Buddhism VS an Eternal Family

[1PeaceMaker]

I once started a thread called "Buddhism's hateful doctrine" which has since been pruned due to old age, I believe. So I thought it might be time for part 2 - since this is a really important point for me.

When I say "hateful doctrine" I mean like, detestable doctrine. Not like Buddhists are haters, but their paradigm is bleak because of this one pivotal doctrine of no eternal life, no eternal family or inheritance.

So I changed the thread title this time, but the message is the same - Buddhism is a sad religion because there is no family to go home to and no eternal reward.

Thoughts?

 

[OCTOBER23]

WHAT REWARD DOES CHRISTIANITY OFFER = ETERNAL LIFE

WHAT FUTURE IS THERE WITH CHRISTIANITY = RULING THE UNIVERSE WITH JESUS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT REWARD DOES BUDDHISM OFFER = NOTHING

WHAT FUTURE IS THERE WITH BUDDHISM = NOTHING

WHAT REWARD DOES IDOLOTROUS CATHOLICISM OFFER = NOTHING

WHAT FUTURE IS THERE WITH CATHOLICISM = NOTHING
========================================

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Well, I'm not interested in the prospect of ruling the cosmos per se, but that comes with having an eternal family, and an eternal family - now that's love!

What's the love of family that Buddhism offers?

In God we have an eternal Father offering an eternal inheritance.

 

[chair]

"Eternal life" apparently was not part of early Old Testament belief either.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Bhuddaism is the reason India has been enslaved by poverty these many centuries.

See how they treat their women....

 

[chair]

Bhuddaism is the reason India has been enslaved by poverty these many centuries.

See how they treat their women....

I suggest you investigate what percentage of Indians are Buddhists, then you can come back and admit your error.

 

[chrysostom]

Bhuddaism is the reason India has been enslaved by poverty these many centuries.

See how they treat their women....

how can you say that?

do you know what the their percentage is?

 

[chrysostom]

I once started a thread called "Buddhism's hateful doctrine" which has since been pruned due to old age, I believe. So I thought it might be time for part 2 - since this is a really important point for me.

When I say "hateful doctrine" I mean like, detestable doctrine. Not like Buddhists are haters, but their paradigm is bleak because of this one pivotal doctrine of no eternal life, no eternal family or inheritance.

So I changed the thread title this time, but the message is the same - Buddhism is a sad religion because there is no family to go home to and no eternal reward.

Thoughts?

don't worry about it
it is not a threat to any reasonable person

I have looked into it
and
found the concept
that
we were all once part of the whole
and
will not be happy until we return to the whole

what is wrong with that?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

"Eternal life" apparently was not part of early Old Testament belief either.

That's what the Sadducees believed. Obviously the Pharisees saw something different.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Bhuddaism is the reason India has been enslaved by poverty these many centuries.

See how they treat their women....

According to Rita Gross Buddhist Feminism is a "radical practice" so I would lean towards agreeing that feminism is not automatic within the faith. The idea of karma probably puts many men of the religion into the mindset that they had better karma to enter as men.

from wiki:

According to Bernard Faure, "Like most clerical discourses, Buddhism is indeed relentlessly misogynist, but as far as misogynist discourses go, it is one of the most flexible and open to multiplicity and contradiction."[13]

 

[chair]

That's what the Sadducees believed. Obviously the Pharisees saw something different.

Have you read the OT?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

don't worry about it
it is not a threat to any reasonable person

I have looked into it
and
found the concept
that
we were all once part of the whole
and
will not be happy until we return to the whole

what is wrong with that?

For one thing, because we were always God's kin, always his children, else why would He be called "our Father?" In fact, being a stray child doesn't eliminate the fact that we are still family, albeit in big trouble and lost, spiritually.

"The whole" doesn't substitute as an idea for "Father" does it?

Also, we don't return to "the whole" later, we can be whole here, and be in heaven now. And how is being "returned" or recycled into a "whole" equal happiness, when that is not talking about a family reunion but the death of the individual?

 

[chrysostom]

For one thing, because we were always God's kin, always his children, else why would He be called "our Father?" In fact, being a stray child doesn't eliminate the fact that we are still family, albeit in big trouble and lost, spiritually.

"The whole" doesn't substitute as an idea for "Father" does it?

Also, we don't return to "the whole" later, we can be whole here, and be in heaven now. And how is being "returned" or recycled into a "whole" equal happiness, when that is not talking about a family reunion but the death of the individual?

returning to the whole does not necessarily mean the death of the individual

you are going way out of your way to discredit buddhism
and
it is not necessary
so
why not just accept the good part of it?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

returning to the whole does not necessarily mean the death of the individual

you are going way out of your way to discredit buddhism
and
it is not necessary
so
why not just accept the good part of it?

I'm not going out of my way. I was confronted by this reality about the religion years ago. I can't ever call myself a Buddhist as a result.

If I had a good reason to, I think it would be neat to say I'm both a Buddhist and a Christian, but that isn't going to happen. As it is, of the three major world religions, only one makes sense to me. Only one sounds like true happiness.

The Buddha teaches that what we call ego, self, soul, personality, etc., are merely conventional terms that do not refer to any real, independent entity

http://budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/115.htm

 

[chrysostom]

I can't ever call myself a Buddhist as a result.

I don't call myself a buddhist
and
I don't have to call myself a buddhist in order to see some good thing about the religion
and
I don't have to spend a lot of time going over what parts I don't agree with
so
why do you?

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

returning to the whole does not necessarily mean the death of the individual

you are going way out of your way to discredit buddhism
and
it is not necessary
so
why not just accept the good part of it?

Because we are called to defend against anything that sets itself up against Christ. Buddhism leads people to believe Christ is not necessary.

 

[chrysostom]

Because we are called to defend against anything that sets itself up against Christ. Buddhism leads people to believe Christ is not necessary.

can you show me how?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

One doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God."

http://www.religionfacts.com/theism/buddhism

If there is no God, no Creator, no Father, then there is no Christ or need of Him.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Have you read the OT?

Yes.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

can you show me how?

It is a philosophy that uses the wisdom taught by Buddha to achieve enightment and wisdom and very much depends upon the self and Buddha's teaching. There is no love.

Christ teaches and gives enlightenment and wisdom by His Spirit and grace through and trust in Him. Dependence upon Christ. Christ's love/Spirit empowers us. It brings reconciliation between us and Him and intimacy relationaly with Him.