Some difference, Id say.
But the original point was the stupidity of those who compliment and support a religion that will convert by force, enslave or kill them.
Posted on 04/05/2007 5:05:09 AM PDT by Daffynition
If you're a Tibetan Buddhist or you're leaning that way, you may not know it, but you need Jesus.
That's the thinking behind a series of Christian evangelical workshops -- including one later this month in Wheaton -- that will coincide with the Dalai Lama's trip to Chicago and other American cities this spring.
Interserve USA is putting on the workshops to teach Christians how to talk to Buddhists and, perhaps, to win converts.
"We welcome the Dalai Lama here, but we also want to have a chance to reach Tibetan Buddhists with the gospel," said Doug Van Bronkhorst, executive director of Interserve, an international missionary group based just outside of Philadelphia.
The online announcement for the upcoming workshop offers this enticing hook: "Tibetan Buddhism. It's ancient. It's complex. It's trendy. And its leader, the Dalai Lama, is visiting your city this spring."
But Van Bronkhorst said in a telephone interview Tuesday, "We are interested in people, not notches on a belt."
That's not quite how it sounds to the head of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago, which includes bishops and leaders from most of the largest Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups in the area.
"I'm speaking without knowing anything about this group," said the Rev. Stan Davis, acting director of the council. "But my sense is that their goal is to try to convert to Christianity. Our goal would be to enter into a dialogue with them, to find out about their faith in a two-way conversation."
'He's a very thoughtful man' So does Van Bronkhorst think Christians can learn something from the Dalai Lama and his teachings?
"Oh, sure," Van Bronkhorst said. "He's a very thoughtful man. He has a lot of good things to say about peace in the world, and he's quite knowledgeable about other faiths, including the Christian faith."
Van Bronkhorst says his organization has no plans to send Christian evangelicals to greet the Dalai Lama during his American tour. "Of course that's up to [individuals] if they want to do that," Van Bronkhorst said.
The Rev. Patti Nakai, a part-time minister at Buddhist Temple of Chicago in Uptown, says Buddhists in general may not disagree with the Bible, just the evangelical spin.
"Most Buddhists would not have a problem with what is written in the gospel," said Nakai, who does not follow the particular practices of the Dalai Lama's sect. "It's what evangelical Christians say -- the idea that you have to be saved in a certain way or you're doomed to eternal damnation, that's what we have a problem with."
The Dalai Lama is due to travel to Chicago in early May, making his first public appearance in the city since 1999.
The spiritual leader is expected to stay on the 24th floor of the Palmer House Hilton in the presidential suite, where amenities include three bathrooms.
Some difference, Id say.
But the original point was the stupidity of those who compliment and support a religion that will convert by force, enslave or kill them.
No thanks.
Not to worry. Most of us have a pretty good sense of humor. ; )
>>I do not wish God to be a god I would want to be separated from — and I do not think it is the case.
However, many interpretations of scripture are, if true, those of a god I would prefer not to spend eternity with. I pray those interpretations are wrong, for God’s sake as much as mine.<<
You’ve just created a god in your own image - a clear-cut violation of Commandments 1 and 2. The interpretation is crystal clear, my friend.
You’re trusting in your own righteousness and cleverness to save you from the fire to come. They will not.
Seems to me that the interpretation isn't all that clear, given the multitude of beliefs out there.
And no, I'm not creating God in my image. I'm having certain expectation of Him, given what He's done. Remember, Israel means "Struggles with God" and that's the name God renamed Jacob with, apparently in approval of Jacob.
That's the person I admire most in the Bible and an ancestor whose name I want to live up to. (Now only if I could talk my wife into letting me take a second wife, plus a couple of handmaids, I'd be set.... 8>) )
You’re trusting in your own righteousness and cleverness to save you from the fire to come. They will not.
I don't believe in Hell or hellfire. That said, if your interpretation is correct, I'm not trusting in my righteousness or cleverness to keep me out of Hell. I'm preferring to go to Hell.
God gave us freewill to make our own judgments. Therefore, He has to live up to our expectations, as much as we to His, if he wants us.
Baptist ping
You are buying a lie put forth by the Father of Lies.
Those that get edgy about this should look at their hearts, something is gnawing at you.
But there are various translations that have different interpretations of the what the original Hebrew means.
For that matter, see Second Kings 22:8-23:2, in which the High Priest finds a missing part of the Torah and sends it to King Josiah. Josiah, in turn, has its accuracy confirmed by by a prophetess named Hulduh.
Which means either that Torah was incomplete, for some time after it was written -- and no one realized, until the lost part was found. Or that something was added to and/or altered in the Torah, during the reign of King Josiah.
Interestingly enough, this is the only appearence of Huldah in the Bible, save a recounting of the same events in Chronicles. This is despite the fact that Jeremiah (and maybe another prophet) were available at this time. Also interesting is that "Hulduh" is also the Hebrew word for weasel.
This is a particularly acute problem with Buddhism because an explanation of the religion does not translate well into the English language. For example:
The first noble truth is that suffering is an unavoidable and basic condition of human existence.
This sounds very pessimistic, doesn't it? However, what it actually means is that no one can live a perfect life free of hardship and pain. Even if we have wonderfully good times, we still "suffer" when those good times come to an end. I've always thought suffering is a bad translation because it implies a tremendous amount of pain whereas Buddhist "suffering" can be as simple as a small disappointment.
The same is true of the concept of "nirvana." I've read it described as annihilation, which seems like a silly goal to work towards. It does not really have a good English analogue.
This thing you posted is an example of what us Buddhists fear this "outreach" will be. I highly doubt this was written by a Buddhist evangelical as it has quite a few outright lies and misinterpretations.
There is no God.
That is simply not the Buddhist view. The Buddha was completely silent on the concept of God. He viewed the greater workings of the universe to be irrelevant to the individual's path to enlightenment. Some Buddhist schools believe in a God, some deny he exists, some have many Gods. Buddhism has historically combined readily with indigenous beliefs it has come across as it spreads which is why a lot of people talk of Buddhist Christians.
Train oneself to acquiesce to extinction without remainder. So, for example, if you happen to trip while going down stairs, you can just give up in midair and not try to save oneself and increase the likelihood of dying without the possibility of rebirth.
I'm not really sure where to even start here, because this is all wrong. The goal of Buddhism is not to just give up and cease to exist. Buddhists want to live their lives to the fullest just like everyone else! Enlightenment is not achieved through nihilism.
Seeking after this acquiescence for the purpose of ending one's suffering is itself an example of grasping desire that keeps the whole thing going. Although advanced meditative techniques can be used to get around this, simply training oneself to give up when faced with life-threatening situations can be helpful because the habit of acquiescence can help you to encounter death without the desire to stay alive and, thus, break the chain of desire and existence.
Same here. The goal of Buddhism is not death! It is not a suicide cult!!!!
Sorry if this has gone on too long but I hope this helps you better understand the worries of Buddhists when it comes to conversion, especially by Westerners. The concepts are very alien.
>>Seems to me that the interpretation isn’t all that clear, given the multitude of beliefs out there.<<
That there are a multitude of beliefs out there does not mean that they are all equal in truth. There is only one.
>>And no, I’m not creating God in my image. I’m having certain expectation of Him, given what He’s done. Remember, Israel means “Struggles with God” and that’s the name God renamed Jacob with, apparently in approval of Jacob.<<
The clay does not make demands upon the potter.
>>I don’t believe in Hell or hellfire.<<
But you admire Jacob? They’re both from the same book - either you believe one or none - you can’t pick and choose.
>>Therefore, He has to live up to our expectations, as much as we to His, if he wants us.<<
God doesn’t owe you anything. You are the one who has transgressed his law. You owe him everything.
How exactly is that so? What did I say? All I did was point out that "nirvana," "samadhi," "prajna," and "suffering" are difficult concepts to accurately translate into the English language. Buddhism is slightly more philosophical than Christianity. The journey towards enlightenment is a personal one. Thus, I'm not surprised that many different ideas on how to best accomplish that goal have appeared. However, they are all variations on the same basic concept.
Christianity certainly has not been immune to such things. Mormonism, Catholicism, Protestantism, all have different beliefs.
This is reminiscent of the Muslim claim that to really understand Islam, you have to read the Koran in Arabic (never mind that it wasn't originally written in Arabic).
The Bible wasn't originally written in English either. Why do you have debates over the King James version versus other versions? It is hardly the unfiltered word of God as some books have been taken out or edited over the centuries.
English is one of the easiest languages to translate into because of its richness as a global language.
That doesn't mean it has specific words for a variety of alien concepts.
Maybe that's why the essential teachings of Buddha got so screwed up
How did they get screwed up?
But you admire Jacob? They’re both from the same book - either you believe one or none - you can’t pick and choose.
I can pick in choose who in the Bible to most model my life on. Samson, for example, is considered a hero, but it doesn't mean I have to shave my head for my wife. Nu.
I'm Jewish. There is no Hell -- nor any firmly set view of the after life -- in Judaism. Hell is only a Christian concept, perhaps borrowed from Greek mythology.
God doesn’t owe you anything. You are the one who has transgressed his law. You owe him everything.
Maybe I have transgressed and maybe I haven't. However, as parents have responsibilities towards their children, so does God towards His.
>>I’m Jewish. There is no Hell — nor any firmly set view of the after life — in Judaism. Hell is only a Christian concept, perhaps borrowed from Greek mythology.<<
I would suggest you re-read your Old Testament again, then.
Your disbelief of hell does not change its’ reality, and the fact that you will face God as a sinner on your last day. All your clever rationalizations won’t save you, only Christ can. But only if you are trusting in Him as your savior.
At this point, I can say no more than what I’ve already said. I pray that you will turn from your ways and seek salvation through Christ.
You miss my point. It is true that I will answer to God on the last day. Likewise He will answer me. If His answer is that only trusting Jesus as my savior can save me, then I do not wish to be saved.
That's not a rationalization. That's a simple statement of fact.
Yup, the Dalai Lama needs to tone down his exorbitance.( SARC.)
The writer fails to mention that the DL has a retinue of monks with him sharing his digs, has tons of visitors, and also requires a security detail as a head of state.
He should be in a shoe box flop house?
Hardly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.