can see modern Christianity (i.e., the New Testament) as a philosophy, instead of a religion. And if you choose to do so, everything looks just a little different.
Now, as to the idea that Buddhism doesn't promote the concept of hell and suffering, here are a few of my own Buddhist temple photos:
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
This is one thing that always impressed me about Buddhism. In Christianity, if you repent at the last minute, on your deathbed, you still get home free, no matter what you've done in your lifetime. In Buddhism, you always have responsibility for your actions.
But keep in mind that it has to be true repentance.
Isn't that obvious? Just mouthing the words isn't repentance.
I think to "thoughtful" people it's obvious, but not everyone is "thoughtful". I've heard people, when this is discussed, say, "So Hitler can just say 'Oh, sorry', and he gets off scot-free?"
The thief on the cross was saved, it was kind of like a death-bed confession, wasn't it?
You miss the point. Sincerity is the key. You know, sort of like the Buddhist concept of intent.
The difference between Christian and Buddhist hell (even if literal) is this: in Christianity, you can be evil and still avoid hell simply by believing in Christ. In Buddhism, you can't commit all kinds of evil and expect to avoid hell merely by believing in the Buddha.
This is one thing that always impressed me about Buddhism. In Christianity, if you repent at the last minute, on your deathbed, you still get home free, no matter what you've done in your lifetime. In Buddhism, you always have responsibility for your actions.
But keep in mind that it has to be true repentance.
Isn't that obvious? Just mouthing the words isn't repentance.
I think to "thoughtful" people it's obvious, but not everyone is "thoughtful". I've heard people, when this is discussed, say, "So Hitler can just say 'Oh, sorry', and he gets off scot-free?"
The thief on the cross was saved, it was kind of like a death-bed confession, wasn't it?
that's why buddhism is superior to christianity, in buddhism you have to actually earn your reward through rightful action, not bogus apologies...
I also think that the monks I talked with probably saw Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion. And it seems very possible to me that you can see modern Christianity (i.e., the New Testament) as a philosophy, instead of a religion. And if you choose to do so, everything looks just a little different.
Thai monks that see Buddhism as a philosophy? That's a new twist.
New Testament seen as just some christian book on philosophy, not as part of a religion? I've never heard of that one before....
What the hell????? LOL Time to wrap this up.
Re: hell in Buddhism.... I never mentioned that part of the conversation coz even as a childhood Christian I wasn't confronted w the idea of hell, or it didn't stick... but if kids are scared to death by it then it is an evil concept. * The question here in this discussion is "what do you have to do to get sent to hell?" and people are saying, in (some) Christian beliefs it's enough that you don't believe in Jesus as savior to receive that ultimate punishment... for ever etc. Is it a good enough reason to not believe in Buddha as savior to end up in hell? How come you don't respond to that and instead post pictures of hell, completely skirting the issue?
*Btw. this will cause uproar, but IMO the threat of returning as an animal or insect if you "don't behave" is just another version of the hell concept.
*Btw. this will cause uproar, but IMO the threat of returning as an animal or insect if you "don't behave" is just another version of the hell concept.
i'll take my chances as a cockroach any day over the christian depiction of hell, thank you very much...
I also think that the monks I talked with probably saw Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion. And it seems very possible to me that you can see modern Christianity (i.e., the New Testament) as a philosophy, instead of a religion. And if you choose to do so, everything looks just a little different.
Thai monks that see Buddhism as a philosophy? That's a new twist.
New Testament seen as just some christian book on philosophy, not as part of a religion? I've never heard of that one before....
What the hell????? LOL Time to wrap this up.
Re: hell in Buddhism.... I never mentioned that part of the conversation coz even as a childhood Christian I wasn't confronted w the idea of hell, or it didn't stick... but if kids are scared to death by it then it is an evil concept. * The question here in this discussion is "what do you have to do to get sent to hell?" and people are saying, in (some) Christian beliefs it's enough that you don't believe in Jesus as savior to receive that ultimate punishment... for ever etc. Is it a good enough reason to not believe in Buddha as savior to end up in hell? How come you don't respond to that and instead post pictures of hell, completely skirting the issue?
*Btw. this will cause uproar, but IMO the threat of returning as an animal or insect if you "don't behave" is just another version of the hell concept.
If you don't think that Buddhism as a philosophy, instead of a religion, is a valid viewpoint, then I suggest you Google "is buddhism a philosophy or a religion" and begin reading some of the 20.9 million hits.
If you don't think that the New Testament can be seen as a philosophy to some, then you're not really aware of Robert Schuller and Joel Osteen. I'm not saying they don't believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, but what they preach isn't old-fashioned Christianity.
When you ask: "The question here in this discussion is "what do you have to do to get sent to hell?" and people are saying, in (some) Christian beliefs it's enough that you don't believe in Jesus as savior to receive that ultimate punishment... for ever etc. Is it a good enough reason to not believe in Buddha as savior to end up in hell? How come you don't respond to that and instead post pictures of hell, completely skirting the issue?" ... Well, I wasn't aware that in a discussion that each participant was going to be forced to respond to every individual point. And my point was, that despite what some in the thread have said, hell is portrayed in Buddhist teachings. But I don't mind answering your other question as well. Yes, the beliefs of what can send you to hell are somewhat different in Buddhism in Christianity. They are, after all, two different religions.
I agree with you that the concept of returning as an insect or animal is hellish.
I guess one of my constant themes in this forum is, don't lump all Christians into the same mold. They don't all think the same, just as all Buddhists don't think the same. I know as many Christians who don't believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior you won't go to heaven, as I know Christians who do believe that. In fact, I probably know more who think that's hogwash.
I think people make a mistake when they say that all the members of any religion believe any one thing.
Look guys, I'm not telling you what you should believe. You have the right to your beliefs, whatever they are. But give other people the same right, and don't lump everyone together and condemn everyone in another religion. And don't be quite so sure of yourselves, because none of us really knows.
If you don't think that Buddhism as a philosophy, instead of a religion, is a valid viewpoint, then I suggest you Google "is buddhism a philosophy or a religion" and begin reading some of the 20.9 million hits.
If you don't think that the New Testament can be seen as a philosophy to some, then you're not really aware of Robert Schuller and Joel Osteen. I'm not saying they don't believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, but what they preach isn't old-fashioned Christianity.
Oh please. I personally see Buddhism as a philosophy while monks typically don't. Whatever. Did those particular monks see Christianity as a philosophy or not? We didn't talk about the possibility of someone somewhere having that opinion. Whatever. You have a way of broadening the topic to make some kind of vaguely valid point that has nothing to do with the conversation. So, enough of this on my part, it's a bit unpleasant and unfair to have to bring things back to topic this often.
Also, it actually is common to respond to the person who responded to your post, since they may not have the time to look at everyone else's posts.
@pineblossom, That's a bit of a childish cop-out. first of all you engage another member in a discussion by responding to their post - then when they reply to your various points, piecemeal, you state that 'silence is a better option'....
should you have considered that point before deciding to post?
A little unfair, don't you think...?
Fairness has nothing to do with the issue.
It was clear that the poster failed to think through the issues and responded with a lengthy counter argument which culminated in an admission that he/she did not agree with many of the morals or ethic taught by the Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
My response to such an admission what that perhaps they had much to learn to which the posted wanted to know to which 'part' I might be referring.
If the poster has problems in accepting the morals and ethics as taught by the monotheists religions then there is nothing I can add in the face of such ignorance. Rather than stating the obvious I elected to remain mute.
Have you any idea how patronising you sound? This is a discussion forum. so discuss. either comment, and engage, or don't. but don't be supercilious, because it's not clever.
You did ask - so don't sound offended when you get a response you don't like.
What I read here is the Americanization of Buddhism. It seems few actually wish to utilize any Buddhist principles but rather engage in the I'm-allowed-to-have-my-say-and-no-one-can-say-anthing-to-upset-them-apples.
This is not debate or even discussion but the running of the agenda that demonstrates that only the individual is the measure of all things.
@pineblossom and everyone...you guys can't play nice. What the hell? This was about teaching children about hell. Also, pineblossom new Buddhist is about both advance and beginner level Buddhist...there is now set of rules of the type of person you must be to join. The only people we don't tolerate are assholes or abusers.
In Christianity hell is permanent, In Buddhism it is simply another migratory state just like this precious human life. The teachings of lower rebirths are very handy for remembering to keep morale discipline as our actions of body, speech and mind dictate what experiences we shall have to undergo in the future. Encouraging children to keep morale discipline is cool but then again looking at some of the morale discipline being encouraged isn't very productive or as extensive as it should be in avoiding suffering in the future.
The teachings of Hell in any religion aren't usually a huge problem. The one thing they have in common is that evil people that deserve punishment end up there. In my case, the break with my family's religion came when I realized people were rejoicing that God had murdered and tortured innocent people including babies in the OT. I didn't have the ability to rationalize that with the loving God of the NT, and eventually couldn't even rationalize an eternal Hell, either. So just because someone is taught something as a child, doesn't mean they're brainwashed or scared for life.
... so has anyone actually been traumatized by the teaching that Hell exists? It just seems like thinly veiled anti-Christian polemics to me.
i was traumatized my whole life by it. it's a disgusting teaching and no God would send His creation to eternal hell and punishment. Stop teaching that garbage to kids.
Comments
Note: KJV actually has unicorns in it. lol It has a lot of odd translations.
I meant that you wouldn't get into a fist fight with someone. I'm alluding to your logic skills and ability to debate, also the fact you were an educator.
I'm implying that I will go ghetto on this woman teaching little kids about hell...you may have to pull me out! And yes I was that girl, in your school.
It was clear that the poster failed to think through the issues and responded with a lengthy counter argument which culminated in an admission that he/she did not agree with many of the morals or ethic taught by the Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
My response to such an admission what that perhaps they had much to learn to which the posted wanted to know to which 'part' I might be referring.
If the poster has problems in accepting the morals and ethics as taught by the monotheists religions then there is nothing I can add in the face of such ignorance. Rather than stating the obvious I elected to remain mute.
This is a discussion forum.
so discuss.
either comment, and engage, or don't.
but don't be supercilious, because it's not clever.
Or rather. Enlighten up. Zing!
You might want to consider that.
You may go ahead and have the last word. Continuing the conversation with you would appear to be rather unproductive.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/303.htm
let children grow up in their own space and time and don't shove stupid ideas into their little minds that have no basis on reality and are designed to scare them... capice.
Those monks, I bet, have never been on the receiving end of the damage Christianity has wrought on some unsuspecting, good people who simply have different opinions or life styles. Therefore, I wouldn't really care much about an uninformed opinion. People can easily be above the fray if they don't know what they are talking about.
I will say upfront, I do not know if those particular monks studied Christianity, and this is just my best guess, given they live in a mostly Buddhist society, as you point out..
However, in general, I don't see why Buddhism has to be seen as all forgiving towards a religion that has caused a lot of harm to this day. (And no, I'm not saying *only* harm.)
I for one am grateful for the ethical education I received early in childhood, due to being taught values of right and wrong, but that's the end of my praise for Christianity.
When it is said e.g. by the Dalai Lama, that people should best stick to the religion they were brought up in, I assume it does not give all religions a carte blanche and instead is just a way to avoid huge conflicts between religions on a personal level, esp given the difficulties of understanding and practicing Buddhist teachings experienced by the typical newcomer. Point in case, all the questions in this forum by people of higher than average intelligence and the many people who cause themselves hardship and pain by misunderstanding "attachment" and "non-self" for example.
Here's where I think we disagree: The monks that I talked with about this seemed to be saying that as a principle they thought it was wrong to disparage other religions or people of other religions, just as it is wrong when Christians disparage Buddhism and Buddhists (and I do think it is disparaging to attempt to convert people).
I also think that the monks I talked with probably saw Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion. And it seems very possible to me that you can see modern Christianity (i.e., the New Testament) as a philosophy, instead of a religion. And if you choose to do so, everything looks just a little different.
Now, as to the idea that Buddhism doesn't promote the concept of hell and suffering, here are a few of my own Buddhist temple photos:
http://www.pbase.com/vinlyn/image/100800578
http://www.pbase.com/vinlyn/image/106936718
I could show you dozens more, including lots of statuary with the same theme.
And, I'm not bothered by it. I'm just saying that the hell indoctrination is found, and not uncommonly, inside Buddhist temples.
New Testament seen as just some christian book on philosophy, not as part of a religion? I've never heard of that one before....
What the hell????? LOL Time to wrap this up.
Re: hell in Buddhism.... I never mentioned that part of the conversation coz even as a childhood Christian I wasn't confronted w the idea of hell, or it didn't stick... but if kids are scared to death by it then it is an evil concept. *
The question here in this discussion is "what do you have to do to get sent to hell?" and people are saying, in (some) Christian beliefs it's enough that you don't believe in Jesus as savior to receive that ultimate punishment... for ever etc.
Is it a good enough reason to not believe in Buddha as savior to end up in hell? How come you don't respond to that and instead post pictures of hell, completely skirting the issue?
*Btw. this will cause uproar, but IMO the threat of returning as an animal or insect if you "don't behave" is just another version of the hell concept.
If you don't think that the New Testament can be seen as a philosophy to some, then you're not really aware of Robert Schuller and Joel Osteen. I'm not saying they don't believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, but what they preach isn't old-fashioned Christianity.
When you ask: "The question here in this discussion is "what do you have to do to get sent to hell?" and people are saying, in (some) Christian beliefs it's enough that you don't believe in Jesus as savior to receive that ultimate punishment... for ever etc.
Is it a good enough reason to not believe in Buddha as savior to end up in hell? How come you don't respond to that and instead post pictures of hell, completely skirting the issue?" ... Well, I wasn't aware that in a discussion that each participant was going to be forced to respond to every individual point. And my point was, that despite what some in the thread have said, hell is portrayed in Buddhist teachings. But I don't mind answering your other question as well. Yes, the beliefs of what can send you to hell are somewhat different in Buddhism in Christianity. They are, after all, two different religions.
I agree with you that the concept of returning as an insect or animal is hellish.
I guess one of my constant themes in this forum is, don't lump all Christians into the same mold. They don't all think the same, just as all Buddhists don't think the same. I know as many Christians who don't believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior you won't go to heaven, as I know Christians who do believe that. In fact, I probably know more who think that's hogwash.
I think people make a mistake when they say that all the members of any religion believe any one thing.
You have the right to your beliefs, whatever they are.
But give other people the same right, and don't lump everyone together and condemn everyone in another religion.
And don't be quite so sure of yourselves, because none of us really knows.
Did those particular monks see Christianity as a philosophy or not? We didn't talk about the possibility of someone somewhere having that opinion.
Whatever.
You have a way of broadening the topic to make some kind of vaguely valid point that has nothing to do with the conversation. So, enough of this on my part, it's a bit unpleasant and unfair to have to bring things back to topic this often.
Also, it actually is common to respond to the person who responded to your post, since they may not have the time to look at everyone else's posts.
This is not debate or even discussion but the running of the agenda that demonstrates that only the individual is the measure of all things.
Samsara running riot.
Bye.