If God is real ...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

In Christianity, you need to believe that Christ died for your sins. That, in my opinion, is the central premise of Christianity.

Actually the first premise is that you need to be perfect, before you get to heaven.

The second premise that you're fundamentally flawed to begin with (that is, damnation is your default position),

The 3rd premise is that there's no way you can make it on your own.

Jesus is the 4th premise.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Other religions may believe in God, or many gods, but most of them don't include a personal, loving God that takes a personal interest in your relationship with Him.

Islam does. So does Judaism. Remember - they all have the same roots as Christianity.

And actually Hinduism has no lack of gods that could have a personal loving relationship with their worshippers. It's just that Hinduism has so many gods that traditionally, as a practical matter, each Hindu family picks only a few gods that they particularly want to have a personal relationship with. For example, Ganesha is a popular choice.

Interestingly, although Buddha made no claims to be a God, Hinduism considers him to be one of the 10 forms in which the deity known as Krishnu has shown himself.

To oversimplify, Hindus do regard Buddha as a God, even if the Buddhists themselves do not regard Buddha as a God.

This sounds peculiar, but then again it is not dissimilar from the position of Jesus, in Islam and in Christianity. Christianity regards Jesus as God in human form; whereas Islam regards Jesus as a human being who received and transmitted a couple of messages directly from God.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Islam does. So does Judaism. Remember - they all have the same roots as Christianity.

The Abrahamic God

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

It's funny, I was going to bring up how I had a difficult time understanding the concept of 'getting saved'. I was educated in Catholicism from childhood into high school and no one ever mentioned the idea. This seems like a real big deal for Protestants and no one seems real sure whether you really are saved or not.

Well the view from within the evangelical world is that the business of going through your entire life without a "personal relationship" with god or Jesus even occurring to you was a tragedy and emblematic of everything that was wrong with "old line", "mainstream" denominations. It was considered dead, empty ritual.

What we failed to understand is that ritual can be rich-ual to some. To participate in ritual that has evolved over a couple of millenia, in and of itself drips with meaning and significance and can also be very comforting. We just assumed that everyone had to be "going through the motions" in such churches, and it ain't necessarily so.

The Catholics place more faith in tradition and ritual, and this is more impersonal than faith in Jesus. In a way, it's more realistic, because the Real World (tm) is in practice at least, quite impersonal. Evangelicals have to deal with the cognitive dissonance between the concept of a beneficent, caring, protective god and all the ♥♥♥♥ that falls from the sky of their lives. Catholics don't have that nearly as much.

Of course the evangelical viewpoint allowed us a certain overweening pride and smugness about having found "the way". I'm not saying it was universal, but it was common. Just as some Catholics and Episcopalians and other denominational people considered us rubes. The joke is that Catholics build cathedrals for the ages and evangelicals build pole barns, since they only have to hold up until the rapture, which is (as it has been for two thousand years now) just around the corner and will occur at any moment.

As for "no one seems real sure whether you are saved or not", if you're referring to protestants, at least evangelical protestants, you'd be wrong ... they are all quite positive they are saved and many even believe there is no way to lose that. If you are referring to Catholics, yes, the whole religion is designed to keep you off center and uncertain about whether you are worthy of heaven or hell. To increase the ambiguity they even invented other states like purgatory and limbo. The doctrine of "eternal security" is, from a marketing standpoint, one of the main legs up that evangelicalism has on that system.

--Bob

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually the first premise is that you need to be perfect, before you get to heaven.

The second premise that you're fundamentally flawed to begin with (that is, damnation is your default position),

The 3rd premise is that there's no way you can make it on your own.

Jesus is the 4th premise.

Exactamundo!

--Bob

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Right view has no obvious equivalent in Christianity (unless you consider ACIM to be Christianity). Right view is about understanding the true nature of reality; how it's mostly illusion generated by your own mind.

No obvious equivalent, because Christianity assumes a certain reality as given rather than really talking about it. However, there is certainly a sense that the reality that is assumed by Christianity is "right" and all others are "wrong". The rabidness of this view varies according to denomination and individuals, of course.

The reality that Christianity assumes is that god is external to us, is basically anthropomorphic, benevolent, interested and involved with mankind generally and with individuals specifically. That he therefore has a will for mankind generally and for each of us specifically. That this general will is discoverable from the scriptures and that the specific will is discoverable from a combination of the scriptures and inward personal revelation. That good is basically rewarded and evil punished, even in this life, at least overall. In short, reality is a nice, orderly, comprehensible system.

Christianity further assumes that reality and truth are objective, fixed, and eternal. God never changes. His "law" -- his rules, his claims on us, his requirements -- never change. This is presented as a virtue and a comfort. It's very much for the person who wants to be told what to think and do, and secondarily, for the person who wants to know once and for all The Meaning of Life (tm). For someone who wants that, this black and white stability and quantifiable "truth" is very comforting.

Although there is a mystical side of Christianity that is much more comfortable with the ineffable, your everyday Christian need not have any contact with that messy stuff. CS Lewis sometimes wrote in this vein, and back in the day he sort of creeped me out. So did Watchman Nee, St John of the Cross, and others who speak of things like "dark nights of the soul". If you delve into these aspects of Christianity you begin to wonder if you aren't just encountering Buddhism in vestments ... but I don't think your everyday Christian ever goes there.

--Bob

[philm]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Since you seem to have a different understanding of what the "books" say about Buddha than what ALG presented, what is this idea of bad Karma resulting in a person needing the ton glen? Obviously something has gone wrong if they need someone else's help to be free from the suffering.

Hi Nightspirit,

You would only know something's wrong because you're comparing it to what you think is right - a projection of the past.

As i see it tonglen, or Buddhism, is self-doctored medicine if you're sick. Suffering.

The sickness is not that something Is actually 'wrong' with you but rather that we think and feel something or someone is actually 'wrong' or 'sinful'.

Tonglen from my experiences, helps dissolve such thoughts and feeling. The judgements and comparisons about what is "wrong" with the ways things are.

Say you're angry, because someone has done something "wrong" against you or what you value. Anger consumes the entire experience - and you know very well at that time Who the 'Bad You' and 'Good Me' is. When the motion of the mind is not fighting the motion of the body's breath or natural vibration or the motion of awareness or creative imaginative potential the anger dissolves away the bridge we built between 'You' and 'Me'.

Its like resting in motion lol

: )

[12345]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

So there seems to be a tie in with our works and the Lamb's book of life. If the names were written from the foundation of the world, then either all are written in it or some people, indeed, are predestined to be saved and written beforehand in the book. Revelation 17:8 says there are some 'not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world' could be taken to mean that some names were not written from the foundation or the phrase may be just descriptive of the book as being in existence from the foundation? When something like this happens the only way to get a clear idea is to look at the verse in light of other verses or in other translations.

I don’t believe in predestination as it is traditionally understood (i.e., that God Himself chose who would be saved at the beginning of time), but I do believe it within the contexts of one’s free will as well as God’s omniscience. I believe that God knew which individuals would choose Him and who would reject Him when He created the universe. Consequently, I think the Book of Life wrote itself *through* the free will of people.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

This all kind of ties in to what I was saying about God making a way for all people . . .

Romans 2:14-16 seemingly addresses this:

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Notice that 2:16 says God shall judge *by Jesus Christ*, and I think this is how and why so many people who have never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus yet followed their God-given conscience/instinct of what is right and what is wrong will go to heaven. This is still not to say that there are many paths to the same God. I believe Jesus is the only way to God, but that He will embrace people who had *no other choice* than to follow *many different paths* at judgment.

God bless to all.

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This is unlikely, since Buddha's birthplace was faraway from Jesus' birthplace (consider the technology of those times).

Judaism influenced Christianity and also Islam. Hinduism influenced Buddhism. But Judaism / Christianity / Islam had little or no contact with Hinduism / Buddhism.



Firstly, let me address the reincarnation point.

Buddhism has the reincarnation concept. So does Judaism. Judaism arose from the relationship between Abraham and God. Mary and Joseph, the earthly parents of Jesus, would be examples of people who had believed in reincarnation.

What you'll see about reincarnation is that it's a very inefficient process (if the goal is to gain enlightenment / salvation). Your soul could get recycled a few hundred times before it finds your way to God / nirvana. If it ever does.

Unsurprisingly, Jesus did not like this approach very much. He offered a better solution. He would do a massive "tong len", take all the sins from other people and shortcut the process. Thus you don't have to live 500 lifetimes before you get to God. Just believe, for one lifetime, in Jesus, and you'll get there.

His solution, if it works, would be so much faster that he could justifiably say:



I think that it's quite probable however that Jesus never heard of Buddha (as I mentioned, they were born in distant places) and Buddha died long before Jesus.

Buddha had also found a solution. A different one. This solution doesn't necessitate "tong len" and therefore it doesn't require faith in the performer of the tong len.

Buddha basically offered a formula. Follow Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ..... if you manage to do the steps, you'll get to salvation / enlightenment too. It's a DIY formula that places no reliance on the gods.

So now we have at least two possible routes to salvation / enlightenment. Buddha developed one route. Jesus provided another route, and claimed his own route to be the only Way .... but then he hadn't heard about Buddha.

If Jesus HAD heard about Buddha, then Jesus might have said, "Oh, that works too. Anyway, here's ANOTHER way to salvation - just believe in me."

-----

Now in the above post, for the sake of simplicity, I have described Jesus's solution as a straightforward belief in Jesus as saviour. Also I have described Buddha's solution as a DIY formula.

Now, of course, I have simplified, in both cases. If you look closely at their respective solutions, you actually find many similar aspects. For example, if you follow the DIY formula, you'll inevitably be exuding love, compassion, selflessness, kindness to your fellow man etc etc ..... which of course are also important features of the Jesus formula.

This leads to another interesting question. Suppose there is an atheist who absolutely does not believe in any religion and in fact does not know much about any of them. Nevertheless he has vast love, compassion, kindness for other human beings. Perhaps he is a great humanitarian; perhaps all his life he toils endlessly to help others; perhaps he is extraordinarily dedicated to helping orphans, or the poor, or the blind, or the sick, or whatever.

In other words, in his daily life, he "accidentally" applies important features in Buddhist AND Christian teachings , WITHOUT knowing that he is applying them. Will he be saved / enlightened too? Heheh. I have some views on that, but we have digressed. Another time perhaps.

I was not speaking of there needing to be an actual physical contact or knowledge of the two of each other. I was speaking in terms of the spirit of truth that speaks to all men, and under that assumption, that God was sharing truth with Buddha as a way to prepare hearts for the time they would be introduced to Jesus either in this life or at death or at the end of time.

I have already spoke of the absence of desire as a biblical principle taught by Jesus, and briefly mentioned now enlightening the concept of having no belief filters was there in the Bible all the time but I didn't see it until I looked at it from another angle.

Just in the way that the law was given to the Jews, to teach us that getting there as humans all alone is difficult and nearly impossible, by Buddha teaching something similar of the way to work your way there, he may have also been used to teach people to recognize their own frailties and limitations, which was the purpose of the law.

I think Jesus would have said, if talking to a Buddhists, you have tried it your way, to atone for yourself and empty yourself of earthly desires to connect and found the difficulty in doing so. Will you accept my way, not of you reaching God but of me, God, reaching you?

This is how the Bible says God views those that do right but are not taught to do so, but from the heart. Paul addressed it in terms of Jew and Gentile because some of his day thought Jesus was only for the Jews, but it applies to all who are outside of an organized faith. God has placed a measure of faith in all men and our consciences guide us in what to do, even if we don't know or haven't heard of Jesus.

Romans 2:11-16
For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 2: 28-29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 3:9-12
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 3:28-29
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

[NightSpirit]

Buddhism has the reincarnation concept. So does Judaism. Judaism arose from the relationship between Abraham and God. Mary and Joseph, the earthly parents of Jesus, would be examples of people who had believed in reincarnation.

Please elaborate on why you think reincarnation was a belief of Mary and Joesph and how it applies to Abraham's relationship with God, if you haven't already in a later post. Thanks.

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

For Nightspirit's benefit, I'll explain this:
...... in greater detail.

The essential problem that Christianity addresses is the separation of Man & God. First, Adam & Eve enjoy perfect bliss and happiness in the Garden of Eden. Then they commit sin and get cast out. That is how the separation comes about. The original sin taints Man and denies him the perfect happiness of Eden (paradise).

Jesus is the story of how Man can get home to God again. The central theme of Christianity is therefore about how to end the separation..

That is only part of the story of the fall of Adam. What he did in the garden was to make the devil his master. God had given Adam all authority over the earth and he surrendered his authority to the devil by believing him instead of God. Because of the evil that man and the devil could accomplish together if man had the tree of life, then Adam was removed from the garden, and creation was cursed so Adam's work would be tied up in survival instead of evil.

That is why the devil was called by Jesus the prince of this world. You'll notice that when he was tempted of the devil and offered all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus did not dispute his ownership of them. Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world.

There is a whole theme that ties the fall of man and the work of Jesus at the cross that explains things in full, but I will leave that to later, as I need to brush up on it to share it.

The concept of original sin and that being the reason we are lost is not one that I find much in the Bible either.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually the first premise is that you need to be perfect, before you get to heaven.

The second premise that you're fundamentally flawed to begin with (that is, damnation is your default position),

The 3rd premise is that there's no way you can make it on your own.

Jesus is the 4th premise.

What is your point? I'm saying they all lead to that central premise, which is very different from all other religions, but still I believe is a quite important difference.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

What is your point? I'm saying they all lead to that central premise, which is very different from all other religions, but still I believe is a quite important difference.

I don't dispute that Jesus dying for our sins is a unique and central premise of Christianity, and probably the central one, even if not exactly the first premise in the chain of Christian reasoning that leads to it.

I'm interested to know why you think it is quite an important difference, aside from giving Christianity its identity and reason for being.

Why is that important to you personally? What does it provide you with exactly? If you don't mind saying so.

--Bob

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Islam does. So does Judaism. Remember - they all have the same roots as Christianity.

Yes, but they don't have that provision in place, which as I mentioned is one of the most important differences.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

And actually Hinduism has no lack of gods that could have a personal loving relationship with their worshippers. It's just that Hinduism has so many gods that traditionally, as a practical matter, each Hindu family picks only a few gods that they particularly want to have a personal relationship with. For example, Ganesha is a popular choice.

Interestingly, although Buddha made no claims to be a God, Hinduism considers him to be one of the 10 forms in which the deity known as Krishnu has shown himself.

To oversimplify, Hindus do regard Buddha as a God, even if the Buddhists themselves do not regard Buddha as a God.

This sounds peculiar, but then again it is not dissimilar from the position of Jesus, in Islam and in Christianity. Christianity regards Jesus as God in human form; whereas Islam regards Jesus as a human being who received and transmitted a couple of messages directly from God.

From what I know of Hinduism, their gods are quite different from that of the Christian God. Their gods are more like average people. They have their flaws, and have many of the vices as humans.

That's not to say all of them are like that, but that seems to be a characteristic of many.

Yes, families have their gods, but those gods don't really have that personal relationship with each individual. Those people might pray to the gods, but that seems to be about all there is to it.

That is significantly different from the role of God in Christianity. The Bible says that He wishes all to be saved. He gives a way for people to get into heaven, even if they can't be perfect. He is perfect Himself, obviously.

So yes, you could say, all religions have gods, and promote being good to others, but that's about as far you can get with the similarities. The differences, especially in Christianity vs. other religions, are the most important details.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

I don't dispute that Jesus dying for our sins is a unique and central premise of Christianity, and probably the central one, even if not exactly the first premise in the chain of Christian reasoning that leads to it.

I'm interested to know why you think it is quite an important difference, aside from giving Christianity its identity and reason for being.

Why is that important to you personally? What does it provide you with exactly? If you don't mind saying so.

--Bob

ALG is saying that the important thing should be focusing on the similarities of all the religions. I am pointing out that there are quite important differences, such as what I mentioned in Christianity, where if it is true, then it is the one way to get into heaven. Focusing on the similarities might not be enough, especially if Christianity is true.

To say to focus on the similarities is assuming that no religion is really true, which is something we don't know.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

ALG is saying that the important thing should be focusing on the similarities of all the religions. I am pointing out that there are quite important differences, such as what I mentioned in Christianity, where if it is true, then it is the one way to get into heaven. Focusing on the similarities might not be enough, especially if Christianity is true.

To say to focus on the similarities is assuming that no religion is really true, which is something we don't know.

Okay, ALG is saying there are many ways to god, and they all share a lot more in common than most of us are generally willing to admit. You are saying, yes, but there are differences, and we don't know that some religions might be more accurate than others, or provide critical info that others do not. I get that.

But ... why do you care about the particular unique premises of Christianity? Why do they appeal to you personally? Surely it's more than just being afraid they might be right and you might go to hell if you don't believe it.

--Bob

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In Buddhism, a thought/act is "virtuous" if it moves you closer (even slightly) to enlightenment. A thought/act is "non-virtuous" if it moves you further (even slightly) away from enlightenment.

Examples of virtuous thoughts/acts would be those involving kindness, love, selflessness, compassion etc. Examples of non-virtuous thoughts/acts would be those involving greed, hate, anger etc. (There are also neutral thoughts / acts. They neither move you closer to nor further away from enlightenment)

All thoughts / acts in Buddhism are treated in this way. There is no concept of "sin", in the sense that an act is wrong because it goes against some statement in God's little rule book.

Jesus taught the same thing. What you may have heard was the boiled down version of it as taught in the "don't have sex" religion. He told us that all outward manifestations of sin come from the heart and that to look on a woman with lust, or adultery, a non-virtuous thought, would be the same as committing the act.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Instead, thoughts/acts simply have their own karmic effect. Do lots of virtuous things, and you attract good karma. Do lots of non-virtuous things and you attract negative karma. The law is exact. You get exactly what you think.

And reap what you sow.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"You will not be punished for your anger," said Buddha. "You will be punished BY your anger."

Galatians 6:8 - For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"Tong Len" is a kind of meditation when the meditator seeks to take on someone else's suffering (which has, as usual, been caused by that someone else's own negative thoughts). You take the negative karmic stuff onto yourself, and you suffer on the person's behalf, but if you are skilled, you then quickly disperse the negative stuff elsewhere in the universe.
Footnote: Essentially, "tong len" is similar to various forms of faith healing (reiki; Silva Method; Quantum Touch healing) except that those other forms specifically relate to physical illnesses, whereas "tong len" covers all sorts of suffering.

Agreed. I have said the spiritual laws of faith set in place by God are available to all. It is up to us where we place our faith and how we use the laws.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You'll note that in most forms of faith healing, there is some concept of consent. The healer cannot successfully heal the patient unless the patient agrees to be healed, wants to be healed and/or believes he can be healed.

Jesus rarely healed someone that didn't ask. I have been directed myself to gain permission before praying for someone, especially the day God delivered my husband from cancer and also had to gain permission one other time when a demon came out

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In Jesus' "tong len", this element applies as well. Jesus can't save everyone. He can only save those who are able to believe that He's their saviour.

Or heal anyone. He possibly can but he doesn't. Matthew 18:18 - Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Notice also that while Jesus suffers badly on the day of his crucifixion, three days later He's resurrected, up and running. This indicates that he successfully performed the final leg of the "tong len" exercise. By taking on the sins of others, he brought great suffering into his own reality (being crucified etc etc). But the fact that he was fine, just three days later, shows that he, in "tong len" terminology, managed to offload the bad karmic stuff elsewhere. So he was fine.

His offloading was the act of the Crucifixion.

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I have a theology class, taught by a priest (such things are common when you go to a Catholic university, lol), and I asked him why they pray to saints. He claimed that they see praying more like a conversation, and the saints more as friends who can assist them. Still not sure if I'm OK with that.

And it could be so, except the thing I don't get is that to be absent from the body is present with the Lord and we can talk to Him, why talk through someone else? Moses and Elijah did come down for the transfiguration though so it's clear those in heaven are interested in what's happening here.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Their beliefs on contraception sounds OK, but, I don't think people should be totally limited from using any method at all. Otherwise, they'll end up with too many children, which would probably end up worse for the children in the long-run, and be quite financially, not to mention emotionally, straining on the entire family.

I adopted their stance and submitted myself to the will of God in that area maybe 20 years ago...and no kids since then. I have no known reason for that any doctor's can find. I'm older now and not in a sexual relationship, I know TMI, but if I did pregnant I would welcome it. If it happens at 80 and I die in childbirth, Be it unto me according to thy will, as Mary and Elizabeth felt, is what I would say.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

On Purgatory, I have no idea. Do you know of any verses commonly referenced to support it?

Loosely, there is a doctrine that between the time of death and the resurrection that Jesus went to the holding place of all souls, two different places according to the parable of the rich man in hell. There He preached the Gospel and offered remission of sins to all who were there.

That God is no respecter of persons is known so going on that, if a person dies in a state unready for heaven but unworthy of hell, they may be given another chance. It's a nice idea, but the sin would be in banking on it and ignoring Christ now. You know the verse whoever is ashamed of me on earth, I will be ashamed of him in heaven.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Totally agree. It was a nice idea in the beginning, but now I wonder whether we're any better off than we would have been without the revolution. Not to say it shouldn't have happened, but I sort of think those nice ideals have been forgotten over the years.

Maybe another lesson in the earth of God's plan of redemption, that we know the truth and stray from it but can return.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Today, actually. At 10:28 CET this morning, they sent a beam all the way around the LHC. That was about 3 and a half hours ago.

But, they haven't actually done the collisions yet, which is the big concern. Nevertheless, I was seriously scared going to bed last night. Sort of how I figure I'll fill on the night of December 20, 2012.
What I've been thinking, though, and how I was able to manage my fear last night, lol, was that God wouldn't allow us to destroy the world, especially if it is on Earth where the kingdom of God will be in the end, right? It is our world that will be perfected, from what I've heard.

It's early for you and we surrender to Christ by degrees sometimes. As you learn more to trust Him with your life as you have with your soul, when you know the verse is true that God is for us, you will find this one to be true also

1 John 4:18 - There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.

When you have experienced more of His love, you will trust Him more and fear less.

This is what happened for me. I got delivered from most of that fear- Hebrews 2:15 - And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And I have had to lean on this promise many times, 2 Timothy 1:7 - For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Before I was a Christian I had a paralyzing fear of walking outside in a thunder storm. And of all kinds of things concerning death. My only remaining fear is of a painful death which I need to deal with or I may attract to me. I think I should now, "God's grace is sufficient and he will never leave me or forsake me." There, I reversed that thought.

Read Psalm 91 and really get it into your spirit how God feels about you and what he promises to do for you. It doesn't matter to me what happens in end times, only as I see signs that are fulfilled from the Bible. I'm along for the ride and whatever He does will be what is right and just.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Oh, anyway, most scientists think the LHC won't be any problem at all. I think there was one astrophysicist who had concerns. The rest of those who were trying to stop it didn't really have any credentials. Still, you never know the repercussions of such experiments.

Although, there are already particle accelerators in use, such as the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider), started 8 years ago, when people had similar concerns. This is just a scaled-up version.

The Bible says the more wise we become the more foolish we are..and we are, like plastics and fossil fuels and nuclear waste and super resistant infections. I will look for a possible mention of the collider in the Bible.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Oh yeah, while we're going off topic, how do you feel about that date (I mean the day after, obviously).

I take it more seriously since it doesn't come from a numerical formula like 8-8-88 or the year 2000. But it still comes from the stars which is not the best place to get information from God. There is no certain date and even Jesus doesn't know the day or the hour. The Mayans clearly don't have a motive or a part in promoting the idea, to prove themselves right or promote their religion so the idea seems more possible.

I look all that end time stuff from a different perspective after my dad died at 50. He was all into looking to the eastern sky and end times, but his end times already came. I will be with Jesus whether it's coming back with Him or going up to Him no matter what I figure out about Revelations and I don't want to waste my days speculating or arguing about what I can't know.

Have you read about the shifting of the planet and the sunspots that might happen near that date? I think the moving out of orbit prediction is separately held from the date prediction but co-incide. Either of those could be the impetus that begins the last days where a third of the earth will be killed and water will turn to blood, mountains will fall etc.

I'm not sure about the fate of the earth. I know at some point we get a new one. Jesus could heal the earth too, like he heals bodies too. Speak unto that mountain and all that.

Hey off topic again, I saw a show on TV about that worldwide undersea current that controls the temperature of the water. They think some of the dinosaurs were killed suddenly when it was interrupted and caused a poison gas to come up. Well they think global warming might cause that to happen again. But what was so interesting about it was they are trying to recreate the conditions in a stagnant lake and when I watched them go down into the poison part, I was shocked to see it was blood red from what was growing because of the lack of oxygen and I thought of this verse.

Revelation 8:8
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

Like I said, I don't get into end time theology too much. But there are many blessings to be found in the book of Revelation, not just mysteries.

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The nutshell version:

Muslims believe in the same God as Christians.
Muslims, however, don't believe that they are sinners, just because Adam & Eve sinned.
Muslims also don't believe that they need to be perfect, to go to Heaven.

Since Muslims don't accept that damnation is the default position for human beings, and since they don't accept that they need to be perfect to go to Heaven, they have no need for a saviour like Jesus.

The Muslims do need extensive guidance (much more than Christians) on how to be a good person.
This is because the Muslims have no instant route to salvation, just by believing in a Christ figure.
The Muslim's extensive guidance comes from the Koran, which records God's instructions on how to live a good life.
Those instructions came via the Prophet Mohammad, the last of God's prophets on earth.

What you have said in those two posts about Muslim religion agrees with what I have learned from Muslim friends. The ones I know are the very devout, family centered people. The question that they can't answer and that isn't answered by Buddha is what if you do sin and fall into a state where you don't care if you sin and really hurt some people? How can that ever be cleared out by works?

The reason all three religions believe in the same God is because all three are based on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament.

The concept of original sin is one that is not clearly laid out in the Bible and one that is extrapolated by tying a lot of concept together. I think sometimes it may be a handy concept to convince all people to repent, whether they think they have sinned or not. Which makes the idea of original sin seem unimportant to me. Even without that concept and if we were all born with the capacity to completely follow God, none of us has...until Jesus.

From the opposite side, there may be indications of this not being true, at least as a criteria for being lost. There were two near perfect men in the old testament, Enoch and Elijah, and God took them bodily up to heaven. And all the works, healings, miracles, etc. that Jesus did on earth, he did as a man, submitted to God, not from His own power. (I will reference that later, pianoperformer) He said we could do the works that he did and greater works, so on. Elijah had done similar works as a man.

Because He did it as a man is what qualifies Him to be the second Adam and get back the authority that Adam gave the devil. That is why it says that he came to destroy the works of the enemy and that nothing shall by any means harm us. etc. He freed us not only from the law of Moses but from the curse of Adam.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Loosely, there is a doctrine that between the time of death and the resurrection that Jesus went to the holding place of all souls, two different places according to the parable of the rich man in hell. There He preached the Gospel and offered remission of sins to all who were there.

It is easy sometimes for us to forget that Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews and made certain assumptions of what they would understand and relate to. I am rusty on this but if I recall correctly the Jewish concept at the time was of Hades as a physical place in the center of the earth, where both the righteous and the unrighteous went, and there was an uncrossable gap between the place of torment and Paradise (see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man). So the teaching of at least some Christians is that this is the place Jesus went between his death and resurrection, to release those souls (supposedly the meaning of him "leading captivity captive", but who knows -- I never did care for the convoluted interpretation of these vague, cryptic statements). These souls were supposedly them transferred to what we now think of as heaven and hell.

I don't know how universally accepted this is in today's theological cemeteries -- er, seminaries -- personally, I look on it as one of those things in the Bible that could have used the touch of a skilled editor with a sharp pair of scissors -- but I point it out to illustrate that there are interpretations of this that have nothing at all to do with anything like a present-day, Catholic-style purgatory, and regardless, whatever those references you cite mean, I don't see any reason to think that they have anything to do with purgatory.

My suspicion is that purgatory is a doctrine with very thin justification in scripture or anywhere, that was promoted hundreds of years ago to facilitate the sale of indulgences.

--Bob

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Since you seem to have a different understanding of what the "books" say about Buddha than what ALG presented, what is this idea of bad Karma resulting in a person needing the ton glen? Obviously something has gone wrong if they need someone else's help to be free from the suffering.

Buddha taught that anyone can free themselves and this ton glen thing wasn't a central aspect of Buddha's teachings or practice and probably originated after the Buddha died. What is your source?

[pianoperformer]

NightSpirit,

I have to get to my physics homework, but wanted to respond briefly to some of what you said.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

And it could be so, except the thing I don't get is that to be absent from the body is present with the Lord and we can talk to Him, why talk through someone else? Moses and Elijah did come down for the transfiguration though so it's clear those in heaven are interested in what's happening here.

True. I'm not really sure.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I adopted their stance and submitted myself to the will of God in that area maybe 20 years ago...and no kids since then. I have no known reason for that any doctor's can find. I'm older now and not in a sexual relationship, I know TMI, but if I did pregnant I would welcome it. If it happens at 80 and I die in childbirth, Be it unto me according to thy will, as Mary and Elizabeth felt, is what I would say.

Wow, that's interesting. You have a good point.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Loosely, there is a doctrine that between the time of death and the resurrection that Jesus went to the holding place of all souls, two different places according to the parable of the rich man in hell. There He preached the Gospel and offered remission of sins to all who were there.

That God is no respecter of persons is known so going on that, if a person dies in a state unready for heaven but unworthy of hell, they may be given another chance. It's a nice idea, but the sin would be in banking on it and ignoring Christ now. You know the verse whoever is ashamed of me on earth, I will be ashamed of him in heaven.

Not sure. I wonder, going on a similar idea to your post before about some being judged by works, I wonder if those who didn't have a chance to believe in Christ might go to such a holding place, so to speak, while those who have believed would go directly to heaven.

Are there any verses to support the idea of purgatory, or just the interpretation of that one passage? I can see Bob's point, too, that it could've just been an excuse for the church to sell indulgences.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

It's early for you and we surrender to Christ by degrees sometimes. As you learn more to trust Him with your life as you have with your soul, when you know the verse is true that God is for us, you will find this one to be true also

1 John 4:18 - There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.

When you have experienced more of His love, you will trust Him more and fear less.

This is what happened for me. I got delivered from most of that fear- Hebrews 2:15 - And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And I have had to lean on this promise many times, 2 Timothy 1:7 - For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Before I was a Christian I had a paralyzing fear of walking outside in a thunder storm. And of all kinds of things concerning death. My only remaining fear is of a painful death which I need to deal with or I may attract to me. I think I should now, "God's grace is sufficient and he will never leave me or forsake me." There, I reversed that thought.

Read Psalm 91 and really get it into your spirit how God feels about you and what he promises to do for you. It doesn't matter to me what happens in end times, only as I see signs that are fulfilled from the Bible. I'm along for the ride and whatever He does will be what is right and just.

Thanks, and you are right. Like I said, it did give me comfort, but I can't say I wasn't worried at all. Sometimes doubts take over, you know? Like you said, I am still very new to this.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

The Bible says the more wise we become the more foolish we are..and we are, like plastics and fossil fuels and nuclear waste and super resistant infections. I will look for a possible mention of the collider in the Bible.

Definitely. Part of me thinks the money could be spent better elsewhere, but the seeker within me is intrigued by what they may find.

It does worry me though, that something bad might come of it, such as, for example, what happened in the book Angels and Demons. Not necessarily that exactly, but just look at what scientific breakthroughs in the past has been made into more and more powerful weapons.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I take it more seriously since it doesn't come from a numerical formula like 8-8-88 or the year 2000. But it still comes from the stars which is not the best place to get information from God. There is no certain date and even Jesus doesn't know the day or the hour. The Mayans clearly don't have a motive or a part in promoting the idea, to prove themselves right or promote their religion so the idea seems more possible.

True. I do wonder though that if no one knows the day or the hour, if that can really be the day.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I look all that end time stuff from a different perspective after my dad died at 50. He was all into looking to the eastern sky and end times, but his end times already came. I will be with Jesus whether it's coming back with Him or going up to Him no matter what I figure out about Revelations and I don't want to waste my days speculating or arguing about what I can't know.

True.

It can be a little depressing though. I mean, not the whole thing about the world being made perfect, of course, but that if it comes within my lifetime, I wouldn't get to live out what I want to do. Do you know what I mean? I'm always one for having big plans, lol, and it would be a little depressing to go through 10 years of higher education and then not get to do what i want to do with it.

I guess that's selfish of me, but still I wonder.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Have you read about the shifting of the planet and the sunspots that might happen near that date? I think the moving out of orbit prediction is separately held from the date prediction but co-incide. Either of those could be the impetus that begins the last days where a third of the earth will be killed and water will turn to blood, mountains will fall etc.

I don't think I've heard much about that.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Hey off topic again, I saw a show on TV about that worldwide undersea current that controls the temperature of the water. They think some of the dinosaurs were killed suddenly when it was interrupted and caused a poison gas to come up. Well they think global warming might cause that to happen again. But what was so interesting about it was they are trying to recreate the conditions in a stagnant lake and when I watched them go down into the poison part, I was shocked to see it was blood red from what was growing because of the lack of oxygen and I thought of this verse.

Revelation 8:8
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

Like I said, I don't get into end time theology too much. But there are many blessings to be found in the book of Revelation, not just mysteries.

Wow, that's fascinating.

Who knows. Revelation can be quite confusing.

[mercuryrising]

I'm going to have to pray for more time to read this thread. LOL.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by philm

As i see it tonglen, or Buddhism, is self-doctored medicine if you're sick. Suffering.

The sickness is not that something Is actually 'wrong' with you but rather that we think and feel something or someone is actually 'wrong' or 'sinful'.

Tonglen from my experiences, helps dissolve such thoughts and feeling. The judgements and comparisons about what is "wrong" with the ways things are.

Say you're angry, because someone has done something "wrong" against you or what you value. Anger consumes the entire experience - and you know very well at that time Who the 'Bad You' and 'Good Me' is. When the motion of the mind is not fighting the motion of the body's breath or natural vibration or the motion of awareness or creative imaginative potential the anger dissolves away the bridge we built between 'You' and 'Me'.

Its like resting in motion lol

: )

No, you're referring to self tong-len. That would be equivalent to Jesus suffering in order to save Himself.

There is of course self tong-len as well. However, I was referring to general tong len which is about taking on the suffering of others.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Please elaborate on why you think reincarnation was a belief of Mary and Joesph and how it applies to Abraham's relationship with God, if you haven't already in a later post. Thanks.

It is quite simple. Mary & Joseph were Jews. And belief in reincarnation was widespread and common among the Jews. To check this out, simply type "reincarnation" and "Judaism" into Google, and check the results.

Not only did the Jews believe in reincarnation, they believed, like the Buddhists do, that a human being may well reincarnate in non-human forms (eg as an animal).

This is important for understanding the context of the society in which Jesus presented his teachings. He was talking to an audience where many would have believed in reincarnation.

In my view, what Jesus was presenting, he presented as an alternative. In other words, he probably wasn't saying, "All of you are wrong, reincarnation is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. After death, there is only heaven or hell. And the only way to heaven is through me."

In all likelihood (again in my view), he was saying, "Reincarnation, as you know, is uncertain and takes too long. There is a better way. Believe in me, and after death, you go straight to heaven, and escape the endless cycles of reincarnation."

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In all likelihood (again in my view), he was saying, "Reincarnation, as you know, is uncertain and takes too long. There is a better way. Believe in me, and after death, you go straight to heaven, and escape the endless cycles of reincarnation."

What made people assume Jesus was speaking to future generations as well, and not just people who were present at the time?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

From what I know of Hinduism, their gods are quite different from that of the Christian God. Their gods are more like average people. They have their flaws, and have many of the vices as humans.

Not Brahman.

Brahman is the Hindu equivalent of the all-knowing, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent Christian God.

Now, as I have explained before, Hinduism doesn't exactly have numerous gods. What Hinduism has is ONE god (Brahman), but Hindus believe that this God is basically beyond human comprehension.

This one God, however, shows itself in many different forms (each form being the equivalent of one "minor" God, or deity). In fact, about 340 million forms.

Draw an analogy with Christianity. In the Bible, God has appeared as a burning bush; a flash of blinding white light; in human form; in dreams; and as a voice out of nowhere; and as "speaking in tongues" etc etc.

In Hinduism, God has appeared in numerous forms too. Therefore Hindus worship each form. The equivalent in Christianity would be Christians worshipping the burning bush version of God;

and separately worshipping the blinding white light version of God;

and separately worshipping Jesus the human version of God;

and separately worshipping the dream version of God;

and separately worshipping the "voice out of nowhere" version of God;

and separately worshipping the "speaking in tongues" glossolalia version of God etc

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

What you have said in those two posts about Muslim religion agrees with what I have learned from Muslim friends. The ones I know are the very devout, family centered people. The question that they can't answer and that isn't answered by Buddha is what if you do sin and fall into a state where you don't care if you sin and really hurt some people? How can that ever be cleared out by works?

Well, in the Islamic framework, you go to hell.

In the Buddhist framework, you are reincarnated. What you're reincarnated as, depends on your accumulated karma. So if you were a very, very bad person, you are reincarnated at the sixth level, which is the equivalent of hell. It's the state lower than animals, and lower than the hungry ghosts (or earthbound spirits).

The torments of hell, however, are generated by your mind (as usual; in Buddhism, most things are generated by your own mind). For instance, if you have lived a very violent, angry, hateful life, then after death, "hell" for you is the place where you meet the manifestations of your violent, angry, hateful thoughts.

----

Back to Islam. Muslims don't need a redeemer like Jesus because in their framework, if they have sinned, they can ask for God's forgiveness directly.

By the way, Muslims spend a lot of time praying (and that's when they ask for forgiveness from God). They have a formal prayer session five times a day.

I don't know if you have ever been to an Islamic country, but if you have, you'll notice that even in public places like shopping malls or train stations, there will be a little room somewhere, where people can just walk in and pray for a short while. This is how their society facilitates a lifestyle where people need to pray five times a day.

Now, if Islam is right, then to be redeemed despite your sins, there is another way other than relying on a redeemer like Jesus.

The other way is to simply keep asking for God's forgiveness. And if you sin a lot, you ask more frequently. You ask up to five times a day. And you keep getting forgiven, because God is loving, kind and merciful and always willing to give you a 2nd chance if you're sincere and seek to repent.

[Acting Like Godot]

There is a little discussion going on between Bob and PP, about the similarities/differences between various religions. You'll notice this about my posts, and PP's posts --> PP focuses a lot on the differences; while I focus a lot on the similarities. Why?

Because we have a different underlying premise. PP's underlying premise goes something like this:

"There are so many different religions out there. One of them is correct, and the others are wrong. Which one is correct? To find the correct one, I need to focus on the differences between the various religions."

My underlying premise goes something like this:

"There are so many different religions out there. None of them are going to be completely correct, but it's very unlikely that all of them are completely wrong. So which ideas are correct? To find the correct ideas, my chance is to focus on the similarities between the various religions."

My premise is based on the importance of independent corroboration. For example, let's say Buddha draws a certain conclusion. Next, faraway in another place, where Buddhism has little influence, another spiritual teacher eg Jesus or Mohammed, applies a different approach, yet arrives at the SAME conclusion.

This, to me, is good evidence that the conclusion is correct.

Analogy - in a criminal case, EyeWitness A says that he saw John Smith stab the victim. This alone may not be reliable.

But if Police Scientist B says that he has checked the knife and found John Smith's fingerprints, then we become more convinced.

If there is even more corroboration, eg there was a CCTV and the footage shows someone who looks a lot like John Smith stab the victim, then we are even more convinced.

--------------

Christianity says that Jesus died on the cross to take away man's sins. On its own, this is unconvincing. Lots of people died on the cross (it was the usual way to punish criminals, remember) - how come they redeemed nobody? Oh, because Jesus was the Son of God, He's different. Who said so? Ummm, Jesus himself.

There's a circularity which fails a logical test. It's like ALG claiming, "I can fly." Next, ALG claims, "I always tell the truth." It isn't convincing. There needs to be some independent way of confirming that ALG can fly.

For me, "tong len" in Buddhism is an important piece of independent corroborative evidence, that the Jesus story could be true. The "tong len" concept developed independently of the Bible, and yet it indicates that it is true that one person can take away the negative karma (or the effect of sin) of other people.

----------

Similarly, for the holy water example. If holy water was used only by the Roman Catholics, this isn't convincing. But if some other religions quite unrelated to Catholicism also use some kind of holy water, then the story grows more convincing.

Finally, scientists come along (Dean Radin; Masaru Emoto; Gail Hayssen) and they show that thoughts (eg prayer) directed at water will actually alter its molecular structure.

This, to me, is further corroborative evidence that could be such a thing as "holy water" - ie water that acquires some supernatural or special properties, after it has been blessed / prayed over.

---------

This is why I focus on the similarities. I am looking for corroboration.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I was not speaking of there needing to be an actual physical contact or knowledge of the two of each other. I was speaking in terms of the spirit of truth that speaks to all men, and under that assumption, that God was sharing truth with Buddha as a way to prepare hearts for the time they would be introduced to Jesus either in this life or at death or at the end of time.

Right ... Now if we take that view, we must understand that Man has been on this planet for a long time. Man has been on this planet before there was ever such a thing as Christianity or Buddhism.

If God will show himself so directly to human beings, He could do so anywhere, anytime, on any continent. Out of the most direct & dramatic encounters with God, religions would have grown.

None of these religions would have been entirely false, since they arose out of God showing Himself to Man. To put it another way, all such religions must contain some truth.

In the year 2008, when we think of major religions, we probably think of Christianity; Islam; Buddhism; Judaism; Hinduism ("the Big Five"). We tend to forget that at some point in history, none of these religions existed, or existed only on a very small scale, like little cults.

Meanwhile there were other religions which grew, flourished, thrived and finally died away. This doesn't mean that they didn't arise out of authentic encounters with God; and it doesn't mean that they don't contain some important truth. Also, there are many other religions which still survive on this planet (although much smaller than the Big Five). These too may have arisen out of authentic encounters with God; and therefore they too may contain very important truths.

This can be very difficult for Christians to accept, because the Bible is full of references about how all other idols are false; Jesus is the only true Saviour etc. But here again, I have to raise the point about logical circularity. ALG may claim, "I can fly." Next ALG may claim, "I always tell the truth." This really should not be taken as reliable evidence that ALG can fly. Similarly, it is not logical to regard everything in a holy book (any holy book) to be true, just because the holy book makes claim to be the only true way.