Christianity v. Buddhism

[Xuan]

Thank you. That’s probably the clearest explanation I’ve seen. I’ll probably have to think about it for a while before it really sinks in. But it makes sense.

Xuan

 

[SedesDomi]

Hi Sedesdomi,
Are you suggesting that people who are not Buddhist or do not meditate, have no awareness of compassion, wisdom, and patience? Or that meditation is somehow related to those qualities?

Are you suggesting that people who are Buddhist or meditate have no compassion, wisdom, patience? Or that meditation somehow prevents those qualities from arising?

 

[hawkeye]

I was on a Buddhist forum, and something interesting caught my attention. Buddhism teaches that there is no need for faith, that the teachings of Buddhism can be proven to be self-evident by simply examining them. I know that this is the complete opposite of Christianity, in which faith fundamental, so my question is, if Buddhism is true and provable, has anyone tried it, and can it truly refute Christianity as the path?

I only believe in Jesus Christ and God His Father, there is only one creator, bud, is baloney, sa la vie.

 

[rossum]

I only believe in Jesus Christ and God His Father

Then why do you say you are Catholic? Catholics believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You are one Person short of a Trinity.

bud, is baloney

Agreed. I generally prefer English beers to American beers.

sa la vie.

C’est la vie.

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

So I suppose the awareness of compassion, wisdom, virtue, patience, etc., is narcissistic?

Are you suggesting that people who are Buddhist or meditate have no compassion, wisdom, patience? Or that meditation somehow prevents those qualities from arising?

I’ll go back to the original quote. “Awareness” itself is not narcissistic. However, “awareness” as the end goal of one’s life is. Even a child is taught those qualities you mention. Even a child is aware of their own impatience and lack of compassion.

The second quote, sinse you asked - I think meditation is a distraction from developing one’s intellect. In the case of religion and matters of religion the intellect is very important. When people meditate a lot it works like brain washing. It is a brilliant tool for controling people. The reason people do it is because they are promised “enlightenment”.

If more of those people would stop and think, they would realize that a self obsessed goal like enlightenment is not very enlightened at all.

Why so? Because what Buddhists fail to realize, even despite all that meditating, is that there is a God and we will be judged at the end of our life. I think if more people had THAT awareness, they might make different decisions.

 

[Lisa44]

A long time from now. I know that I am far from perfect.

Hi Rossum,

I know of some people who seem to be so. I know of some who have the reputation of being enlightened.

My point is that it is so rare, and dubious, that one must honestly ask oneself if it even exists.
In Christianity, we use proofs for who people are, for example, what have they done, how do they live, or even, are there any miracles produced by that person?
Jesus had to prove that he was the Son of God by healing the sick, casting out demons, raising people from the dead and coming back from the grave himself, walking on water…etc…
Do you know any people who have accomplished this?

Here is one example, though he is dead now:[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

Wow, Merton wrote that?

Good. Follow whatever works for you.

Interesting. Is that what religion does? Work For You?
I might be a Catholic, but its not because of what I personally get out of it.
Its more about acknowledging what I need in my human condition of weakness.

It is, and it can be studied. There are various studies made of the states of mind of Buddhist meditators that show different results from non-meditators.

That is a decision for you to make. The Buddha took six years to reach enlightenment. Bodhidharma spent seven years meditating in his cave. The average seems to be between five and ten years of concentrated effort.

Not all Buddhists are monks or nuns, any more than all Catholics are celibate monks, nuns or priests

I presume you are talking about the difference between self-power and other-power in Buddhism. I have no problem with the other-power sects, such as Pure Land, it is just that their methods are not for me. I did try them briefly. Obviously I disagree with your last sentence; Buddhism has no problem with most non-Buddhist religions (paganism) and no problem with multiple gods (polytheism).

rossum

 

[SedesDomi]

I’ll go back to the original quote. “Awareness” itself is not narcissistic. However, “awareness” as the end goal of one’s life is. Even a child is taught those qualities you mention. Even a child is aware of their own impatience and lack of compassion.

The Buddha would agree with you.

The second quote, sinse you asked - I think meditation is a distraction from developing one’s intellect.

Well, it depends on the type of meditation one is practicing. Reading a book, or solving a math problem, is a type of meditation. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “to meditate”:

1. intr. To exercise the mind in thought or reflection

The Buddha practiced many types of meditation before His Awakening, and many of those meditations were not conducive to, or were distractions from, real Awakening.

In the case of religion and matters of religion the intellect is very important.

The Buddha would agree. In fact, the Sanskrit word buddhi means “intellect, discrimination”.

When people meditate a lot it works like brain washing.

Again, that would depend upon the type of meditation.

Why so? Because what Buddhists fail to realize, even despite all that meditating, is that there is a God and we will be judged at the end of our life. I think if more people had THAT awareness, they might make different decisions.

The Buddha did teach that our actions will have consequences at the time of our death and afterwards. Our afterlife will be experienced as pleasant or unpleasant, depending upon our present-life actions. And the Buddhist analogue of the Christian Trinity would be Nirvana, which doesn’t mean that the Trinity and Nirvana are the same, but that they serve similar functions in each religion. For instance, both the Trinity and Nirvana are generally seen as not subject to change and decay.

 

[IAGladfelter]

My question though is : what is the maximum a buddist can reach or look for? what is the maximum mental or physical power he can get and what does it enable him to reach? As I understand Buddhism, the maximum one can get is to become enlightened, and enter nirvana which is beyond a state or mind or state of existence far beyond existence and non-existence . . . a complete personal and spiritual extinction. Paraphrasing the insignts of one school of Zen Buddhismy: Nothingness is the ultimate reality. Nirvana is the acceptance of and complete union with nothingness.

That strikes me as a program for - an attempt at personal extinction - personal and spiritual suicide. Don’t fear those who can kill the body…fear those who can kill the soul . . .

The best thing to do, in my opinion is to have nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism: run - not walk - away from it as fast and as far as you can.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[rossum]

My question though is : what is the maximum a buddist can reach or look for? what is the maximum mental or physical power he can get and what does it enable him to reach? As I understand Buddhism, the maximum one can get is to become enlightened, and enter nirvana which is beyond a state or mind or state of existence far beyond existence and non-existence

That is one possible description of nirvana. However, all descriptions of nirvana are false. Here is another one:Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

Nagarjuna Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

. . . a complete personal and spiritual extinction.

Not strictly a personal extinction, more a realisation that what you thought was you “self” actually wasn’t and that you had been mistaken all along. Nor is it a spiritual extinction. The Buddha did not become “spiritually extinguished” when he became enlightened at age 35. He went about preaching until he died at age 80.

Paraphrasing the insignts of one school of Zen Buddhismy: Nothingness is the ultimate reality. Nirvana is the acceptance of and complete union with nothingness.

This is an incorrect paraphrase. Emptiness (sunyata) is distinct from nothingness (abhava). Emptiness is like a mirage; a mirage looks like water but actually it is not water. Emptiness is similarly deceptive, it looks as if it is something when actually it is something else. Nothingness just looks like nothingness, it is not deceptive in the way that the emptiness mirage is.If their view of emptiness is wrong,
those of little intelligence will be hurt.
Like handling a snake in the wrong way,
or casting a spell in the wrong way.

Nagarjuna Mulamadhyamakakarika 24:11
It is dangerous to mistake emptiness for nothingness; the two are very different. Buddhism is a middle way between “it exists” and “it does not exist”. Nothingness is to embrace the second alternative which is a mistake.

That strikes me as a program for - an attempt at personal extinction - personal and spiritual suicide. Don’t fear those who can kill the body…fear those who can kill the soul . . .

Buddhism does not kill the soul. It just shows you that you were mistaken when you thought that you had one. You cannot kill what does not exist. All the is “killed” is the mistaken notion that there is such a thing as a soul.

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

The Buddha would agree with you.

Well, it depends on the type of meditation one is practicing. Reading a book, or solving a math problem, is a type of meditation. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “to meditate”: The Buddha practiced many types of meditation before His Awakening, and many of those meditations were not conducive to, or were distractions from, real Awakening.
The Buddha would agree. In fact, the Sanskrit word buddhi means “intellect, discrimination”.Again, that would depend upon the type of meditation.
The Buddha did teach that our actions will have consequences at the time of our death and afterwards. Our afterlife will be experienced as pleasant or unpleasant, depending upon our present-life actions. And the Buddhist analogue of the Christian Trinity would be Nirvana, which doesn’t mean that the Trinity and Nirvana are the same, but that they serve similar functions in each religion. For instance, both the Trinity and Nirvana are generally seen as not subject to change and decay.

Hi,
This is a bit dangerous, this line of equating nirvana with God. The trouble with it is it lulls people into complacency. You are comparing nirvana with God, essentially you are saying that God is a construction, as nirvana is. You are saying that it will be the same whether you are a Christian or a Buddhist - you will experience a good afterlife if you are a good person.

I understand this concept as its very popular today. The problem is that if …IF…God is real, and you will be judged by him - Jesus - then you’re going to be in a whole lot of hot water. Because your idea that you don’t NEED God, and you don’t believe he came to earth to save you - is essentially what will cause your downfall in the end. EVEN if you are striving to be virtuous all your life, you must recognize that the very DENIAL of God IS a sin that will be punishable.

So, please, please, be very careful. Make sure that you are aware of who Jesus is and was, and make sure that you are choosing your “faith” wisely. Because, it will determine your afterlife. You will not be able to claim ignorance of Jesus because of all the time you have speant here at this catholic forum.

Peace be with you

In Buddhism, there is no pressure because there is no belief in God. But you must understand that Christianity is not like Buddhism. We are not here for good meditative experiences (St. Teresa of Avila could float above the earth). We are not here for good intellectual debate. We are here because there is NO ONE but Jesus who can save us. We know this. There is no other path to salvation.

 

[rossum]

We are here because there is NO ONE but Jesus who can save us. We know this.

One of the things I often ask when this point is made is about whether or not an Australian born in 500 CE could have been saved.

If such an Australian could not have been saved, then Jesus’ saving power is limited by the speed at which Christian missionaries can travel the world. Hardly worth worshipping a God with such limited power.

If such an Australian could have been saved, then it is possible to be saved without knowing anything at all about Jesus or what He said. In this case worshipping such a God is optional - you can be saved anyway.

If such an Australian could possibly have been saved only because Christian missionaries had not yet reached Australia then the arrival of Christian missionaries actually reduced the possibility of Australians being saved, and we are back to the first case where Christian missionaries limit the effectiveness of Jesus’ saving power.

There is no other path to salvation.

This is a point where Christianity and Buddhism differ. Even within Christianity there is argument about whether or not the Jewish religion constitutes a separate path to salvation.

Buddhism sees many paths to salvation/enlightenment. All paths reach the top of the mountain, some paths approach up the North face while others approach by the South face. Even though they all approach the same destination the various paths can appear very different. Some paths are easier than others and some take long detours, but in the end all can reach the summit. It is only at the summit that all the paths converge; for the rest of the climb they may follow different routes. Since very few of us are anywhere near the summit the various routes we are taking can seem very different indeed.

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

One of the things I often ask when this point is made is about whether or not an Australian born in 500 CE could have been saved.

Yes. God existed before humans. God created every single human that ever walked on this earth. He knows you more than you know yourself.

If such an Australian could not have been saved, then Jesus’ saving power is limited by the speed at which Christian missionaries can travel the world. Hardly worth worshipping a God with such limited power.

God does not depend on missionaries. Missionaries depend on God.

If such an Australian could have been saved, then it is possible to be saved without knowing anything at all about Jesus or what He said. In this case worshipping such a God is optional - you can be saved anyway.

No, not optional. Many people, lets call them indigenous, believed in God or the Creator. They worshipped him. They didn’t know about Jesus but when they did learn about him many converted.

If such an Australian could possibly have been saved only because Christian missionaries had not yet reached Australia then the arrival of Christian missionaries actually reduced the possibility of Australians being saved, and we are back to the first case where Christian missionaries limit the effectiveness of Jesus’ saving power.

The same Australian who believed in God and led a good life who might have been saved by God, is the same Austrailian who when they heard about Jesus believed in him. Remember, God knows what you will do before you do. And he knows what is in your heart before you do.

This is a point where Christianity and Buddhism differ. Even within Christianity there is argument about whether or not the Jewish religion constitutes a separate path to salvation.

It’s not a seperate path to salvation. The Jews are God’s chosen people who he gave his revellations to. If they believe in him and do their best to follow his dictates then God knows that, as he knows them better than they do. However, when the Messiah came, many Jews were incredulous and felt that it was not possible for God to come as a man. So they rejected him. Only God knows what he will do with these people. I can’t possibly tell you that. It might be that he will give them a test before he gives them their judgement. He might give them another chance to accept Jesus. I don’t know?

Buddhism sees many paths to salvation/enlightenment. All paths reach the top of the mountain, some paths approach up the North face while others approach by the South face. Even though they all approach the same destination the various paths can appear very different. Some paths are easier than others and some take long detours, but in the end all can reach the summit. It is only at the summit that all the paths converge; for the rest of the climb they may follow different routes. Since very few of us are anywhere near the summit the various routes we are taking can seem very different indeed.

This is relativism at its best. Relativism is anti-intellectualism. The Buddha is not Jesus, and Buddhism is not Christianity. Why do you try and make them the same? Is it because you don’t know anything about Christianity and this is your excuse for not learning - to assume its all the same so I don’t have to study?

Lets start with God. Is it the same thing to believe in God, as to reject life as having a creator who knows and loves you? Is a boat a car? Is a planet a star? Is worshipping creation, the same thing as worshiping the God of creation?

Look at matter versus matter + spirit. Matter is not animated except by spirit. If you were to hike in a faraway place and you came upon a stone house. Would you think those stones assembled themselves into a house? Or would you assume that a human had been there who had built that house?
If you were to get down on your knees and worship those stones for being so clever to make themselves into a house, - how would that compare to worshipping the humans who made the house? Obviously you would give credit to the human right?

What about the universe? What about earth? Don’t you think something intelligent made it? Do you think that matter just moved itself? Of course not. Do you think its more intelligent to worship the matter - like the rocks, or a human who is matter + spirit. Or is it more intelligent still, to worship that which created both rocks and humans?

Anyways, paganism versus worship of the creator is one example of the differences we are talking about.

 

[rossum]

No, not optional. Many people, lets call them indigenous, believed in God or the Creator. They worshipped him.

How could they worship Him? Christian missionaries had not yet arrived, so they were following one of those non-Christian religions that you are assuring me cannot lead to salvation. Please be consistent here. If those Australians could be saved then it is possible for followers of a non-Christian religion to be saved. If it is not possible to be saved by following a non-Christian religion then those Australians could not have been saved.

The Buddha is not Jesus, and Buddhism is not Christianity. Why do you try and make them the same?

I am not, they are not the same. I am saying that they are different routes to the same destination. I can go to New York via Chicago or I can go to New York via Miami. Those are two different routes to New York.

Lets start with God.

Indeed. How many people does the God of the Old Testament kill or order to be killed? How many people does the Buddha kill or order to be killed? I know which one I prefer.

Is it the same thing to believe in God, as to reject life as having a creator who knows and loves you?

The Buddhist take on the creator can be found in the Brahmajala sutta. In short the being who thinks that He is the creator is mistaken. Nor does He have to power to attain nirvana for me. He can attain nirvana only for Himself; I can attain nirvana only for myself.

Anyways, paganism versus worship of the creator is one example of the differences we are talking about.

As I pointed out at the start, what about those saved pre-Christian Australians? If their non-Christian religions could save them then what has changed since then that their previously salvific religions are now “paganism”?

rossum

 

[Hieronymous]

The Eastern Church has more to say about Buddhism and Reincarnation.
Souls come through to teach in many religions.
However, the Catholic Church has blessings/sacraments not available in other religions.

Beings are numberless;
I vow to free them.
Delusions are inexhaustible;
I vow to end them.
Dharma gates are boundless;
I vow to enter them.
The Awakened Way is unsurpassable.

Jesus Christ is my Buddah.

 

[Lisa44]

How could they worship Him? Christian missionaries had not yet arrived, so they were following one of those non-Christian religions that you are assuring me cannot lead to salvation. Please be consistent here. If those Australians could be saved then it is possible for followers of a non-Christian religion to be saved. If it is not possible to be saved by following a non-Christian religion then those Australians could not have been saved.

I was referring to God, the father. Those people I said may or may not have worshipped the creator. Jesus is the Son of God, however many people, through reason and observation of the natural world, understood the creator. They didn’t know about Jesus, but they worshipped God nonetheless.
It is always possible for non-Christians to be saved if they 1) believe in God/the creator and 2) if ignorant of Christianty, worship God nontheless. Also, Buddhists who have not encountered Christianity could be saved through total ignorance of a belief in God. However this is doubtful, as one can understand God simply by observing creation. Most likely the person is obstinate and chooses not to believe in a God who loves them. However, I will say, that without revellation or knowledge of God’s revellation it is difficult. Regardless, remember God knows what is in every man’s heart and he is the judge not us.

I am not, they are not the same. I am saying that they are different routes to the same destination. I can go to New York via Chicago or I can go to New York via Miami. Those are two different routes to New York.

The destination is not the same. You posit that all roads lead to the same place. I am pointing out that different roads lead to different places.

Indeed. How many people does the God of the Old Testament kill or order to be killed? How many people does the Buddha kill or order to be killed? I know which one I prefer.

I am not aware of this particular revellation. The ten commandments states “thou shalt not kill”.

The Buddhist take on the creator can be found in the Brahmajala sutta. In short the being who thinks that He is the creator is mistaken. Nor does He have to power to attain nirvana for me. He can attain nirvana only for Himself; I can attain nirvana only for myself.

God is not a “being”? What would give you that idea? Remember in my references to three things - rocks, humans, and God. God is outside of creation and is not creation. He is pure spirit. We cannot even conceptualize God however. Suffice it to say we know a bit about him and we know that Jesus was the physical incarnation of God, his Son. So we know God through the prophets and also through mostly, his Son and also through the Holy Spirit which is sent from God.
God is not a “Himself”? God is not a created being like you are. God doesn’t need nirvana either?

As I pointed out at the start, what about those saved pre-Christian Australians? If their non-Christian religions could save them then what has changed since then that their previously salvific religions are now “paganism”?

No. If they were or are pagan, they would not be saved, because paganism is the denial of the creator. Paganism is the worhsip of created things. I mentioned peoples who worshipped a creator, these are people who would be able to be saved because they acknowledge God. Most N. American cultures worshipped a creator for instance.
What has changed? God sent his Son to save us. Now, once people have been made aware of this fact they can also choose to follow Jesus or reject him. If people are in complete ignorance of Christianity then they did not ever formerly reject Jesus, therefore it remains to be seen what choice they would have made. Most indigenous peoples accepted Jesus as they already had a worship of God in their culture, so the acceptance of Jesus is not that hard. Whereas where people were distinctly pagan, they have already refused to acknowledge a creator and therefore it is more habitual for them to reject such notions.

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

The Eastern Church has more to say about Buddhism and Reincarnation.
Souls come through to teach in many religions.
However, the Catholic Church has blessings/sacraments not available in other religions.

Beings are numberless;
I vow to free them.
Delusions are inexhaustible;
I vow to end them.
Dharma gates are boundless;
I vow to enter them.
The Awakened Way is unsurpassable.

Jesus Christ is my Buddah.

This is more relativistic nonsense. Christ is not a Buddha because he is not a man.

 

[Lisa44]

I should qualify: Christ is both human and divine.
The Buddha was a man like you and I.

So to call Christ a buddha is really really heretical. You should confess this to your Priest ok. It would be good for you to get some guidance on this.

 

[excaliber]

I must learn more about buddhism.

Meditation clearing one’s own mind of nonsense. Or praying asking God to do it for us.
Which is better?

An individual trying to reach his or her maximum potential. Or an individual asking God to cleanse him or her and bring them to heaven. Which is better?

Buddhism dosent seem to over
emphasize God in this process.
This is logical because God dose not seem to over emphasize us,
he is there but if something is to
be done WE are the only ones to do it.

The many paths leading the same way makes sence. Because there
is NO ONE PATH known to all men.

In Christianity God starts of some what unknown in that the garden of eden story is not litteral. Then
God becomes clearer in scripture as one who favores ONE INDIVIDUAL on the planet (this has
never made sence to me) Abraham, and basically makes a buisness deal that if Abraham follows him, God would in turn be partners with him. Giving him riches and working exclusively through his family. (again this never made sence, what about everyone else)

Then years in the future this becomes not a family God but the national God of specifically Isreal. Isreal then conducts a holy war to invade neighboring nations
to take there land, and exterminate people for having different beliefs. Basicly Isreal loses a war “God is angry with them” they win a war “God is pleased”
Well Isreal is runs into a problem
when they no longer war against
tribes on there level, but against a
real super power like Rome which
defeats Isreal destroying the temple and everything.

Then Isreal basicly waits for God to send them a Joshua type military leader to free them from
Rome.
Then God is not a personal God or a National God, But one who
takes the form of man to rebuke
his own religious system and build a following to break free of the religious system he set up when he was a National God of Isreal.
This confuses people, because they went from fearing to speak Gods name to hearing that God was there and had been raised by Joseph and Mary. So you end up with Christianity and Judaism… both originating from the same God, but both being so different that Judaism teaches that Christians worship a false God.(this also makes no sence)

From this new Religion you have ideas like Hell which very successfully scare the daylights out
of people till this day. First Personal family God to National God to International God in Christianity.
Then God goes back to heaven, and his students die of and we eventualy are left with a holy book
that no one understands. Even the
Apostolic churches don’t know who is in charge or even what books go in the primary holy book.

Now that being said mabey no other religion has done better, and
everyone is spread out and confused.

But if that is not the case, then they deserve to be investigated.
Buddhism may fall under that category.

 

[Lisa44]

I must learn more about buddhism.

Meditation clearing one’s own mind of nonsense. Or praying asking God to do it for us.
Which is better?

An individual trying to reach his or her maximum potential. Or an individual asking God to cleanse him or her and bring them to heaven. Which is better?

Buddhism dosent seem to over
emphasize God in this process.
This is logical because God dose not seem to over emphasize us,
he is there but if something is to
be done WE are the only ones to do it.

The many paths leading the same way makes sence. Because there
is NO ONE PATH known to all men.

In Christianity God starts of some what unknown in that the garden of eden story is not litteral. Then
God becomes clearer in scripture as one who favores ONE INDIVIDUAL on the planet (this has
never made sence to me) Abraham, and basically makes a buisness deal that if Abraham follows him, God would in turn be partners with him. Giving him riches and working exclusively through his family. (again this never made sence, what about everyone else)

Then years in the future this becomes not a family God but the national God of specifically Isreal. Isreal then conducts a holy war to invade neighboring nations
to take there land, and exterminate people for having different beliefs. Basicly Isreal loses a war “God is angry with them” they win a war “God is pleased”
Well Isreal is runs into a problem
when they no longer war against
tribes on there level, but against a
real super power like Rome which
defeats Isreal destroying the temple and everything.

Then Isreal basicly waits for God to send them a Joshua type military leader to free them from
Rome.
Then God is not a personal God or a National God, But one who
takes the form of man to rebuke
his own religious system and build a following to break free of the religious system he set up when he was a National God of Isreal.
This confuses people, because they went from fearing to speak Gods name to hearing that God was there and had been raised by Joseph and Mary. So you end up with Christianity and Judaism… both originating from the same God, but both being so different that Judaism teaches that Christians worship a false God.(this also makes no sence)

From this new Religion you have ideas like Hell which very successfully scare the daylights out
of people till this day. First Personal family God to National God to International God in Christianity.
Then God goes back to heaven, and his students die of and we eventualy are left with a holy book
that no one understands. Even the
Apostolic churches don’t know who is in charge or even what books go in the primary holy book.

Now that being said mabey no other religion has done better, and
everyone is spread out and confused.

But if that is not the case, then they deserve to be investigated.
Buddhism may fall under that category.

Excaliber,
Your religion says Catholic. Yet you are obviously not a Catholic. How would you expect anyone to listen to the words that come out of the mouth of a liar?
You should honestly state your religion if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Ok.
I’m guessing you are an atheist. Am I correct?

 

[Contarini]

How could they worship Him? Christian missionaries had not yet arrived, so they were following one of those non-Christian religions that you are assuring me cannot lead to salvation. Please be consistent here. If those Australians could be saved then it is possible for followers of a non-Christian religion to be saved. If it is not possible to be saved by following a non-Christian religion then those Australians could not have been saved.

The “inclusivist” view, which is generally held by Catholics and by moderate Protestants, would say that everyone who is saved is saved by Jesus even if they have never heard of Jesus. This position would distinguish between “followers of a non-Christian religion being saved” and “being saved by following a non-Christian religion.” You assume that these two things are the same.

Edwin