1

Didn't we beat this horse to death six months ago? Is this a cyclical topic that we must revisit with regularity?

We're not going to get agreement on this. It's like the Baptist joke: four deacons discussing an issue will have five different opinions.

But, having said that, here's my lamb to be slaughtered by subsequent commenters. The Gospel, as Tolkien and Lewis said, is True Myth. It pulls the veil aside and shows us what life and creation are in reality. The Gospel exposes all the distractions (Pascal's word, as you know) and leaves us face-to-face with the raw purpose of existence. The Gospel is Jesus Christ and Him crucified, buried, resurrected, and witnessed; it is His death in our place, paying the price for our disobedience, available to all who trust Him to be and do all that He said He is and has/will do.

For more details and information, consult your nearest Bible.

2

Dr. Mike:

Do YOU disagree with the post? Or are you assuming that others will disagree with it? I agree with everything in Joe's post, except this notion: that in order to understand the gospel we need more study (I'm not insisting that's Joe's point). For example, we need to understand the Old Testament in order to truly understand the New Testament and the gospel message. While I believe that's true, it is also true that the man with an IQ of 60 who has been an unrepentant killer his whole life can understand the gospel on his deathbed well enough to grasp eternal life. The nutshell gospel is enough to save.

That being said, I don't know why anyone would disagree with the substance of Joe's post. The gospel can be understood in a nutshell, but to say we truly understand it is ludicrous. There is no understanding it with the human mind. It is the most sublime mystery story ever told and I sometimes think we Christians forget just what an incredible story we believe.

3

I like some of what N.T. Wright has to say on the subject. Essentially, the Gospel "in a nutshell" is that Jesus is Lord. That the man Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of all creation. If you had to pick one passage of scripture that best summarizes this, I would pick Phillipians 2:

Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

But of course, you wouldn't want to just pick a passage to summarize - you would want to read all of scripture - including the old testament - with this in your mind.

4

I agree with the heart of Joe's message here, and I've always found it interesting that most evangelicals will eagerly agree and evangelize others with "ye must be born again" as one of Christ's commands, but the same evangelicals will ignore the command of Christ to "Go sell whatever you have and give to the poor."
It's sad to see how we pick and choose the lines of scripture that we want to follow and skip over the rest. And it's sad when people fragment the Gospel to lift up their own personal agendas.

5

Joe, I like this post. Thanks.

I think I'd like to narrow the term "Gospel" down just a bit; there is something about it that the prophets of old didn't understand, and which the angels wish they could look into, and it seems that the "good news" is of a specific kind. If you will, the Gospel is not only the Truth, Christ, or truths about Christ, but it is a specific "way in" to Christ, a unique angle-of-vision. It is Christ as the Savior of sinners, as the one who defeated Death and Hell.

That said, the Gospel is "scalable" (to misappropriate some database jargon). The Gospel is "Christ has died, Christ was buried, Christ is risen." The Gospel is the Romans Road. The Gospel is the entire history of Christ's life and work. The Gospel is the entire New Testament. The Gospel is the work of Christ including its extension through the Spirit in the lives of every believer and every church. These are not mutually exclusive; they are contextually-appropriate ways to view the Gospel at different levels of application and explanation.

Christ's work has been done and continues to be done. That is Good News.

Cheers,
PGE

6

Joe, this is a fantastic post. I remember about two years ago my faith was really reinvigorated when I read G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. As Dr. Mike comments above, it was a hearty reminder of the fantastic, world changing truth that is the "Gospel" -- true myth, realistic fantasy, and a hope that reaches beyond the confines of the material into the reaches of the soul.

Knowing that -- and gaining insights from my own increasingly pragmatic life -- I would say the bigges threat to this truth is apathy and "realism". The older I get, the harded I find it is to believe in miracles, the supernatural, real, substantive heavenly intervention, etc. and that seems the quickest way to kill a message of good news that depends on a firm belief in a world outside these walls.

Thanks again, for the fantastic post.

7

While very new to the faith I have noticed a tendency for people in my church to want a simple message that meets their personal needs. Just depraved human nature I guess.

Giff - awesome comment, it deepened my understanding somewhat - thanks.

8

I think the gospel of evangelical Christianity can indeed be put in a nutshell. It consists of two basic points:

1. God loves you very much.

2. If you don't love him back, you will burn in hell forever.

9

ex-preacher 2. If you don't love him back, you will burn in hell forever.

If you really believe that to be true than I doubt very much that you were ever a "preacher." I have a hard time believing that anyone who has actually read the Bible could hold such a strawman view of the Gospel.

10

Instead of attacking me, why don't you prove that the statement is a false one.

11

I'm with ex here. A quite common view among evangelicals is that those who do not accept Christ as lord and savior will suffer eternal torment. The New Testament speaks of the sentence for unbelief many times. Perhaps the doctrine of eternal damnation for all those who do not accept Christ is a misintrepretation of those texts. But if so, why it is a misinterpretation is not obvious. I too would like to be enlightened on this matter. For me, it is an insurmountable barrier between me and belief.

12

Count me in, also. Ex-preacher may have stated it crudely, but isn't his statement essentially correct? If not, where is it wrong?

13

Franklin, consider the statement "If you fall out of an airplane at 8 miles high without a parachute, you will die". How is that different from saying "Without Christ, you will suffer eternal death"? It differs if it's untrue that without Christ we would suffer eternal death. How you feel about it has no bearing on the truth postulated. If I thought it was unfair that someone should die just because they didn't have a parachute, would I be safe to jump out of airplanes without one?

You may be correct in your unbelief, but you seem to be saying that it's based on how you feel, and not on what is.

14

ex-preacher Instead of attacking me, why don't you prove that the statement is a false one.

I’m not attacking you at all. I’m simply skeptical that any Christian preacher that has read the Bible would think that claim was true. I also don’t see how I can prove that statement false other than to point out that it is found nowhere in the Bible.

Franklin A quite common view among evangelicals is that those who do not accept Christ as lord and savior will suffer eternal torment.

That point is true, but quite different from what ex claimed. If you do not accept Christ as lord and savior then you do not want to spend eternity with him. And an eternity without Christ would be full of self-inflicted suffering.

For me, it is an insurmountable barrier between me and belief.

I hate to tell anyone what they believe, but I think the insurmountable barrier may not be the truth of that proposition but the offensiveness of it. For me, the “good news” about Jesus would still be good news even without the good news of salvation. The fact that God will allow me to be in his presence forever is a work of unbelievable grace.

I suspect that where we differ is that I believe I am a sinner, while you think you are “basically a good person.” I think I’m “good” when compared to Hitler or Pol Pot or even most guys in prison. But when compared to the only standard that counts – Jesus Christ – I am hopelessly flawed, completely incapable of being good. I am a sinner, guilty of whatever divine justice God chooses to mete out.

What Christ offers us, though, is a way to reconcile ourselves to him in order to atone for what we have done, what we are. Some people think that God should take us as we are but the pure cannot be mixed with the corrupt. It’s like if you went out and rolled in a vat of medical waste and then tried to enter a operating room. They wouldn’t let you in without you first being cleaned of all the toxic, infectious material that you are coated in. It wouldn’t be “unloving” or “unjust” of them to refuse you admission to the OR if you chose not to be cleaned up first.

Although this is a flawed analogy, it is similar to salvation in that God offers us a way to be cleaned of our sins in order that we may be reconciled with him. In his infinite patience, though, he allows us to choose not to be reconciled – and allows us to live with those consequences.

If you want to reject Christ, that is your choice. But I think its rather silly to blame God for not forcing you to choose otherwise or not offering you a third option because you don't like the ones before you.

15

The basic flaw in what you say, Joe, is the assumption that all non-Christians really know that Jesus is the Son of God and that salvation is available only through him and then choose to consciously reject him.

If God were truly loving he could cleanse people of their medical waste whether they believed in him or not.

I also disagree strongly with your belief that God is perfectly just in sending any human who has ever sinned (that would be everybody) to suffer eternal torment in hell.

Christians are very proud that their religion has nothing whatever to do with works, but is based wholly on the grace of God, while all other religions are works based. What this boils down to is that a child molester and mass murderer can go to heaven if he repents and believes on his deathbed, while someone like Gandhi or Anne Frank, who basically tried to do the right thing, will burn eternally because they didn't believe the right thing. What you find so beautiful strikes me as sick and insanely cruel.

While I believe that everyone deserves to be happy, you believe that everyone deserves hell.

16

A quite common view among evangelicals is that those who do not accept Christ as lord and savior will suffer eternal torment.

And that view scares the bejeezus out of me. Not that I fear eternal torment — I believe when I'm dead I'm truly gone — I fear what people can be driven to do because of beliefs like this and the literal interpretation of the rapture story. When I thought that people with these extreme beliefs were a small minority I was fairly sanguine, but now it appears it's a quite large portion of my fellow citizens, people who have demonstrated they have a good deal of political clout.

Once a group of people buys-in to ideas like a literal Hell and that they and no one else are the going on to Heaven after death, with some justification I worry about how easily they can fall into the trap of thinking that other people are not quite as entitled to life, liberty, and happiness as the evangelicals are.

Some Muslims have similar extreme beliefs and look what they are willing to do.

Christians are very proud that their religion has nothing whatever to do with works, but is based wholly on the grace of God, while all other religions are works based.

To be fair, only some Christians believe that. My lay preacher father taught that faith and works were equal partners, but he was not an evangelical.

17

Joe,

What you say makes a bit of sense to me. But that the impure cannot enter into communion with God does not by itself imply that they should suffer eternal torment. Perhaps some do know who Christ is and yet choose not to, as is said, accept Him as lord and savior. But why this should merit eternal torment is beyond my meagre ability to comprehend.

Of course, what ex says seems on the mark. Many who do not accept Christ do not do so because they know who He is and quite deliberately chose to reject His gift. Rather they simply do not know Him. That such ones should suffer eternal torment seems to contradict the ethic of love and justice so prominent is scripture.

J. J.,

What you say seems thoroughly wrong-headed. First, I do not say, nor did I imply, that my belief derives from what I feel. Second, my first post speaks not of eternal death (your phrase) but of eternal torment. Third, the two claims you mention, viz.

If you fall out of an airplane at 8 miles high without a parachute, you will die.

Without Christ, you will suffer eternal death.

are quite clearly different in a relevant regard. If I accidentally fall out of an airplane and plunge to my death, there need be no one to blame. But if I suffer eternal death, there is someone to blame. Perhaps I share part of the blame for my refusal to accept Christ. But Christ too shares part of the blame. He cuts me off when there was no need to do so. If He wished, He could have allowed me more time (either in this life or in another) for my conversion. He could have by an influx of His glory broken down by defenses. He could have surrounded me by men and women so strong in their faith that I would eventually be wooed. If the commonplace evangelical view of damnation is correct, Christ has done none of these things for many and yet condemms those who He cuts off to eternal torment. There is logical absurdity; there is moral absurdity too. This view is morally absurd.

Franklin

18

ex-preacher,

I also disagree strongly with your belief that God is perfectly just in sending any human who has ever sinned (that would be everybody) to suffer eternal torment in hell.

Thanks for giving us the kindergarten version. Can we say "strawman"? Yes, many Christians believe this, but that does not mean their conception is accurate.

The doors of hell may very well be locked from within. What Joe is trying to say and what I believe is that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all present. Being in his presence when you have rejected him is not going to be pleasant. As Joe said, the pain will be self inflicted. When God removes people from his presence, it will be an act of mercy. The essence of heaven is God. God is what makes heaven something to be desired. However, if you have rejected God, it is like learning that the joy of heaven is eternally eating ice cream when you hate ice cream.

Christians are very proud that their religion has nothing whatever to do with works, but is based wholly on the grace of God, while all other religions are works based.

I do not know any evangelical Christian that believes this. Evangelical Christians believe that a person cannot earn heaven through works. This is not only theology but common sense. To earn something is to make someone your debtor. Therefore, to earn heaven is put God in the position of owing it to us. Now when we consider that God gave us the earth we walk on, the creatures we eat, and the air we breath, it is absurd to argue that God owes us something. C.S. Lewis used the following analogy to explain the dilemma: A child borrows sixpence from his father and uses it to buy his father a present. This pleases both the father and the child. But only a fool would say that the father is sixpence the better for the transaction. Even if we lived a perfect life, we could not earn heaven for we would only be returning to God what is his. Therefore, we can attain salvation only through God's grace.

We, however, have not even done that. We use the life he gave us in ways that are forbidden by him. Why where they forbidden? Because God forbid that which is hurtful to ourselves and others. Therefore, God hates sin because it hurts his loved ones. This is like as a father who loves his child would hate the acts of a person who hurts the child or a father who hates the fact that his child will not study. This sin separates us from God.

God is not indifferent to good works. The Bible says, "faith without works is dead." Good works are the fruit of salvation. God loves us all, therefore, he provides the strength and will for us to become better. Good works are the gifts God gives us to reward our faith. Works and faith go hand in hand, but works cannot save.

19

"if we don't love Him back"....aren't we just philosophers except for loving him back?

20

Ex The basic flaw in what you say, Joe, is the assumption that all non-Christians really know that Jesus is the Son of God and that salvation is available only through him and then choose to consciously reject him.

You make a good point and there are several issues in there that we would need to unpack. So we don’t get sidetracked I suggest we save that for a future discussion and limit the current one to those who have at least heard of Jesus and are familiar with the claim he is “the way.”

If God were truly loving he could cleanse people of their medical waste whether they believed in him or not.

Why? Because you say so? This is what irks me about your position. You are upset that God is a seducer and not a rapist. If he really loved us, you seem to claim, he would force himself upon us against our will. You seem to know enough about God that you don’t want anything to do with him. How is it truly loving to force himself upon you if you don’t want a relationship with him?

I also disagree strongly with your belief that God is perfectly just in sending any human who has ever sinned (that would be everybody) to suffer eternal torment in hell.

I think you have a misunderstanding about what exactly hell is, but that is also something that we will have to save for later.

What this boils down to is that a child molester and mass murderer can go to heaven if he repents and believes on his deathbed, while someone like Gandhi or Anne Frank, who basically tried to do the right thing, will burn eternally because they didn't believe the right thing. What you find so beautiful strikes me as sick and insanely cruel.

Okay, let’s see where the works-based approach leads. I presume that you are not a universalist, you wouldn’t think that everyone (including Hitler) should automatically get into “heaven.” If that is the case, what is the standard by which someone should be allowed in? Should someone like, say, Gandhi be the standard? Would that standard be sufficient?

Gandhi, after all, was not exactly a saint. When his wife was dying of pneumonia he refused to let British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her. Of course when he got malaria soon after her death he had no problem accepting the “alien medicine” quinine. He also recommended that prior to WWII, the Jews being persecuted in Germany should have committed collective suicide. And he suggested that the British people surrender to Hitler. And which Gandhi would we follow? Seargeant Major Gandhi, the decorated Zulu-killing war hero or the later pacifist Gandhi?

(For more on Ghandi read Richard Grenier’s “The Gandhi Nobody Knows”)

My point is that we either have to say that everyone is deserving of heaven (including Hitler and Pol Pot) or we have to come up with some arbitrary standard that might exclude “basically good people” like me and you. How is this anymore just than a perfect God refusing to force people to change their will and accept him?

While I believe that everyone deserves to be happy, you believe that everyone deserves hell.

Whether or not anyone deserves hell, according to the Biblical view it is likely that they would choose it even knowing the alternative.

Franklin But why this should merit eternal torment is beyond my meagre ability to comprehend.

I (sort of) agree with your sentiment. I believe in a God that is just, but not cruel. Cruelty is unjust so God will not cause people to be in torment beyond what they deserve.

But aside from the question of whether people deserve eternal torment, I think we have to ask whether they would choose to suffer it in order to avoid accepting the alternative. On the fact of it, this seems rather silly. Who in their right mind would choose hell? The problem is that we tend to abstract how people really are in favor of a rational person view.

For example, why do people smoke even when they know it can cause cancer? Why do alcoholics continue to drink even when it is killing them? Why do gamblers continue to gamble even when it leads to their ruin? Why do adulterers cheat on their spouses when they know the consequences?

Unless you're a strict genetic determinist, you probably agree that people have some choice in their behavior. So why do they choose the bad over the good? Because, I believe, they prefer the bad, consequences and all, over the good. The same is true for those who reject Christ. They would, and often do, choose to reject him knowing full well what it means.

21

Only when I experience His love for me and mine for Him do I find purpose.

22

On people "choosing" hell and the gates of hell being locked from within. . .

C.S. Lewis hit a homerun with the depiction of the damned as choosing to be in hell because they couldn't bear heaven. Such thinking has assuaged many a Christian's conscience - "Well, they really wouldn't be happy in heaven anyway". Unfortunately, this image, of people "choosing" hell, has no basis in the New Testament and is simply wishful thinking. In virtually every description of hell, people are "judged", "thrown", told to "depart", "locked out of the party" even when begging to be let in, etc. There is no sense in the New Testament that people desired to be in hell more than heaven. Matthew 10:28 - "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

So if we are going to talk about hell, let's talk scripturally - hell is unequivocally presented in the New Testament as the punishment inflicted from without on those who will not embrace Christ (and this punishment is inflicted against their will, not along with it).

23

Isn't love the most important thing?

24

Isn't love the most important thing?

25

Joe beat me to the punch, and responded better than I would have anyway.

IF the God of the Bible exists, then everything is His and He gets to make the rules anyway He sees fit. Humans shaking their fists whining about how He should run His universe are guilty of severe hubris and rebellion. If God exists, it's His show completely.

Joy of joy and wonder of wonders, the God of the Bible is not an arbitrary squasher of us ants. Instead He loves us to such a degree that He is willing to forgive us our hubris and rebellion and welcome us into His presence for eternity.

Instead of gratefully accepting His provision, we continue to shake our fists and demand that He bend His universe to our wills.

How utterly depraved of us.

26

One more comment about choosing hell. . .for me, the definition of insanity would be choosing eternal torment over eternal happiness. There is not one rational person who would choose pain over bliss. Even those who engage in extremely self-defeating behaviors do so because at some deep level they sincerely believe that their behavior is "better" than the alternative. That is, they are insane, at least in that area of their lives.

So if there were indeed a class of people who made such a choice for hell over heaven, I believe they would qualify as clinically insane and therefore a candidate for God's healing, not for his continued punishment. A God who would leave the insane to suffer torment eternally is a cruel God, in my opinion.

27

Once again, Joe, I think you are wrongly assuming that everyone who has heard about Jesus and is not a believer knows that they are making a choice between the true God and eternal torment. I believe that the vast majority are unconvinced. I'm not asking for God to be a rapist, just to actually show up for a date. He's quite hidden, yet he's going to send me (or allow me to be sent, if you prefer) to hell because I doubted his existence?

I reject your assertion that people consciously realize they will go to hell for their unbelief and still refuse to believe anyway.

I don't believe in God because I don't see sufficient evidence. It's not because I really know he's there but prefer to spend an eternity in hell. That's nonsense. Please give me evidence that this is what most non-believers who have heard of Jesus are really thinking.

Furthermore, the whole bit about hell being locked from the inside and the torment being self-inflicted is alien to the Bible. Please show a chapter and verse on that. It is based instead on the wishful thinking of C.S. Lewis and others. Yet, when I point out that C.S. Lewis was something of a universalist and thought the Bible was errant, evangelicals say, "Oh, he wasn't a theologian. He was wrong about a lot of stuff."

28

"he's going to send me (or allow me to be sent, if you prefer) to hell because I doubted his existence?"

Yes. We all stand condemned before God because we have refused to acknowledge His ownership of His universe (which includes us). "But I don't believe you exist!" As if that matters. Truth is what IS, not what we want to believe or have conveniently made up to make ourselves feel better.

It's an uncomfortable truth that we all want to avoid, but the earth and all that is in it is HIS. As such we owe Him obedience and have failed to render it. Every last one of us.

In His grace He has provided a way for us to avoid the punishment we're due. And still we quibble and demand more.

I fully understand the role of faith in accepting the preceding. By faith I accept what the Bible says--that God has provided ample evidence of His existence to everyone so that all are without excuse. We underestimate the deception and willful blindness in our hearts at our gravest peril.

29

Bryan. . .if, when the skies roll back and the end of time comes, it is revealed that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet", do you think it would be fair for him to dispatch you to the depths of Islamic hell for not believing? Do you think it would be fair for him to ignore your cries that you tried to live a life pleasing to God, but you got the details wrong and worshipped Jesus instead? Do you think that it would be fair that he would send the likes of St. Francis, Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Mr. Rogers and the like to eternal torment because they repressed and ignored the clear testimony of Mohammed? After all, as you said, ". . .truth is what IS, not what we want to believe. . ."

30

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Romans 1:16-25

31

That point is true, but quite different from what ex claimed. If you do not accept Christ as lord and savior then you do not want to spend eternity with him. And an eternity without Christ would be full of self-inflicted suffering.

Ahhhh but most Christians I have spoken with present this as a poorly informed choice. You have to choose Christ before you die & then live with the consequences forever. If, after seeing hell, you decide you'd rather be with Christ most Christians seem to argue that it would be too late to change one's mind then.

The essence of heaven is God. God is what makes heaven something to be desired. However, if you have rejected God, it is like learning that the joy of heaven is eternally eating ice cream when you hate ice cream.

Would you say another good analogy would be someone who is let into a top college despite the fact that he never bothered to learn to read or accept any type of education at all? While the intellectually minded person would find college a dream come true he would find it an annoying hell.

But even there is is quite possible for such a person to learn to like college. Are you saying that hell is simply an unworthy person being in God's prescence and there's no real way around that since God is everywhere?

32

ex: I don't believe in God because I don't see sufficient evidence.

What evidence convinced you when you were a preacher?

33

Joe,

A good question and one I would like to answer as fully as possible. Also important is explaining why I came to change my mind about God's existence.

I am under a time crunch right now, but will plan on coming back tomorrow to answer.

Thanks.

34

"if, when the skies roll back and the end of time comes, it is revealed that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet"..."

Then I failed to declare my allegiance to the correct God. What does fair have to do with it?

We all seem to have this mushy headed notion that religions and metaphysical systems are all compatible. They're not. If one is right, most (if not all) the others are wrong. It's not PC to point this out, but there it is.

If Islam is right, Christianity is wrong.
If Buddhism is right, Christianity is wrong.
If materialism is right, Christianity is wrong.

If "when the sky rolls back" and I stand (kneel and grovel) before Allah, the last thing I'm going to do is accuse GOD of being unfair. I'll beg and plead for mercy, but how stupid is it to wag a finger in the face of God?

I've done compartive analysis of the various religions and metaphysical systems. Christianity has satisfied me intellectually, historically, existentially.

But if I am wrong, you won't see me arrogantly shouting at whatever deity I stand before that He/She/It didn't play fair. I will kneel and hope for mercy.

35

If Buddhism is right, Christianity is wrong.

No, that's not how Buddhists see it. Buddhism is not exclusive. You are free to be a Buddhist and a Christian, a Buddhist and a Jew, etc.

Buddhism is centered around facing the issue of suffering, its causes, and the ways to address it.

36

"Liberal" (non-fundamentalist) Buddhists might see it that way.

But Buddhism (that I've read about in Huston Smith and on wikipedia) is a pantheistic worldview the ultimate goal of which is relinquishing the illusionary self and dissolving into the one. This is an oversimplification, but suffices to make the point.

Christianity is theistic and does not hold to reincarnation or illusory reality/selfhood. God created the universe and is distinct from creation. Humans and other creatures are not made of "godstuff." And so on.

If a practitioner of Buddhism rejects the metaphysics of his religion he can claim compatibility with Christianity (by rejecting its metaphysic as well). But those who "really believe" the teachings of the two religions must see them as incompatible.

Unless you reject the law of non-contradiction, in which case this conversation and all others is over.

37

I don't believe in God because I don't see sufficient evidence.

This is a clear statement. Nothing in it about "rejecting" or "disobeying" or "shaking fists." All God-talk is essentially meaningless. For instance, this comment thread is filled with the remarks of various individuals who claim to understand the Yahweh deity, to know what it thinks, what it wants, how it will dispose of each individual, what its criteria of judgement are, and so forth. In extreme detail.

I find this quite remarkable. It is as if all of these individuals are able to telepathically communicate with the Yahweh deity and have had discussions with it, and are clearly informed as to the deity's intentions. I'm in the same camp as ex-preacher - no such communications have been received, hence no "belief" in the deity.

This, naturally, raises the question of whether any of the Yahweh deity proponents have ever had such personal verification of the so-called "gospel." It is reasonable to assume that, instead, they have simply perused the Bible and elected to believe it, in all its contradictions, without evidence. This choice is not, to my way of thinking, insane or foolish. Rather, it appears to be the result of a yearning for answers to difficult questions.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the average Christian has a low tolerance for ambiguity. Let's look at four basic questions:

1. Where did we come from?
2. Why are we here?
3. How should we live?
4. What will happen to us when we die?

A rationalist like myself may have guesses to the answers, or opinions, but certainly no direct knowledge. The difference I perceive between a rationalist and a Christian is that the Christian demands answers to these matters and is comforted by the Biblical explanations, which are simple and concrete. For some, like me, not having explanations for these matters is not a problem. For others, like most Christians (I should imagine), a lack of answers appears to be a problem. For these people, the "gospel" is a meme that takes a very strong hold of the proponent.

One question I'd like to toss out for anyone who cares to field it concerns the nature of "heaven." I've seen it referenced repeatedly above, in such remarks as "In heaven we will be with Jesus forever." What, exactly, is heaven?

38

All religions can be equally false but they can not all be equally true - Ravi Zacharias. If it is appointed for man to die once then there can be no reincarnation. If Buddhism is right then Christianity is wrong.

39

My first impression on reading this was "this is why I'm not a Christian."

As well as my 2nd.

Truly words cannot open another's mind. I doubt hitting you would help.

But here's a few words. They are not my own. Perhaps it's too obvious:

Monk: "What is the one road of Ummon?"
Ummon: "Personal Experience!"
Monk: "What is the Way?"
Ummon: ""Go!"
Monk: "What is the road, where is the Way?"
Ummon: "Begin walking it!"

40

Joe Carter wrote:

You are upset that God is a seducer and not a rapist.

The word that comes to me is actually "extortionist."

Do I act out of love for my child toward his benefit even if he's mad as tacks at me? Of course. Would I do something to hurt him for the rest of his life if he didn't say he loved me? That's not love; that's extortion.

My point is that we either have to say that everyone is deserving of heaven (including Hitler and Pol Pot) or we have to come up with some arbitrary standard that might exclude “basically good people” like me and you. How is this anymore just than a perfect God refusing to force people to change their will and accept him?

There's a point that needs to be made here: you're assuming that somehow, you're separate from everyone else. It's cold.

...according to the Biblical view...

I always wonder why folks like you pick and choose what Magisterium things you like and which you don't.

...whether they would choose to suffer it in order to avoid accepting the alternative. On the fact of it, this seems rather silly. Who in their right mind would choose hell?

Why to save the sentient beings that might be there...

41

I'm gonna break into this thread for a slight digression on the greatest threat to the Gospel. While I agree that simplism is a problem, I really and truly believe that the greatest threat to both the Gospel and Christianity is politics.

We only have to look at the history of the Catholic church to see what politics does to religion. Politics is about compromise. Politics is about interest groups jockeying for power and money, and making deals to get what they what. Politics is about nepotism. All of these things will corrupt ultimately Christianity and the Christians who go into politics.

Put simply, politics is about how your body will be rewarded for a few decades in this world. Christianity is about how your soul will do in eternity in the next world.

42

Bryan K Mills

"Liberal" (non-fundamentalist) Buddhists might see it that way.

Actually the most fundamentalist Buddhists see it that way. I am most familiar with Theravada Buddhism, the oldest tradition, which now has several monestaries here in the USA. However, there is something often called American Buddhism, which one could say is more liberal, for lay people. It was among those teachers and Zen Buddhists that I first heard that Christians could stay Christians (or substitute some other religion) and still be Buddhists. Then I met some of people with that sort of dual identity.

But Buddhism (that I've read about in Huston Smith and on wikipedia) is a pantheistic worldview the ultimate goal of which is relinquishing the illusionary self and dissolving into the one. This is an oversimplification, but suffices to make the point.

Huston Smith for all his scholarly achievements was not a Buddhist, and I doubt anyone would think their religion could be summed up accurately in an encyclopedia article.

If a practitioner of Buddhism rejects the metaphysics of his religion he can claim compatibility with Christianity (by rejecting its metaphysic as well). But those who "really believe" the teachings of the two religions must see them as incompatible.

I think a Buddhist teacher would find the notion of "really believing" the Buddhist teachings somewhat odd and perhaps humorous. They would be more interested in "really experiencing" and helping you find your own way to those experiences and to establish your own beliefs and your expression of them. Buddhism is not about dogma of any kind, quite the contrary.

Unless you reject the law of non-contradiction, in which case this conversation and all others is over.

I think the problem comes in part from the desire to sum up one's experience in words. Zen Buddhism has an appeal at least a little bit because it directly addresses this with its koans. A big part of my academic work was in logic (2nd order predicate calculus and theorem proving to haul out the formal phrase). If anything good came of that it was learning its limitations.

Who gets to say what is Buddhism and what is Christianity along metaphysical lines or any other? Tap five of each religion on the shoulder and ask them and you'll get five different answers. Live among practitioners of each, however, and you'll get sense of what the belief and practices are about.

43

The statement was made . . .

"If Buddhism is right, Christianity is wrong.

Andrew replied . . .

"No, that's not how Buddhists see it. Buddhism is not exclusive. You are free to be a Buddhist and a Christian, a Buddhist and a Jew, etc."

How Buddhists may see it does not negate the exclusivness of the Gospel. If words have meaning then when Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but by me," he meant that he was the only way.

If, as Buddists teach, there is no personal God and we are only the product of an impersonal metaphysical whatever, then the message of the Gospel is wrong. It doesn't mean that the Sermon on the Mt. was of no value, but that the central message of Christ (being the the only way) is of no avail.

Paul went further and said that "If Christ is not risen from the dead, then our faith is in vain."

These are tough words in an age of inclusiveness, tolerance and ecumentalism. But an honest rendering of what Jesus taught
on the matter, I believe, leads to only one conclusion.

44

AndyS, your interlocutor clearly doesn't understand Buddhism well enough to carry his end of the discussion. I can, in all likelihood, do little better. Just the same....

Your characterizations of Buddhism work fairly well if what you mean is "American Buddhism." However, the commitment to pluralism and non-belief (by which I mean not disbelief but the sort of deprecated relevance of "believing" you speak of) is by no means an ahistorical "core" of Buddhism which can be transplanted across cultures.

Buddhism has nationalist (Burmese, Tibetan) variants; syncretist and non-syncretist strains; Scriptures (in Chinese tradition the acquisition of "true Scriptures" from "the East"--India--is a major epic); sects and dogmas (in Japan, two strains of Zen quite easily distinguishable from Nichiren or "Pure Land" Buddhism); and many other features that can be found in any historically-instantiated religion.

Your dehistoricizing of Buddhism, extracting a "core" from its cultural ties and referring features you do not prefer to "other" variants, while claiming that the "real" Buddhists don't believe that, is actually a classically Western, philosophical move. How could "real" Buddhism of the sort you refer to as being completely interpenetrable by Christian belief ever have any "other" at all, any variants *within* Buddhism?

If you remove it from history, you remove its very reality of existence; you have abstracted away the being into nothingness. While that may be good practice under some kinds of Buddhism, others will still exist when you've finished to tell you you were mistaken in so doing.

Cheers,
PGE

45

I don't have a lot of sympathy with Joe on this one, for two reasons.

First, this post overlooks something which I am certain that a man as brilliant as he typically observes, understands, and teaches others: that words have broad fields of meaning, and in order to have a productive discussion you must clarify which field of meaning is "on the table."

The generic definition of gospel is simply "good news." LSU fans had the gospel preached to them last weekend when they upended Duke and Texas.

In some contexts, such as 1 Corinthians 15, "the gospel" is a rehearsal of the theological significance of the historic facts about Jesus' death and resurrection. In other contexts, such as Matthew 25, "the gospel" is the promise that those who survive the Tribulation will enter the kingdom.

It is possible to speak of the "gospel in a nutshell" - an assertion of facts which must be believed in order to enter into eternal life - and be correct in doing so. But I don't think that anyone, in their better moments, would assert that this exhausts all the biblical data that falls within the various fields of meaning for the word "gospel."

I'm sure that Joe, being the great wit, is not being disingenuous here. He's simply forgotten himself momentarily.

The second problem with this post, or more accurately, with the comments on this post, is to confuse or conflate the terms "accurate knowledge" with "exhaustive knowledge." It is absolutely true that we finite beings cannot exhaustively know God or the good news about Jesus. But it does not follow that our knowledge is therefore not accurate.

Perhaps there is some element of faith - I don't know because I'm not smart enough - to insist that while our knowledge of these things is not exhaustive it is nonetheless the promise of revelation that our knowledge is accurate.

That's my two cents worth.

46

Bryan K Mills:
But Buddhism (that I've read about in Huston Smith and on wikipedia) is a pantheistic worldview ...

I don't know what's on wikipedia, but I doubt - seriously- that it says "Buddism is a pantheistic worldview." This is the sort of nonsense Christians have been saying about Buddhism since the missionaries first appeared in Buddhist countries.

Let me say that part of the problem is that Westerners have tried to categorize Buddhism in their own terms- sometimes before terms existed in the West to adequately describe Buddhism. Thus, Soen Shaku - through D. T. Suzuki- at the turn of the last century- referred to Buddhism as "panenthistic," as "encompassing all possibilities and not encompassing all possibilities," but if you were say to actually read Buddhist sutras on the subject, you 'll find that the Buddha himself remained silent on such issues- sort of in accord with what Soen Shaku wrote. But also admissible - and much simpler, I'd submit- is the term nontheist.

There are those, in the Pure Land schools who virtually deify the Buddha, and others who verge on polytheism, but this only underscores the fact that this characterization is crude.

And having looked at wikipedia, your assertion is baldly false.

Andy S.

I think a Buddhist teacher would find the notion of "really believing" the Buddhist teachings somewhat odd and perhaps humorous.

This is the difference between Buddhists and "evangelical" Christians: we practice. They talk about "good news." We don't spend much time with "beliefs" because that distracts from practice.

Hence what Ummon said.

Terrence Moeller:

How Buddhists may see it does not negate the exclusivness of the Gospel.

How Christians may see it does not negate the inclusiveness of Buddhism. You're walking the way even if you're not aware of it, said Shih T'ou Hsi-chi'en. But those words are useless. Go!

If, as Buddists teach,...

"Teacher" is sort of an inappropriate word here. Buddhists - certainly in the Zen tradition- do not teach. There is no one to teach. There is nothing to teach. There is no way anything could be imparted. This isn't mumbo-jumbo; it's the way things are.

...then the message of the Gospel is wrong.

This bit from Paul is one of the errors in the bible- it's called the construction fallacy.

Let me also say about your tough words: their errors, inaccuracies and omissions, and that like it, throughout history, have resulted in the stench of blood.

Cultivate humility.

47

I do not profess to be an expert on Buddhism and freely admit my statements were generalizations. They were not intended to give offense, merely to illustrate my point: the metaphysics underlying the world religions are not compatible if one takes them seriously.

AndyS wrote:
"I think a Buddhist teacher would find the notion of "really believing" the Buddhist teachings somewhat odd and perhaps humorous. They would be more interested in "really experiencing" and helping you find your own way to those experiences and to establish your own beliefs and your expression of them. Buddhism is not about dogma of any kind, quite the contrary."

Jesus did not give us the option of establishing our own beliefs. He said He was the only Way. Incompatible.

AndyS also wrote:
"I think the problem comes in part from the desire to sum up one's experience in words."

The Bible proposes to be revelation--an assertion in words (the Word, John 1) that God is knowable. Incompatible.

Mumon:
Pantheist. Panentheist. Nontheist. Pick your label. All three are incompatible with the Trinitarian Theism of Christianity. My assertion being baldly false... while we could go round and round, I'll pass and apologize instead.

"There is no one to teach. There is nothing to teach. There is no way anything could be imparted. This isn't mumbo-jumbo; it's the way things are."

A metaphysical assertion of the way things are. Denial of the self. Denial of propositional truth. You see me as a naive child unable to grasp the higher truths of Buddhism, instead clinging to the wrong beliefs of Christianity. You are making my point for me. We cannot both be right.

I freely admit that cultivating humility is needed on my part.

But I will not apologize for believing the words of Jesus. I am not arrogantly making things up. It would be easy to dismiss the either/or and go with "many paths up the mountain", but Jesus didn't give us that option. He made exclusive claims. For me to be a disciple I must submit to my Master.

I am not trying to argue anyone into belief. That's absurd and impossible. Apologies to Joe and others for diverting this post, but my intent was to make one point: we can't all be right.

48

Now that I’ve slept on it, I’m starting to regret that I promised to give a full accounting of why I believed and why I stopped believing. This topic may be more appropriate for a book than a post. So instead of giving a complete and thorough explanation, allow me to give a partial one that may stretch over several posts.

I’d like to begin by talking about my conviction that we do not choose our beliefs. People have told me that my disbelief is a matter of the will and that if I wanted to I could start believing again. As I reflect on it, I probably held that view once myself. But now I realize that a belief is not something that can be changed by the will alone. After reading my examples and thinking about it, I think you might agree.

I define belief as a conclusion based on evidence. That evidence usually includes both your own experience as well as the testimony of others that you trust. Those others might be a person close to you, like a parent, as well as others you have never met but appear to be experts on the subject.

Here’s a list of some beliefs I hold:
1. exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer
2. the moon is not made of cheese
3. astronauts have traveled to the moon
4. the earth orbits the sun
5. Abraham Lincoln was killed in 1865
6. a Democratic president will be elected in 2008
7. my mom loves me
8. intercessory prayer doesn’t work
9. O.J. Simpson did it

Some of these beliefs are held lightly, because of the weakness of the evidence, while others are held with near certainty, because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence. I would say that #6 is at about 60% certainty, #9 is at 90%, #1 is at 95%, #3 and #4 are at 98%, while the others are all over 99%.

Now here’s my key point: none of the beliefs can be changed by willpower alone. It would take evidence, and pretty overwhelming evidence, to convince me that any of these (except maybe #6) is wrong.

Let’s say that someone broke into my house, put a gun to my head and said he would pull the trigger unless I told him that I believe the moon is made of cheese. I’m pretty sure I would immediately comply. That is, I would lie. But could I make myself really believe that the moon is made of cheese? No. No matter how hard I try I cannot force myself to believe something that I really don’t think is true.

Try it yourself. Try to make yourself believe that Abraham Lincoln is actually alive and living incognito as a beach bum in Florida. What if I offered to pay you a million dollars if you really believed it?

In the same way, no threat of hell or promise of heaven affects my lack of belief in God. For those who believe in God, no punishment or reward could make them change that deeply held belief. Under torture or coercion they might say they changed their belief. But like Galileo signing his confession, they would mutter under their breath, “but the earth still moves.”

You cannot choose your beliefs, but you can choose your behavior. You can choose to seriously study the evidence for alternatives to your existing beliefs. That is where the will comes in. Most people simply do not have the will to open their deeply held beliefs to intense criticism and scrutiny.

And when it comes to religious beliefs, they tend to be very deeply held. Religious beliefs are usually derived from people that one deeply trusts. Because so many religious beliefs are beyond one’s own personal investigation, people depend heavily on others. Those people are usually one’s parents and other close relatives. They might also include one’s teachers, ministers, authors of books, friends, the larger society.

Thus we shouldn’t be too surprised that the children of Muslims in a Muslim culture tend to grow up and become Muslims. The children of Amish parents, reared in the Amish culture usually become Amish themselves. And so on for Greek Orthodox, Hindus, Catholics, Pentecostals, Buddhists, Jews, and Unitarians. The more deeply that faith is held by one’s parents, role models and culture, the higher the likelihood that one will follow that faith. Even those who question their faith as young adults and go on a quest to find truth often end up deciding that the faith they were brought up in is indeed the one true faith. It is also true that when the beliefs are held lightly (or even contradicted) by parents, society and other influences, the probability increases significantly that the child will follow another path or, more likely, conclude that such beliefs are of little importance.

To be continued, probably.

49

Brian K. Mills:

All three are incompatible with the Trinitarian Theism of Christianity.

I agree. Although many people- including many outside the United States- have their own ways of harmonizing this, I personally don't buy it.

Apology humbly accepted.

You see me as a naive child unable to grasp the higher truths of Buddhism, instead clinging to the wrong beliefs of Christianity.

No, just not really informed about what Buddhists actually say or practice.

But I will not apologize for believing the words of Jesus.

No apology needed.

...we can't all be right.

We're all wrong. All of us. Every last one of us. Call it original sin, call it samsara, call it whatever you want. But - whether you listen to me, or Jesus, or the Cha'an master, if anybody says, "I've got IT!" (or any equivalent) they don't.

50

pgepps

You are quite right that Buddhism comes in many flavors. In fact one of its distinquishing historical features is how it has blended with each culture in which it has come in contact.

The Pure Land schools, as Mumom mentioned, practice a kind of faith-based form of Buddhism which in some respects is similar to fundamentalist Christianity. Never having met a Pure Land Buddhist, that's about all I know of it.

The other major forms might be roughly categorized as Tibetan, Zen (Japan, Korea, Vietnam), and Theravadan (Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos) all of which now have a significant presence in the North American, South America, and Europe. It's not unsual to meet a western Buddhist teacher who has trained in more than one of these forms, nor is it unsual to meet a Buddhist teacher who does not care much about the terms Buddhist and Buddhism. A core teaching in all these forms of Buddhism is that clinging to "-ists" and "-isms" gets in the way. Hence the well-known phrase from Zen: If you see the Buddha on the highway kill him.

Your characterizations of Buddhism work fairly well if what you mean is "American Buddhism." However, the commitment to pluralism and non-belief (by which I mean not disbelief but the sort of deprecated relevance of "believing" you speak of) is by no means an ahistorical "core" of Buddhism which can be transplanted across cultures.

Pure Land respectfully aside, the 'sort of deprecated relevance of "believing" [I] speak of' is a core of Buddhism. (and thank you very much for the "deprecated relevance" phrase, it has a nice ring to it)

Your dehistoricizing of Buddhism, extracting a "core" from its cultural ties and referring features you do not prefer to "other" variants, while claiming that the "real" Buddhists don't believe that, is actually a classically Western, philosophical move.

Well, a blog comment doesn't lend itself very well to putting Buddhism in its proper historical context. However there are a set of historical texts (suttas or sutras) that all Buddhists accept as a foundation. Perhaps more significantly Buddhists often refer to the lineage of teachers: how the "core" of Buddhism has been trasmitted from teacher to teacher from the historical Buddha up to the current crop. The key notion remains, though, in all these forms of Buddhism that the texts and even the teachers are not the point of the practice — as testified to by the texts and teachers themselves. The practice is about suffering, its causes, and how to address it. Many Christians, Jews and others are Buddhists as well. Two of my favorite Buddhist teachers are Jewish. Another teacher with whom I have spent the most time does not call himself a Buddhist and does not claim to teach Buddhism even though he is an ordained Zen priest and spent a year in Thailand studying with a Theravanda monk. Yet another who spent most of his time studying Tibetan Buddhism likewise dropped the labels. These teachers are by no means unique.

How could "real" Buddhism of the sort you refer to as being completely interpenetrable by Christian belief ever have any "other" at all, any variants within Buddhism?

The variation is in superficial things like how monastics dress and monastaries are run — not of much concern to the lay person. The core teaching is the same.

What did I "refer to as being completely interpenetrable by Christian belief"?

51

Hi everyone! It's good to see the familiar folks are alive and well.

Mumon: are you Buddhist? Just wondering.

I'm not going to comment on any of the posts above because my senior thesis is due Apr 10 (wish me luck/pray for me/meditate/do nothing depending on your religion/philosophy).

But here are a few questions for the Buddhists/Christians/atheistics/agnostics/other religions/philosophies I'm missing whose adherents happen to be reading:

From your (anti)religious perspective, how do you deal with the concept of self-deception?

Does it exist? How do you know it exists? How do you know when it applies to you and when it doesn't? Can you be sure? How? Lastly, what does it mean for your personal morality?

Just curious. I'm looking forward to reading your responses, probably between breaks. They will be very interesting I predict.

college guy

52

college guy:

While you're crossing a street and a speeding oncoming car comes into view, jump out of the way.

53

So Raven informs us in Post #37 that Christian believers have a low tolerance for ambiguity and seek easy answers. Then why is it that it is that those who have identified themselves on this thread as nonbelievers in the Gospel are the ones insisting that the paradoxes of scripture be resolved to their satisfaction before they consider its claims? Chesterton once observed that Christians long ago learned to live with furious opposites by keeping them opposite and keeping them furious. We are well aware of ambiguities and difficulties and paradoxes and choose to live with their tension because we find greater difficulties in alternative formulations.
We are every bit as rational as the "Rationalists" but understand that reason is a tool, not a launching pad. There is nothing as remorseless as the binary logic of computer chips and yet one of the first computer acronyms to gain wide currency was GIGO, gargage in, garbage out. There are no easy answers, their are things painful to contemplate, their are conundrums beyond our resolution, but we live with them because of faith, not a blind irrationalism, but a personal trust that their ultimate resolution is in a savior who can be known, if not in exhausting detail, at least with an accurate and logically coherent manner.

54

I have to agree with the interesting observation found here. Not to start a debate on Catholicism vs. evangelicalism, but if the question is "What is the most serious threat to the gospel in the evangelical church today?"--assuming this gospel is the gospel in the Reformed tradition dating back to Luther--I think the original post answers this question.

55

(Link fixed, hopefully.)

I have to agree with the interesting observation found here. Not to start a debate on Catholicism vs. evangelicalism, but if the question is "What is the most serious threat to the gospel in the evangelical church today?"--assuming this gospel is the gospel in the Reformed tradition dating back to Luther--I think the original post answers this question.

56

(Given up trying to create an html link)

I have to agree with the interesting observation found at http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/03/expanding_the_g.html . Not to start a debate on Catholicism vs. evangelicalism, but if the question is "What is the most serious threat to the gospel in the evangelical church today?"--assuming this gospel is the gospel in the Reformed tradition dating back to Luther--I think the original post answers this question.

57

Mumon:

Would you know it if it hit you?

58

Mumon:

"How Christians may see it does not negate the inclusiveness of Buddhism. You're walking the way even if you're not aware of it, said Shih T'ou Hsi-chi'en. But those words are useless. Go!"

It is not clear from what was said if it is Buddhism or Christianty that you are misinterpreting, or both. Simply reversing statements and punctuating them with allusions to nothingness may do well in proverbs and fortune cookies, but not in this context. Buddhism and Christianity are antithetical to one another on many levels, including answers regarding who we are, where we are going, and where we came from. It doesn't require any great intellect, or special revelation, just an honest appraisal of their respective catechisms.

I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about Buddhism beyond a rather superfical study of comparative relgions. But I was weaned on all the pop mystical stuff like Siddhartha, the Glass Bead Game, Gibran and Toasim -- at least as it relates to martial arts. True, I still can't deliver the 'death touch' with any degree of accuracy (yet), but I do know a little about Eastern culture and what they believe. We sometimes forget that Christianity is also an Eastern religion.

"Teacher" is sort of an inappropriate word here. Buddhists - certainly in the Zen tradition- do not teach. There is no one to teach. There is nothing to teach. There is no way anything could be imparted. This isn't mumbo-jumbo; it's the way things are."

Funny, when I wrote, "Buddhist's teach . . ." I hesitated
wondering if you would deny that they actually "teach" anything. In Eastern mysticism it is not unusual to violate common sense rules of language. By that standard are we to assume Buddhists don't learn either? And if they neither teach nor learn, then why do they spend so much time at the Zen monestaries with their head in a book?

Rather than addressing the premise, which made valid statements about the two religions, you simply avoided it. It may be argued that Zen trancends the laws of language and logic, but certainly the assertions of the Zen teachers do not. They are written in the English language, which can be evaluated on its own merits.

"This bit from Paul is one of the errors in the bible- it's called the construction fallacy."

It is ironic that Paul finally says something that all nonbelievers should find common ground on, and rather than addressing this, you consult this fallacy list and presume that because you can attach some obscure label to it, the matter is thereby settled. Couldn't you be at least more Zen-like about these matters?

"Let me also say about your tough words: their errors, inaccuracies and omissions, and that like it, throughout history, have resulted in the stench of blood."

Hey man, don't sugarcoat it. If you have something to say . . . say it!

But seriously . . . There is no denying that innocent blood has been shed in the name of the church. But I would contend that it was not by Christians and not because of what Jesus or any of his followers have ever instructed them to do. It is too easy to say that because within a certain Buddhist, Muslim or Christian culture a crime is commited, therefore the religion that they represent is responsible. But at least two out of the three religions mentioned not only do not perscribe the shedding of innocent blood it, they absolutley forbid it. You may want to elicit the "no true Scotsman arguement" line of defense here, but it can also be argued that true Christains and Buddhists are passive to a fault.

"Cultivate humility."

Coming from such a paragon of humility; one who shows respect of those with whom he disagrees, who eschews offensive language, and one who demonstrates tolerance, temperance and respect for those of other faiths, this is a gem. I do not recall myself or anyone else on the blog ever saying anything negative about Buddhism. In fact all your references to Buddism appear to have been recieved with interest.

Imagine if a Christian at the EO visted the Buddhist website, called one of their humble priests a Bushido-facist, claimed (with no evidence to back it up) that there are "errors, inaccuracies and omissions" in the teachings of Buddha, and then exhorted his readers to cultivate --"humility."

Yes, I do need to cultivate humility. With the daily reminders of my own weaknesses, that should be easy to do by now, but it isn't. It is part of the human condition, and one that Buddhists, by their example, have shown that it can be trancended. On the island where I live 1/3 of the population is Buddhist and they are highly repected here. (My son teaches jiu-jitsu here at the Hong Wan Gi and they offered their hall to him for free). When I try to get interviews from them for local TV news, invariably they decline out of humility. It is bad for business, but a great example for those of us who enjoy being the center of attention.

59

Joe:

A provocative post.

I want to throw in a few thoughts on the "rest of the story" part of the gospel, by excerpting a little more from Eph:

Eph 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ . . . .

1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way . . . .

EPH 4:9 (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

EPH 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

EPH 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

EPH 4:20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

This leads on to the fulness theme I discuss in more details here. This ties into reformation and transformation of cultures through the grace of God, and through prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership.

++++++++++++

Grace to all

Gordon

60

All:

Not really wishing to wade into this thread, but I do think though that a few points will be helpful.

1] On the existence of God:

cf. discussion here.

I think there is more than adequate evidence, but there is none so unseeing as he who WILL not see. THis leads to . . .

2] On the question of judgement relative to light one has:

My thoughts are online here. But, it is well worth looking at some subtleties in light of:

RO 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things . . . 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

RO 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger . . . 11 For God does not show favoritism.

--> Here, Paul first alludes to our inescapable sense of morality, and the is-ought gap in our own lives: we do not live up to the expectatrions we set for others, so we have already condemned ourselves -- and that is the man with just the light of conscience.

--> Then, he highlights an issue: persistence in doing good vs living by evil and rejecting the truth one knows or should know, as the relevant criterion of judgement. Givent hat all sin, this persistence implies engaging the moral struggle, in a context of penitence over stumbling into evil given whatever light of God one has -- by conscience, by true prophet, or by Scripture and church, etc.

--> I find nowhere in that context a resttriction to those who have explicitly heard about Jesus. Instead, I do see that those who reject the truth they have or should have -- including that about Jesus if they are so fortunate -- who are at risk of God's wrath. In short, there are people who are int he position of a Job, a Melchisedek or an Abraham, or a David or a Daniel who do not know about Jesus but fall under the paramnmeters of his redemption. (M. was not in the hebraic tradition, and evidently, Job too. Abraham knew God by personal encounter as he sought him. David and Daniel had a scriptural tradition.)

--> So, in light os such explicit teachings that God judges us by our response to truth and tight, and by direct implication, our repentance from sin, I see a telling indication in Matt 25:

MT 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left . . . .

MT 25:37 "Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

MT 25:40 "The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

--> In short, the sheep are SURPRISED to receive grace -- they know themselves unworthy, and do not trust in what they have done. But, even just one act is enough to show their penitence . . .

--> By sharpest contrast, notice how the goats act:

MT 25:44 "They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

MT 25:45 "He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

--> The goats -- fatal error -- think they are pretty OKAY! [So, the tainting of the gap between what we do and what we should do is the critcal issue.)

--> THence . . .

3] Gehenna

--> Note carefully what Jesus uses to illustrate the sad eternal fate of those who turnt hero backs on truth and right: a poorly managed dump heap, with insects out of control and fires equally out of control.

--> I think C S Lewis was onto something: those who reject the light of God in their lives, say NO to God. God gives them what they ask for, and they spend eternity with those of like mind.

--> Now, if selfishness and neglect of neighbour are so destructive and chaotic now, what does that mean for an eternal situation? (In short, Jesus' teaches about hell suggests self-inflicted suffereing, not God-as-Torquemada.]

--> I trust this is helpful . . .

++++++++

Grace

Gordon

61

Thirdly,

On observing the M vs TM exchange on Paul, I think a little citation will help put that in context.

For, the historicity of the resurrection is the central warranting argument of the Christian faith -- and cf. here on choosing a worldview:

1CO 15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

1CO 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

1CO 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

1CO 15:12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith . . . 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1CO 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

--> BTW, the chain of reasoning here by direct implications is faultless: if none rise, Jesus did not rise, and so the foundation of the gospel disappears. Butr in fact, Jesus DID rise and so this warrants our confident trust in God.

--> We have 500+ witnesses worth of evidence [written down within lifetime and with good chain of custody since, selective hyperskepticism notwithstanding], and a church that thrived and thrives against all odds because of the truth, power and irrefutability of that fundamentally FACTUAL testimony. As Morison summarises and challenges:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]

++++++++++++

Okay, trust that helps

Grace to all

Gordon

62

kwbr sayeth: "Then why is it that it is that those who have identified themselves on this thread as nonbelievers in the Gospel are the ones insisting that the paradoxes of scripture be resolved to their satisfaction before they consider its claims?"

Speaking for the nonbelievers, I say the above comment describes something that does not exist. I ask no one to resolve anything about the Bible. I've looked at it, and I find that it makes claims that are identical to virtually any other religious mythos. I recognize myth when I read it.

See, that's why I don't read the tale of Leda and the Swan and go off on a Zeus jag. It's why I don't read the Egyptian Book of the Dead and devote myself to the cult of Isis. It's why I don't read the Koran and head to Mecca. These texts are early man's attempt to answer difficult questions. They were adequate for the people of their time. We are not those people, however. You can choose to strap on a 14th-century mentality and run with it, but you remain culpable of choosing a very simple set of propositions about the world.

"We are well aware of ambiguities and difficulties and paradoxes and choose to live with their tension because we find greater difficulties in alternative formulations."

A noble sentiment. So you're saying that you find it more problematic to envision a world that is exactly like it is, without a deity, than one that is precisely identical, but has a deity. I don't see a dichotomy here. This is not a case wherein we have two competing theories and each poses challenges, and we have to actively select one or the other.

Rather, we have what appears to be reality. In our experience, gods do not descend from the skies and produce miracles, we don't have booming voices in our heads commanding us to do this an' that, and in every respect the way the world and observable universe function is in accord with the notion that there are no such things as deities. Further, those who make claims about the existence of miraculous invisible beings are identical in every respect with people who make things up in their heads and believe imaginary things.

I guess if there's anything I require resolved, it's the question of how you can explain to me that you "know" there is a deity and that you are not mistakenly ascribing imaginary causes to observable effects. I think the case can be made, without too much difficulty at all, that I can explain to you how it is that you are simply mistaken. Ultimately, I guess I'd be the bearer of the "Bad News."

But take heart: after the initial shock wears off, it gets easier.

63

AndyS, thank you for a very informative response. I think you're representing Buddhism very fairly, though with an unavoidable loss of the "folk religion" aspects that are, in actual East Asian practice, more significant than you seem to agree. Nonetheless, I think you make the point that, as qualified, "deprecated relevance of believing" is a core feature of Buddhism. I would basically agree with your description of Buddhism.

You say, though, that one can remain a Christian and practice Buddhism. If Christianity teaches anything, though, it teaches the exclusivity of Christ's Way as the Way of salvation. Unless you are saying that Buddhism *is* Christ's Way (I think you'd agree that claim would require rather a lot of revisionism, neh?), you must be suggesting that Buddhist "non-belief" can exist as some sort of interstitial between the warp and woof of Christian "belief."

It is that which I suggest is impossible, because the Buddhist practice would not be able to "other" Christianity, while Christianity would "other" Buddhism--you must either enfold Christianity within Buddhism (belief within non-belief, which will negate belief, which is antithetical to Christian claims), or Buddhism will be extinguished within Christianity.

Thanks for differentiating the "Pure Land" strains. I do recognize that difference.

Cheers,
PGE

64

Gordon says: "We have 500+ witnesses worth of evidence."

No, Gordon, what we have is one person who was not an eyewitness (Paul) claiming that there were over 500 witnesses. Big difference.

Let's say I claimed that 1,000 people saw Elvis flying over the moon. Does that count as 1,000 witnesses?

In fact, we do not have the eyewitness testimony of a single person to the resurrection.

65

college guy:

Just jump out of the way.

Terrence Moeller:
Buddhism and Christianity are antithetical to one another on many levels, ...

In the areas of behavior, exercising compassion, wisdom, and generosity, one would hope not. And indeed, that is why Pauls statement is fallacious.

And if they neither teach nor learn, then why do they spend so much time at the Zen monestaries with their head in a book?

Because monastics are not unread. But you can't teach a person how to be himself.

...called one of their humble priests a Bushido-facist,...

I've done that myself. Feel free.

66

pgepps

Thanks for the kind words and thoughtful response.

You say, though, that one can remain a Christian and practice Buddhism. If Christianity teaches anything, though, it teaches the exclusivity of Christ's Way as the Way of salvation. Unless you are saying that Buddhism is Christ's Way (I think you'd agree that claim would require rather a lot of revisionism, neh?), you must be suggesting that Buddhist "non-belief" can exist as some sort of interstitial between the warp and woof of Christian "belief."

That might be a fair way to put it. For me, it is sort of like saying you don't have to choose between believing in mathematics or music. Terms like elegance and coherence can be applied to both and one can talk of the math behind chords and the musical scale. But they are different domains — although I admit, like most analogies, this one only goes so far.

It is that which I suggest is impossible, because the Buddhist practice would not be able to "other" Christianity, while Christianity would "other" Buddhism—you must either enfold Christianity within Buddhism (belief within non-belief, which will negate belief, which is antithetical to Christian claims), or Buddhism will be extinguished within Christianity.

I believe I understand what you are saying and it leads to what originally brought me to this blog long ago: my desire to better understand Christian evangelicals. Just like there are many flavors of Buddhism, there are many flavors of Christianity. Growing up in my devout Presbyterian family and our church, the commonality of Protetant sects was emphasised and to a certain extent even the Catholic church was presented as not being all that different. Perhaps it wasn't so much the Presbyterian sect but more the times—1960's and 70's—that fostered the ecumenical spirit. Against that background, I've found the evangelical approach as expressed by Joe Carter, many commentors here, and evangelicals elsewhere a little extreme in its insistence that there is only one way to be a Christian, a way that includes among other things a particular, literal interpretation of the Bible.

We see differences among Buddhists too. Some Buddhists take the doctrine of rebirth literally, others (like me) understand it as something that happens moment-to-moment, but none of us would consider those choices of much importance. As Mumon said, it's a practice not a dogma. It's not a stretch for me to see how some Christians can accept Christian beliefs and commit to Buddhist practice at the same time; many mathematicians are musicians as well. Maybe evangelical Christians are not able to do that.

Of course there are some foundational principles (too few and too general and/or abstract IMO to be called dogma) that all Buddhists subscribe to — even the Pure Land schools.

Four Noble Truths: 1. Suffering exists; 2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires; 3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases; 4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path might be summarized as "a practical guideline to ethical and mental development."

(See here and click on the left sidebar for one presentation of these ideas.)

I think you'll find the behaviors and attitudes advocated in the Eightfold path pretty much good advice no matter what religion you subscribe to. It may be the case that Christians who practice Buddhism do so by taking Buddhism more as a psychological self-help course than as religion.

"We don't want to say that Buddhism is a kind of Christianity and Christianity is a kind of Buddhism. A mango can not be an orange. I cannot accept the fact that a mango is an orange. They are two different things. Vive la difference. But when you look deeply into the mango and into the orange, you see that although they are different they are both fruits." — Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnamese Buddhist teacher

67

All:

I see, sadly, that selective hyperskepticism is in full swing in certain quarters, once