Can Buddhism be more reliable than Christianity?

Can reincarnation be true? And Jesus is false ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's a nice summary here if you're interested.

The Christian view is clear:
Hebrews 9: 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world [i.e. this is not the case].
But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

The concept of reincarnation comes from the Hindu Vedas (scriptures). Your death is "sowed" into a next life, which is impregnated with your karma (good and bad deeds) and gives birth to your new life. "Salvation" comes by the realization of Godhood (moksha), and ultimate escape from the cycle of reincarnation.

You can make it as complicated as you like, but the basic premises are 1)immortal soul 2)God (whether external personal, external impersonal or internal personal) and 3)Justice ("reap what you sow").

Even if reincarnation were true, it does not guarantee justice or progress. You are stuck with living this life.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If reincarnation is true, why does it mean Jesus is false?
I don't get it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Bible states;

“The wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life.”
In the first book, God commanded Adam not to eat from a certain tree, for he would surely die. Adam ate from the tree but went on to live for 900 odd years.
How do these 2 statements tie in with each other?
If Adam had not given in to temptation, according to God, he would still be alive today, but due to his disobedience he started to decay. So death, in this case is due to sin or disobedience. As soon as Adam sinned, the process of death kicked in. This means from the moment we are born (into sin) we are dying, not just at the point of extinction. If we die as a sinful person, then there is no question of going to heaven, and if our sins are not heinous or grotesque, then there is no justification of going to hell. So what happens to us? From both statements, we can understand that we are capable of living an eternal life, like God, but yet if we sin we die.

You say the “concept” of reincarnation comes from the “hindu” vedas. Whereas I agree that the science of reincarnation is found in the vedas, I cannot agree that the vedas are “hindu”. There is no mention of hinduism at all, in any of the vedic literatures or the puranas. Why? Because the term “hindu” is a very recent term by comparison, in fact it means the people of the river “Sind”, that's all, which when interpreted by the mohamadon invaders was pronounced “Hind”, as the Arabs did not pronounce the “s”.

The idea of going to heaven or hell, as put in the biblical texts, is non-different than the idea of reincarnation, if you act one way you go to heaven if you act another way you go to hell, this is a basic format of the journey of the soul, once its body is shed.

What do you mean by this statement?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saint,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

You could also consider that both are false since both are only concepts.

But both are variations on the same theme; death can be survived through either some type of immaterial component or that a life essence can make a transition from death to a new form.

First show that death is not an end and then there would be a basis to explore the myriad mythologies that might apply to an alledged ‘afterlife’ condition.

 

I thought this link might be of interest ...

On Reincarnation

 

When god said that if adam ate the apple then he would surley die, it caused him death. If he didnt eat from the tree then god would have allowed him to eat from the tree of life,giving him immortality. But since he ate from the tree of knowledge,he couldnt eat from the tree of life because then it would make man live with sin for ever and ever.

 

Shall I conclude that knowledge is a sin ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wow, how depressing, so the moment i am born i am already guilty of something, shit i might as well kill myself and stop my sinning =P

 

the tree of knowledge was the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve did not know of good or evil before eating the apple.

 

Just a reminder. The tree of knowledge, apples etc are just symbols that shouldn't be taken literally. For example, apples stand for immortality, but not in the physical sense. And as such they pop up everythere, in the Greek mythology, Rennes le Chateau enigma, Arthurian legends (Avalon the island of apples, from the welsh root affal) etc.

It's nonsense to think in terms of the actual tree with apples.

Also, God is supposedly all loving, caring etc and yet it seems that he got angry and jealous when Adam went for the apples. Doesn't it strike you as inconsistent?
Perhaps this account of the Paradise story is incorrect. Hint - those that are interested, please get familiar with the gnostic version.

 

If God is omniscient, why did He give Adam and Eve free will to choose,even though God knew the what the choice would be?

 

I tend to think that the whole Bible is symbolic... one big long Aesop fable.

 

You could also consider that both are false since both are only concepts. (chris)

you say reincarnation has been shown to be false? what tests (scientific) have been conducted? anecdotal evidence seems to be the best that proponents of this philosophy can hold up as proof. have all these cases been investigated and proven to be fraudulent?

since when does a "concept" automatically become false? it might be prudent to wait until it has been actually disproven.

 

Perhaps there are 2 gods. After all, there are 2 accounts of creation in Genesis.

 

God gave us free will, so there was a 50/50 chance that we would disobey Him and sin, or that we would listen to Him and live as He intended. He took a chance on us, so to speak - but He did give Adam and Eve instructions to live by. Brainuniverse: The sin was disobedience.

Stu43t, there is nothing to know until the decision has been made.

Circe, we do you think the later gnostic version is more reliable? They did lean on the known and established versions. As for the seeming inconsistencies - We project understandable human emotions onto God to try and understand His actions. What makes you think that He did not show mercy out of love?

Jan,
The Bible does not imply reincarnation. Why would God shorten people's lifetimes if it makes no difference in the long run - and in fact gives them less chance to attain "enligtenment"? All through the Bible, attaining eternal life or being "reborn" refers to spiritual life, and perfection refers to perfection of faith.

The truth is - salvation does not depend on our efforts. It is a gift purely from God. We will be judged according to our actions. I.e, the punishment will fit the sin. But the Bible provides another option, mercy. Only God - as judge - can be merciful. Going to heaven does not depend on your holiness, but on God - who requires faith. We live and die in a body tainted by sin, our lives in Christ are purified for eternal life. Whatever you trust to God survives, and whatever you claim for yourself you lose. Reincarnation implies subjecting your life - all of it, past and future - to your own power of will, and not crediting God for any of it. It's as if saying: "Thanks for creating me, but I'll take it from here. When I'm good enough, I'll come back to you."

If you see karma as a moral law, then showing anybody mercy or would put him at your debt, and make it even harder for him to attain moksha. I'm no expert, but that's what it looks like to me. Please feel free to correct me...

 

spot on!

I skip posts with biblical quotes - they are a fallacy. As to the original question, yes - I think Buddhism has a hell of a lot more going for it than any other religion. Buddhism has never started a fight, caused a war or hurt fellow human beings and DOES NOT worship a god - all adds to to the "perfect" religion in my mind.

 

Jenyar, It's not for me to judge which version is more reliable and I never meant to impose my beliefs on anybody. I only suggested that to see the whole picture one should get familiar with, so to speak, all points of view on God.

True gnostics didn't rely on the established versions, they rejected known dogmas. They were convinced that the only way to know God is through one's personal experience (gnosis = knowledge through insights), which, of course, varied among individuals.

 

OK. I agree with you. I usually recommend
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ (quite comprehensive)
or http://www.gospels.net/

You said the Paradise history might be incorrect, and referred to the Gnostic gospels as a possible alternative. I'm just saying that they aren't a reliable alternative. See THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS COMPARED TO THE CANONICAL GOSPELS

 

"Reincarnation" is a pretty easy idea to slap around like a little bitch.
Think about it, one thing we know for sure is we can't remember previous lives, therefore even if reincarnation is true it doesn't matter, you might as well be completely ceasing to exist, it makes no difference whatsoever to the individual.

 

Like I said: your're stuck with living this life. But another thing we know for sure is that we can't see beyond death - and that might have implications.