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.
A Christian is Here: He Is Me :p
I am very strong at Christian apologetics and carry my cross where ever I go. My goal is to evangelize to the four-corners of the world. Which means to evangelize the three other major religions. (That's where YOU come in.) 
But I prefer to know what I'm talking about so that I can connect to my audience and find common ground. Is there a book where I could learn the life and teachings of Buddha? Like a type of scripture? I know a little, and don't worry. I'm a sound-minded Christian.
But I prefer to know what I'm talking about so that I can connect to my audience and find common ground. Is there a book where I could learn the life and teachings of Buddha? Like a type of scripture? I know a little, and don't worry. I'm a sound-minded Christian. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Glad to have you though
I'm sure others will post links and books that will relate to you in a way that would most likely be more appropriate for you than any of the works I've studied. Good luck on your journey!
With warmth,
Matt
Buddhism has to be understood (even from your point of view) experientially in order to be understood at all. Should you understand though, it doesnt mean you shouldnt be a christian. Buddhism isnt about converting people from anything.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608b.htm
It's a catholic explanation of The prayer of quiet.
Change a few definitions and it sounds a lot like meditation.
From the introduction....
The Five Gospels represents a dramatic exit from windowless studies and the beginning of a new venture for gospel scholarship. Leading scholars—Fellows of the Jesus Seminar—have decided to update and then make the legacy of two hundred years of research and debate a matter of public record.
In the aftermath of the controversy over Darwin's The Origin of Species (published in 1859) and the ensuing Scopes "monkey" trial in 1925, American biblical scholarship retreated into the closet. The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of inquisition that made honest scholarly judgments dangerous. Numerous biblical scholars were subjected to heresy trials and suffered the loss of academic posts. They learned it was safer to keep their critical judgments private. However, the intellectual ferment of the century soon reasserted itself in colleges, universities, and seminaries. By the end of World War II, critical scholars again quietly dominated the academic scene from one end of the continent to the other. Critical biblical scholarship was supported, of course, by other university disciplines which wanted to ensure that dogmatic considerations not be permitted to intrude into scientific and historical research. The fundamentalists were forced, as a consequence, to found their own Bible colleges and seminaries in order to propagate their point of view. In launching new institutions, the fundamentalists even refused accommodation with the older, established church-related schools that dotted the land.
One focal point of the raging controversies was who Jesus was and what he had said. Jesus has always been a controversial figure. In the gospels he is represented as being at odds with his religious environment in matters like fasting and sabbath observance. He seems not to have gotten along with his own family. Even his disciples are pictured as stubborn, dense, and self-serving—unable to fathom what he was about. Herod Antipas, in whose territory he ranged as a traveling sage, had him pegged as a troublemaker, much like John the Baptist, and the Romans regarded him as a mild political threat. Yet much about him remains obscure. We do not even know for sure what language he usually spoke—Aramaic or Greek—when instructing his followers. It is not surprising that this enigmatic figure should be perpetually at the center of storms of controversy.
The contemporary religious controversy, epitomized in the Scopes trial and the continuing clamor for creationism as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution, turns on whether the worldview reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith. Jesus figures prominently in this debate. The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens.
The profound change in astronomy was a part of the rise of experimental science, which sought to put all knowledge to the test of close and repeated observation. At the same time and as part of the same impulse, the advent of historical reason meant distinguishing the factual from the fictional in accounts of the past. For biblical interpretation that distinction required scholars to probe the relation between faith and history. In this boiling cauldron the quest of the historical Jesus was conceived.
Historical knowledge became an indispensable part of the modern world's basic "reality toolkit." Apart from this instrument, the modern inquirer could not learn the difference between an imagined world and "the real world" of human experience. To know the truth about Jesus, the real Jesus, one had to find the Jesus of history. The refuge offered by the cloistered precincts of faith gradually became a battered and beleaguered position. In the wake of the Enlightenment, the dawn of the Age of Reason, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, biblical scholars rose to the challenge and launched a tumultuous search for the Jesus behind the Christian facade of the Christ.
I suggest you start here, if you really want to start with scripture.
No, I do not. ^_^ I merely try to appeal to others. Not only that, but talking them through their objections by sharing my thoughts and experiences. Because we've all stumbled over the same bricks. Only some of us find it difficult to get back up.
Warm reguards as well,
Jared Z
Yes, there is meditation in Christianity. It's in the Psalms. Meditation is to reflect on. Which every good Christian does -probably without realizing it.
God Bless You.
whoa...... :eek2:
I'm just gonna recommend a book. "Can We Trust the Gospels?" by Mark D. Roberts.
I'm not a fundamentalist, by the way. :rolleyes:
God Bless.
I'm just gonna recommend a book. "Can We Trust the Gospels?" by Mark D. Roberts.
I'm not a fundamentalist, by the way. :rolleyes:
God Bless.
Cool, someone just gave me a book called "The Shack", have you read it? It is definitely not fundamentalist. So what do you want to tell a bunch of Buddhists that will convince them that Jesus is the way and the the truth? Don't be shy, lets' get this ball rollin'!
I'd like you to understand three things:
ONE:
You are not the first to come in "on the Christian Evangelical Mission" and you will in all probability be the last.
All left after a while, experiencing no success in their venture.
Why?
Because
TWO:
Most of us fall into one of three categories; Ex-Christians who after a long and applied life, decided that Christianity simply didn't provide the answers they sought, found Buddhism, discovered it DID provide the answers they sought, and gladly left Christianity behind, without a backward glance...
or
people who celebrate, practice and adhere to Buddhism, but still have a connection with Christian doctrine and happily engage in both (and maybe various) practices, combining them and studying them all,
and
People who are just atheist, have studied Christianity closely, found it wanting, and just not bothered.
Please trust me when I tell you, with warmth, that we saw the bricks in good time, and that nobody here has tripped over any.
But we've built a huge flower bed with them, just to the right of the front porch, there.....
THREE:
You are very welcome to visit, stay, engage and share your views.
But I am assuring you now, proselytising will have no effect, because as I have pointed out, most of us are removed FROM there, not looking to go TO there, any time soon.
Proselytising and evangelising is not encouraged and as such members should refrain from engaging in such practice.
As has been pointed out to you, MrZetterlund, you are a welcome guest in another person's home, and one into which you are cordially invited and welcome.
But I would advise that if you do begin to proselytise, belittle, trivialise or dispute that which WE hold dear, I'm afraid you will without hesitation receive very short shrift.
This goes for everyone:
Discussion should not lead to verbal fisticuffs, quarrel, antagonism, argument, belittling or disdain.
All views are respected and digested, and taken as the views held by that person and as such, right for them.
MrZetterlund, You're welcome to share.
But if you're going to move in, we have rules.
And I would request you abide by them.
Just as we would if we were to visit a Christian Forum.
Though the likelihood of that happening is small, because we do not proselytise as a rule.
Ever.
I trust you'll have the same cordial respect here.
Welcome.
I hadn't read it yet. I'm trying to get some money to buy books. I'm a broke Christian
Hey, I saw that thead!
I'm really not here to evangelize, yet.....
I'm just here mainly to learn.
But I have some tricks up my sleave that I bet you hadn't seen yet.
Well...... I'm glad you have great confidence in me.
However, I gotta say I feel like you're mad-dogging me into a corner.
Warm Reguards,
Jared Z
You are a guest here, and as such, that would be hugely disrespectful. If you feel the need to proselytise feel free to join a 'neutral forum' with no particular calling prominent. But here? It's neither appropriate nor skilful, and it's not good form.
well there you go. You learn something new every day, huh?
Debate and respectful discussion is one thing. Argument (which can often descend into undignified behaviour) is not advisable.
It won't. I have already asked that it remain civilised, dignified and respectful....
Look upon it as laying out the ground rules from day one, so that everybody is absolutely clear and in no doubts about anything.
As I have pointed out, proselytising is all very well, in the right place. I'm also trying to protect you, by telling you that this isn't it.
Be well.
With Metta,
Fede.
Can I share my beliefs & experiences? Give updates, ect?
Are they relevant to the topic of Buddhism?
We have a South Park thread going right now which has evolved in a way that makes it unrelated to Buddhism. But the people who are posting there have made many many posts on Buddhist topics, and the off topic posts represent about 1% of our output. If 25% of your posts were about an unrelated religion, I don't think that would be viewed favorably by most of the participants here. Most of us come here in the expectation that the vast majority of posts and threads will be on topics related to Buddhism.
Recent history here indicates that someone who proselytizes for his own version of Buddhism makes himself unpopular. I wouldn't expect the reception to be any better for someone who proselytizes for an entirely different religion.
BTW, I'm speaking as a participant and not as a moderator.
beliefs, experiences and updates.... sure.
if you think they would benefit.
A fellow member took up this case with me and suggested that I was imposing my own views and prejudice upon the situation.
I accept their comments, and can see their point, but I take issue with it.
I am not out to deliberately pre-censure you, nor prevent you from explaining to us what your personal beliefs and experiences and updates are. (Not entirely sure what you mean by updates....)
I reiterate:
We welcome dialogue and engagement in constructive discussion.
we welcome debate and a presentation of diverse views, opinions and experiences, and would say that lively and interesting debate is both informative and beneficial.
The issue is your Intention.
Consider your intention.
If it is to inform, I'm sure most will be interested.
If it is to persuade, I fear some may take umbrage.
In Buddhism, Intention is an important factor with regard to Actions and Consequences.
Ah, you're trolling. Welcome, Jared.
Jared,
I hope you see that this questioning of your intent is arising directly from your initial post. You said "Which means to evangelize the three other major religions. (That's where YOU come in.)" which seems to come from a place of intention that Fede is simply saying is inappropriate. Its not the strangest form of introduction that I've seen, but it might be the most brazen
Relax, get off your soap box and look around if you're ready to learn about your reality.
With warmth,
Matt
Ty
No, some guy wrote a really offensive review on Amazon.com. We just agreed to leave him alone cuz he's imotional.
I am new here also. I have studied Buddhism since 1998. It has been a wonderful learning experience. As a new person don't get lost in the weeds, stick to the bone of the teaching, and don't expect anyhing. I don't look at my practice as anything but a practice, no miracles, magic or even enlightenment. Your calm patient practice will bear fruit, you will have ups and downs, wonderful insights and walks through the desert. Over time as you practice your knowledge, insights and apprecition will grow and blossom till maybe one day you are the Buddha (you are already the Buddha you just need to realize it), you are enlightened. I say all this as I started out years ago, I had many preconcieved notions and expections that hurt my initial practice and made me stop. It was just last year I dropped my expectations and just meditated and read. I hope this does not come across as too forward nor am I trying to instruct you.There are many here whose depth of knowledge and understanding far outweigh mine, I just can speak from my experience.The dharma, once heard, is a treasure no one should lose.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
Ty
I am very new here, I've done much seeking, a year or so ago my son-in-law (doing life in prison) and I agreed we were interested in beginning to learn something about Buddism. He is in Arizona, I am in Florida, our only contact is written. We started reading "Going Home, Jesus and Buddha as brothers" (Thich Nhat Hanh) and sharing our thoughts. Next came "Living Buddha, living Christ) also by TNH. We continue studying it We both also did some seeking on our own, easier for me than him of course. But what I wanted to say to you is I think both are very good books in sharing much about Buddhism and its practice but they also show how Christians can practice it without violating their Christianity. They show many of the commonalities. You might want to check them out.
Buddhism is not a religion, although in countries where it has flourished it has taken on all the institutional qualities of a religion (accumulation, control, power).
Nonetheless,
- Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant to the goals of Buddhism
- Salvation from any outside source is impossible
- There is no need to fear eternal damnation, because this life itself is damnation, and only enlightenment, from our own efforts alone, can free us.
- There is no original sin. What is happening now and what will happen in the future is a direct result of our own past behaviors, and nothing more.
- Faith is irrelevant. We are are given instructions and are told that we can expect certain results during this very lifetime ... and only if our results match those of the teachings are we to accept the teachings as Truth (and only those teachings which we have directly experienced).
Christianity has absolutely no common ground with Buddhism.
12 years ago a Christian asked if i had accepted Jesus as my personal lord and savior. I replied that while i believed Jesus was a wise man i did not believe he was the incarnation of God on Earth. I then told the man i am a Buddhist, to which he confessed having no knowledge. I lent him a printing of the Dhammapada with a small bio on Siddhartha.
He returned after reading some and remarked on how "Buddha was a good man, a wise man, with many great things to teach" and i simply replied "yes, he was".
He returned again, i assume after talking to his Church's preacher, and said "Much of what Buddha taught is what Jesus taught" and i agreed. He then asked "Where do you think Buddha learned this knowledge?" and i laughed. He asked why i laughed and i said "i think i know what you're going to suggest, that Buddha learned from Jesus." He got bright eyed and excited and said "YES"... then i told him Buddha died about 1/2 century before Jesus was born, so it was not likely that Buddha learned from Jesus. He looked confused, like he'd been given some misinformation.
The next time i saw him he returned the book i'd lent him and said his church told him not to read it anymore because it was making him question his faith. We never spoke on the matter again.
To sincere Christians, as well as Buddhists, i suggest that a belief or faith which cannot stand on its own is no belief or faith at all. Refusing to look at the rest of the world because it may skew your perception of the world you choose to see is not wisdom, it is self-delusion. Lastly, what your denomination teaches you, and what your scriptures teach you, and what your prophet tried to teach you, are not always the same lessons. There may not be many similarities between Christianity and Buddhism, but there were similarities between Jesus and Siddhartha.
Any Church, even a Buddhist one, can be self-serving and misleading in its attempts to gain and maintain power. If you seek knowledge, then seek to understand the lessons taught to you, and not just memorize the words hand picked by a few preachers. If you seek truth, then you must be willing to admit that your faith may not have all the answers, and that other faiths might have some truths to offer.
-Salvation from an outside source is very possible if there is a savior involved. Jesus saved me from a worldly jaided life. And if there is an eternal fireman of love, then certainly He'd crash into a burning building to pull you out. But it is up to you as to whether or not you wish to be saved. It is up to you as to whether or not you will reject His offer.
-Original sin teaches that we inherit the sinful natures of our parents. If the parents do not set good examples for their children, then their chidren will appeal to sinful ways. And sin is apart of human nature. It is true, a man reeps what he sows. That is a true teaching. And the oldest lesson in the world. :winkc:
-Faith is important. I have faith in my mother to give me lunch money each day. I have faith in a doctor to diagnose me properly. And I have faith in my God to guide me and let me be of benefit to His kingdom. Surely it is good to have faith in a loving God. Surely the occuser will not be lent an ear during my trial.
Hm, yes. I believe Buddha may have had what we call in Christianity the "Holy Spirit" that gave Buddha discernment in righteousness. As it did the apostles by the gift of God. Jesus before He ascendedsaid "I will not leave you orphans, I will put my Spirit upon you and dwell within you." But it is just recent that I learned that this isn't unique to Christianity. Many philosophers around th world refered t it as"a divine spark" or "an inner voice" or "a fountain within." I believe it is God who is perfecion trying deeply to real Himsef to you. I believe it was given to Budhha to preserve the ways of those ignorant of western civilization. And fundamentally, Jesus Christ.
Also, I do not believe in a single one true religion. I believe all reigions hold truth, but take away the churches and the doctrines and the Scriptures and what do you have? A man named Jesus Christ.
There are also many Buddhists that consider the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was enlightened enough to be a Buddha, though from the translation of the scriptures it appears to me that he was a bodhisattva. Jesus Christ is only behind a section of the world's religions. When you say you don't believe in one true religion, does that mean you're saying that you don't believe in the different sects of Christianity, but consider it to be the one true path or whatnot?
Buddha could not have been given ideas to appeal to eastern minds unaware of Jesus. He predates Jesus by 500 years give or take. It seems to me closer to the other way around, where Jesus may have been taken as a savior for bringing the same kinds of truth to people who were stuck in the old testament and needing a boost in their social evolution. What do you think?
But I think maybe because currently, Theistic religions are more numerous, it's not illogical or irrational to think that Christians would put their own religion first.
I don't think it's intended as a slight. I just think it's what they're more familiar with.
Also, in my experience it's extremely common for Christians to refuse to consider learning more about Buddhism, because they do not wish to absorb any information they feel might contradict or threaten their own faith in Christ.
It's salutary and encouraging that MrZ seems very willing to be the exception that proves the rule.
-When I say "I donnot believe in a single true religion" I do mean all the sects ad the doctrines and even the Scripures. And if ot the Scriptures, then the interpritation of them may be false. But all carry truth. But a reltionship with the Most High God and His Son Jesus Christ should not be looked at as a religion. It should be a journey and a test to sharpen your love for God and to do as much good as you can just for the sake of Love. And God IS Love. My journey has taken me far from where I was "taught" because I followed Christ Jesus and sook afte God and pleeded for wisdom.
-You misunderstood what I meant. ^_^ I'm not saying Buddha's teachings were plagrized from Jesus' teachings, or Jesus' teachigs frm Buddha's. Rather, Buddha had the Holy Spirit in him as a gift from the eternal Father. Jesus' life was a form of evolution for the semetic religions as we know them. But it was apart of a cosmic 6,000 year-old plan that we can see from the prophets and the scriptures. Buddha's was a way of life acceptable to a living God who oversaw Buddha's life. (though Buddha did not know Him.) For the WORLD did not know Him.
"Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood<SUP> </SUP>it." -John 1:3-4
Many philosophers and out-of-the-box thinkers always noted a "divine spark" or something wthin them that desired peace, and connected them with it. (This is even beyond Buddha's years or Jesus') But no one had udertood it until the messege of the Gospel of Jesus Christ where the Spirit became flesh and took our sins that we may become perfect. Just as the Lord is perfect. I believe Buddha had the light, that shone in the darkness. But natural ears will not discern this messege. Only throug enlightenment will the truth be discovered.
You are gravely mistaken my friend.
Whilst WE will not be part of your conversions, the best place to start is the teachings on karma & rebirth.
The Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta states if a person wishes to be reborn wealthy, they should practise generosity in this life, especially to monks & priests.
In the West, there are alot of Westerners becoming Buddhists.
But, also, in the West, there are alot of Asian (Buddhist) immigrants becoming Christians. Often, their inner motivation for such a change is for socio-economic benefits, such as employment opportunities, business contacts and other kinds of socio-economic networking.
For example, in Australia, the Asian students at universities are a big recruiting ground.
Of course, these Asians are not practising Buddhists. They are what in Buddhism is called 'Buddhist by birth certificate'.
These Asian Buddhists find Eternal Life via faith appealing (rather than having to trudge & battle thru the myriad rebirths until they become enlightened).
Most of all, they find the doctrine of dual-prosperity most appealing, i.e., being wealthy on earth and then being wealthy forever in "heaven", simply via faith, simply via the blood of Christ.
In short, it is not necessary for them to do good or be generous.
But please remember, the Buddha said one stuck in the mud cannot pull another out of the mud, just like Jesus said when the blind lead the blind they both fall into a ditch.
Take care, watch your step
Do you know the Truth for sure?
Also, the Buddha was a man at peace (unlike yourself). The Buddha found inner contentment.
I would say you have many fears. If you have not spent 40 days in the wilderness like Jesus did, how would you be certain that you have no fears?
If you wish the learn about Buddhism, I would recommend you stay in a Buddhist forest monastery for one year.
Here, by dwelling alone in the forest, you can test whether your mind has fears.
Please bear in mind the Buddha taught the following:
I have to say Jared, that you may very well feel like this because some of us (and I'm really only speaking for myself when I say this to be honest), would very much like OUR home on the web to be an evangelical free zone. You say you're not here to evangelise YET. Let me assure you, I am happy to discuss things with you as I come from a Christian background and had members of my family who taught the Scripture. But the minute you start evangelising, I assure you I will not be interacting with you and hope the mods stop you. Christians absolutely do NOT have the God given right they have misinterpreted from the words of Yeshua to go forth and ear bash anyone, anywhere at anytime. If you, as a guest here, will not respect the rules, then I, as a member here, will not respect you as either a guest or a Christian.
A good book IMO is "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hahn, a Vietnamese Zen monk. This will show you the similarities between the teachings of the Buddha and Jesus.
Respectfully,
Raven
The Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus. It would be rather illogical of you to say Buddha's teachings were plagrized from Jesus' teachings.
However, it is highly possible Jesus' teachings were plagrized from Buddha's teachings.
I could not be bothered pointing out the parallel teachings of Buddha & Jesus to you because this has already been done by many.
Friend.
The word 'spirit' means 'breath' or 'to breathe'. The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath")
The Buddha instructed his disciples in a meditation that leads to enlightenment called Anapanasati or Mindfulness With Breathing. This is certainly a 'holy' or 'pure spirit'.
Please bear in mind the Buddha taught about the 'Holy Life'. The Buddha taught the unshakeable freedom of mind (which you yourself do not possess) is the one goal of the Holy Life.
You are still like a child collecting toys and other play things in a toy shop.
But the term Holy Spirit is found only a few times in the Old Testment.
Often, the word Spirit is found in God's evil spirit, as follows:
Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
Judges 3:10
The Spirit of the LORD came upon him, so that he became Israel's judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him.
About the word 'Father', in India this is called 'Brahma' and "Baba".
'Baba 'Sanskrit, Punjabi (Hindi: बाबा; Urdu: بابا; father; grandfather; wise old man; sir,<SUP id=cite_ref-Platts_0-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP>) is an honorific used in several South Asian and Middle Eastern cultures. It is used as a mark of respect to refer to Sufi saints and Hindu or Sikh ascetics (sannyasis) and can also be used as a suffix or prefix to their names eg: Ramdev Baba, Baba Ramdevji, Baba Bulleh Shah or Rehman Baba.<SUP id=cite_ref-Platts_0-1 class=reference>[1]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-name_1-0 class=reference>[2]</SUP> Baba is also a title accorded to the head of certain order of Sufi saints.<SUP id=cite_ref-Platts_0-2 class=reference>[1]</SUP> The Persian term was also adopted in Malaysia as an honorific of respect to address Straits-born person of Chinese descent, i.e., Chinese persons born in British Straits Settlement.<SUP id=cite_ref-SEA_2-0 class=reference>[3]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-OED_3-0 class=reference>[4]</SUP>
Baba {Shona-A language spoken in Zimbabwe}, a honorific for father, a wise man, a fellow man. A term of respect used by wives, women, children and young people to an older man.
This is the same as Jesus cried on the cross:" Baba, baba, why have you foresaken me?"
In the Buddha's time, the existing religions or priest worshipped Brahma, the Father of the All. They were called Brahmins and they believe they were born from the breath of Brahma, just like the Bible states God breathed life into the mud to form man or Jesus breathed upon his disciples the holy spirit.
John 20:22
And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
But the Buddha held all things are natural things, all created by nature. He did not old there was a God that created the universe. The Buddha understood his breathing was simply an element in nature.
Instead, like John, the Buddha taught: " Brahma (God) is love".
About those who did not understand what Brahma (God the Father) really was, the Buddha spoke as follows:
It sounds like your mind is brainwashed, drunk and intoxicated on words.
I personally have lived a celibate life.
Unlike you are not the same as the Buddha, being free from fear, I am the same as Jesus in that I have created no new human beings via sexual activity.
Yet I myself am a created thing, just like Jesus was a created thing, born from mother & father's sexual lust and sexual intercourse and sustained by the food from this earth that is eaten and the air of this earth that is breathed.
All things are created from causes and conditions. They are essentially created by the fire or spirit of lust.
In volcanoes we can see the spirit (wind) and fire of lust. This lack of peaceful stillness & contentment.
Thus John appears to be saying God is lust.
The Buddha was concerned with peace rather than creation.
Is your mind spiritually blind?
Can it not see all of the myriad things around us are created by sexual lust?
:buck:
This reminds me of the ignorant bartender in the Blues Brothers. When asked what kinds of music they normally had play at the bar, she said "Both kinds. Country AND Western." You are young and it shows. I appreciate the heart you have that hopes other people can feel the moments of joy you have, but find your connection to other people a reflection of your youth.
A good first step would be to quit assigning a sex organ to your God.
But you make some kind of assumption that a little man doing magic tricks passed along a secret to Gautama Siddhartha making him the Buddha. This is a root concern into why you feel you have to pray to something for truth. You are the truth, it is all around you. You sound like a child with his eyes closed praying to Jesus for the lights to come on. If you learn to open them, you'll see, and then you will see why the notions of 'savior' are so deeply flawed.
Enlightenment has historically been shown by people who have pierced the veil of the world around them. This is not through appealing to some external deity... or man elevated to the status of a deity by the Catholic Church. I agree that Jesus and Buddha had a similar energy, as they spoke of abandoning traditions, being compassionate, and living a life free of deception and hypocrisy. The need to attribute this spark to an all powerful, personality wielding 'Him' seems strange, because "He" is a manifested god of the Jewish.
What do you think?
With warmth,
Matt
*sigh* I hope I can get you to understand sometime in the future. -_- Federica is obcusing me of putting my religion first by me saying I believe Buddha had the Holy Spirit. That is not a bias inference I made out of pure speculation. Furthermore, it is hypocritical to occuse me of putting my religion first to understand it in the light of my religion, because I've seen a Buddhist who took what Jesus said when He said "I and the Father are One" and said that Christians don't undertand what He meant. Rather, He was saying WE are God. What I am saying is Buddha stumbled upon something within himself that he was becoming very aware of. It's very difficult to explain. It's not just unique to Christianity, either. It's in many cultures. I will introduce you to a YouTuber who calls it "Lay Gnosis." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZZeD3KYIo&playnext_from=TL&videos=JOrtS4bJvjY We in Christianity call it the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said, ""I will pray the Father and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot recieve, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." -John 14: 16-17
According to this YouTuber, this is universal, though being universal will be known less intament.
Yes, we have similar "Christians" in Christianity. They're "Christian by birth certificate." But true Christianity doesn't start until you decide to follow Jesus. However, what you said about Buddhists converting to Christianity, about their "true" motivations for converting being economic, and money needy, it is not fair to judge a person's motivations simply because they convert. Christians are actually having a harder time here in the west due to the atheist movement. We're starting to be discriminated against.
When he said this, Thomas replied: "Let us go die with him".
At the end of John, Jesus questioned Peter two times, asking: "To you agape me?" Agape is self-sacrificing love.
Peter could only reply: "I philo you". Philo is filial or fraternal love.
So on the third occassion, Jesus asked: "Do you philo me?"
MrZetterlund666.
Does your mind know what self-sacrificing love is? Has you mind experienced what the mystics call "death before dying" or what the Buddha called "emptiness of self"?
Do your missionary efforts come from self-sacrificing love or do they come from self-cherishing, the need to justify & increase your shakey personal beliefs?
Is your faith built on rock or on sand? It sounds rather sandy to me.
If your faith was rock solid then you would not have to evangelise. Instead, your heart & mind would have deep inner contentment, satisfaction & completeness.
I am a good example. If I was the only person in the world with my convinction, my convinction would not change.
Is your faith or convinction the same? Is it solitary? Or does it depend on the support of others?
You see, once the Buddha converted a person (named Upali) from another religion. When Upali said he would no longer provide the monks from the other religion material requisities such as food, the Buddha advised him otherwise, saying to Upali those monks needed his material support.
However, Upali disobeyed the Buddha and when those monks came for support, Upali trashed them. Upali understood their religion could not bring anyone real peace.
I knew two very devout life-long Christians. When one was dying, I noticed how he was confused and in fear. Because when salvation is based on faith, this is a conditioned thing.
When the body is dying, the mind also dies. The mind inclines to emptiness rather than thinking.
Faith is thinking. When thinking stops, fear arises if the mind has not experienced enlightenment, that is, the emptiness of dying before dying.
So the old man died with fear & confusion and his wife afterwards ceased to believe in God. An old devout Italian woman ceased to believe in God.
When reality catches up to people, they often cease beleiving in God.
Christianity is a filial religion. It is about social friendship.
When many people gather together in Christ's name, some sustaining love is there, for sure.
But his level of religion is faith built on sand rather than on rock.
As I advised you initially, Jesus only taught a partial teaching, what in Buddhism is called the dwelling of the gods (namely, love, compassion, forgiveness, etc).
This is not guaranteed to save people, just like the former religion of Upali. It may. It may not.
:smilec:
:poke:
In countries like the USA and Australia, Christians have immense political power.
In one state of Australia, Christians blocked Hate Crimes legislation so they would not be prosecuted in court for publically condemning other religions, gay people and the like.
:crazy:
Our new friend has declared his fearlessness.