I’m interested at why you are so critical of the Bible and yet attempt to hold to a Buddhist faith. Why do you follow it? Why are you sure its the right way. Are we talking blind faith here or do you have anything like prophecy?

“Buddhist faith” is a problematic expression. There’s very little in Buddhism that one has to have faith in. Indeed, the primary teachings are atheistic / agnostic in nature. To be Buddhist, you don’t have to believe in God or gods; you don’t need to pray to anything (despite misconceptions which are usually held by many people who know little about Buddhism). To compare Christian faith in a God / angels / second coming of Christ, etc. with that of the major practices of Buddhism is like comparing apples and oranges.

I follow it because it makes sense to me, plain and simple. You asked why I’m so sure it’s the right way; I never said that. I think it’s the right way for me, but that doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.

I just feel they are so ungrounded and futile as they are based on mans reasoning and have no solid foundation.

Your opinion, one which I’m not going to argue. If you really knew anything about Buddhist practice, you’d realize how silly what you said really is.

Where’s the proof these are the correct way to live ones life and what do you get out of it at the end?

And your proof is… oh, right. A book. And here I thought you had an angel in your pocket.

Nivana seems a little far fetched and really bit seems a bit like the ageless pagan belief of having an immortal soul

Nirvana seems far fetched; an omnipotent being hovering about in the sky isn’t. Okay then.

And, as a final point, technically speaking, Buddhism professes the theory of no-soul, that is, there isn’t anything inside any of us that makes us us. We’re the result of our thoughts, experiences, actions etc.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. Our believes are not based on Revelation – although they are in harmony with it. I was simply explaining how you can tell which areas of the Bible aren’t to literal and require interpretation as you were getting at.

As I said above the gospel is simple – a child could understand it. In regards to why we believe it, eg proof of prophecy, check out Daniel 2 and read this prophecy leaflet. Some prophecies are clear and simple but some need interpreting using the Bible to interpret itself.

As for the different ways of interpreting Revelation – I would suggest (not being dogmatic here) that it is pretty clear how to interpret Revelation as the Bible spells it out itself – its a book of symbol and it is to show the servants of God what will happen from Johns day on into the future – “things which must shortly come to pass”. However its easy to generalize and unless we’re speaking about detail I don’t think there’s much point as you won’t get what I’m on about.

As I said our beliefs are not based on the Revelation. They are based on the simplicity of the gospel which we see confirmed in the prophecies.

—

I’m interested at why you are so critical of the Bible and yet attempt to hold to a Buddhist faith. Why do you follow it? Why are you sure its the right way. Are we talking blind faith here or do you have anything like prophecy?

Don’t get me wrong I have respect for most Buddhist teachings, they seem very peaceful ideas from a human point of view – I just feel they are so ungrounded and futile as they are based on mans reasoning and have no solid foundation. Proof of this is the many, varying, Buddhist texts – some of which contradict each other. Where’s the proof these are the correct way to live ones life and what do you get out of it at the end? Nivana seems a little far fetched and really bit seems a bit like the ageless pagan belief of having an immortal soul (which I hasten to add the Bible DOES NOT TEACH).

Also if you are a Buddhist why did you go to Church (mentioned above)?

Love to here your views.

Matt

Saying which texts I hold to / read is problematic – Buddhism doesn’t have any Bible per se. However, to simplify matters, I’ll say I pay most attention to Theravada teachings (that is, the canonical texts of Buddhism), but I also read texts / thoughts based on the Mahayana tradition (which includes non canonical texts).

To further simplify matters, I’ll just say that I try to follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Often I fail miserably, but I do try.

Signified – or coded in symbol. The Bible is telling us that this section is a symbol and needs to be unlocked to understand it. As I say compare scripture with scripture to find the answers – clouds are not literal clouds, heaven is not literal heaven etc etc.

Thats just a simple example but I think its pretty clear what’s symbol and what’s not – another example is a parable is not literal.

Buddihist huh?! Which texts do you hold to / read?

I hope I’m not answering them in vain.

… that totally depends on your goals. If you’re wanting to just discuss things and leave it at that, certainly, it’s not in vain. If you’re hoping to convert me – well, yeah, that’s probably a lost cause.

He then sent a coded message (symbolic Rev 1:1) to his servants showing them the signs of the times. … We are not to add our own views to it.

This doesn’t hold up, at least for me. You say that much of the Bible is symbolic in nature, and yet one of the rules for learning from the Bible is that we don’t add our own views to it. It’s highly difficult – if not outright impossible – to read or learn anything without applying our own views to it. It’s even more difficult to do so when you’re talking about symbology or allegory. So, I’m not really sure how you reconcile those two thoughts.

I think you hit the nail on the head – YOU don’t think it will happen. I agree you do need some faith, but I think this faith can be based on something a little more solid than “I think” or “you” think. Would it not be better to base ones faith on “this is what Gods word says”…

I disagree – I think you need a lot of faith. It’s difficult for me to say this without sounding like a jerk, so I’ll just say it: for me, no, it’s not better to base one’s faith on “this is what God’s word says.” Why? Because I don’t even believe in the Christian God. I’m not even sure I believe in any god. The Christian God is, to me, just like the Greek, Roman, or Celtic gods and goddesses are to you: myths. Like all myths, it contains lessons to be learned, certainly – but to me, it’s still just a myth.

I’m Buddhist, and I even look at large portions of the original texts on Buddhism as myth. Just because the Buddhist texts say that Siddhartha dropped out of his mother, immediately stood up, walked 7 steps, and proclaimed who he was and what he was going to do, that doesn’t mean I’m going to swallow it as fact – because it’s not.

Bible is open to interpretation -

There are two things you need to consider when thinking upon this.

I believe that the “doctrines” of the Bible are not open to interpretation. Its main teachings are clear and plain. We Christadelphians call these doctrines the “first principles” – the gospel message which is in NO way open to interpretation. These are black and white (eg.” do violence to no man” – where is the room for interpretation on that?). We base our fellowship (membership if you like) upon these principles which enable us to keep our beliefs as pure as humanly possible.

The other side to the Bible is it’s prophecies and more interestingly it’s symbols. I agree that there could be room for interpretation on these. However I believe that this ‘room’ is very tight if you follow the following rules which the Bible upholds:

1) All of the Bible is infallible – it does not contradict itself. So when interpreting a symbol it has to marry with the rest of the Bible, especially its doctrines.

2) We are not to add our own views to it. We have to compare the Bible with itself allowing the Bible to “be its own dictionary”.

For more on this visit: http://users.aol.com/bible12/princint.htm

–

Prophecy

Interesting point in regards to Christinan groups. I can’t speak for any other group but for us (Christadelphians) our first “pioneers” who attempted to go back to the roots of what the Bible really teaches, have always expected certain things. For example its clearly taught in the Bible that when the Jews will be re-gathered to their land we commence the “latter days” (see Hosea 3:5). The days when Christ would return (see Daniel 2 – Christ is the stone – more on this see http://www.onlytruegod.info/prophecy_nations.php). We have always expected that and they knew back then Jesus wouldn’t return until this happened. You and I have seen that happen (and it is still happening – since 1948). I don’t think any true student of the word would say that prophecies have been fulfilled over and over again. There is a clear plan (granted no dates but that would eliminate the need for faith – God wants us to trust him) which is being carried out and neither you, nor I, nor any other human can stop it.

You make a very good point in regards to the comment from Jesus in Mark. You may not know but later, after this was said, when Jesus arose to heaven this was revealed to him. He then sent a coded message (symbolic Rev 1:1) to his servants showing them the signs of the times. If you compare these signs with ancient prophetic overviews from the ancient prophets like Daniel, you get a more fuller understanding of God plan.

It has all be laid out in the Bible, not every minute detail ok, but the overview. The final day or hour no man does know, but the signs we have been given that we have seen come to pass make us confident that time in close for the few future ones still outstanding. What we cannot do is what the Jehovah Witnesses did when they thought they had an exact date for Christs return – when he didn’t come they had to twist all their beleifs to fit (but thats another discussion).

I think you hit the nail on the head – YOU don’t think it will happen. I agree you do need some faith, but I think this faith can be based on something a little more solid than “I think” or “you” think. Would it not be better to base ones faith on “this is what Gods word says”…

From Mark 13:32, spoken by Jesus:
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Could you share your thoughts on this?

As to why the various groups follow different paths, while I realize there are a multitude of reasons, one of the major ones is the fact that the Bible is open to interpretation, to an amazing degree. It’s not surprising that various groups have formed around the Bible, all seeing different things in it.

Regarding the prophecies and my logic: I’m not saying that something won’t happen because I said it won’t. Wouldn’t that be nice… What I’m saying is, your logic is (in my eyes) incorrect. Just because X number of “prophecies have become true,” it doesn’t mean X number will also become true. It’s not 100% sure. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s also possible that tomorrow, the state of New York will secede from the United States. But do I think it’s going to happen? No.

Perhaps I’d be more inclined to buy into the whole prophecy thing if the Bible said “in year 2007, the United States, led by George W. Bush”, etc. etc. etc. But when you’ve got to paint all of these groups in the Bible with modern counterparts, and, let’s be honest, guess at a large amount of it… well, no thanks.

as people hundreds of years ago have been waiting for because of their knowledge of the Bible.

That brings up something I said above. Why is it that various Christian groups have been saying for around 1000 years now that the end times were near? Were they all wrong?

If the prophecies can be “fulfilled” so many times and nothing happened, I just can’t bring myself to pay much heed to them. When a great voice booms in the sky, or a glowing angel appears before me, then I’ll pay attention, I suppose.

Just coming back to the Catholic point. I appreciate to somebody not familiar with the Bibles teachings it may seem pompous. However it IS a fact that they have moved away from Biblical teaching and most clergy even admit it. All I would say is go back to what the Bible teaches and then compare it with the teaching of the church – then make your own mind up. Even the Bible itself predicts that the beleivers would be corrupted.

To use one of your models, if the Bible says A and the church does/teaches B (whilst claiming its origins are from the Bible) then to me that is corruption, or at the very least deviation. Then the question comes – why do they deviate but thats a whole other subject!

By the way, your point about logic. Are you saying that even though past prophecies have come about, even though they were fortold thousands of years ago, that future ones will definatly not because YOU don’t think so? Where is your evidence for any of that reasoning? I’m just trying to understand that logic.

If you read Ezekiel 38 you will find a northern confederacy who invades Israel and causes Christs return. Without going into too much detail the territories mentioned there are the ancient names for areas of Russia, who are allied with Iran and some African countries. Also we read of some countries (called the “young lions”) resiting this attack but being overcome (Christadelphians beleive this is Britain and Amreica and the commonwealth for many reasons which we won’t go into right now). I’m not going to go into the detail of this stuff, but the reason for bringin this up is that we CAN SEE this coming to pass before our eyes as the prophecies have foretold and as people hundreds of years ago have been waiting for because of their knowledge of the Bible. In todays world nobody knows about these prophecies and so they assume the Bibles nonsense but I’m suggesting the prophecies you described above as not logicaly coming to pass ARE.

Agree to disagree but I’d love to hear your views and try and understand your reasoning.