Is the Dalai Lama totally wrong?

[Nimrod]

Or Thich Nhat Hanh?
Or Mohatma Gandhi?
Or Siddhartha Gotama?
Or K'ung-fu-tzu?
Or Joseph Smith?
Or Mary Baker Eddy?

Are they all going to suffer eternally?

[bar Jonah]

Blatant logical fallacy.

No belief system can be totally wrong. If it were, then up would be down, black would be white and eating newborn babies would be a sacrament. Only a truly delusional human being could hold to a belief system that is "totally wrong."

Therefore, by logical necessity, every belief system must have some truth. Therefore, you cannot use that as "evidence" that it is "valid" or demonstrably true in a meaningful way.

You are playing the Relativity Game. I love that game! I can play if you want. Because I just love bringing St. Bundy to the table. Ted, after all, is a pretty good guy, relatively speaking. I mean, compared to someone like Hitler, who killed tens of millions of people.... Heck, Ted raped and murdered only about 33 or so. Compared to a real monster, Ted is a wonderful guy. Relatively speaking.

The trouble is, you and your standard for "pretty good" or "good enough" are completely arbitrary. You can't explain why Ted Bundy isn't "good enough" but Ghandi is. Not without being completely arbitarry.

Thanks for playing. We're sorry no one won the grand prize, but you get a copy of our home game. Thanks for watching... the Relativity Game!

:rithumb:

[NeilUnreal]

Thich Nhat Hanh

One of my favorite writers and thinkers! He's probably the kind of person* Paul had in mind when he penned Galations 5:22-23

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

Also, there's a Buddhist proverb that says the good people will end up in hell because their love will compel them go there to try and rescue the wicked. As a Christian, I believe Christ has already shouldered that burden in an eternal sense, but I'm certain He appreciates the sentiment behind it and the people who try to replicate it in this life.

-Neil

*Along with my dear, sainted mother, of course!

[bar Jonah]

Neil, I dont' know what Bible you're reading, but Paul wrote that verse to Christians, not unbelievers. He emphatically states that people who have accepted Christ are not under the Law. But that people who have not accepted Christ ARE under the Law and condemned by it, without exception.

Thich Nhat Hanh is not an exception. God's infallible word is clear on this point. Apart from Christ, there is no righteousness, and our works are like filthy rags (or to translate it recognizing the Greek idiom here -- like garbage) to God.

My list would be different from Nimrod's and would look a little more like this:


Is the Dalai Lama apart from Christ totally wrong?

Or Thich Nhat Hanh apart from Christ?
Or Mohatma Gandhi apart from Christ?
Or Siddhartha Gotama apart from Christ?
Or K'ung-fu-tzu apart from Christ?
Or Joseph Smith apart from Christ?
Or Mary Baker Eddy apart from Christ?

Or Simon Peter apart from Christ?
Or Paul of Tarsus apart from Christ?
Or the Venerable Bede apart from Christ?
Or Augustine apart from Christ?
Or John Bunyon apart from Christ?
Or John Edwards apart from Christ?
Or Billy Graham apart from Christ?

Or ANYONE apart from Christ?


Answer: No one is righteous apart from Christ. Anyone apart from Christ is condemned by the Law, for they are under the Law and they are not perfect.

What about Christ?

Perfect righteousness. HIS righteousness is perfect, and it is enough.



Thich Nhat Hanh is absolutely not the kind of person Paul had in mind when he penned Galations 5:22-23.

[HRG_new]

Today @ 03:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=393621#post393621)
RightIdea:

Blatant logical fallacy.

No belief system can be totally wrong. If it were, then up would be down, black would be white and eating newborn babies would be a sacrament. Only a truly delusional human being could hold to a belief system that is "totally wrong."
[quote]
But a belief system can be totally wrong in its foundations. E.g. if Odin et al. exists, both atheists and Christians are foundationally wrong.

When the poster askes whether the Dalai Lama was totally wrong, he did not mean the question whether apples fall down or up.
[quote]
Therefore, by logical necessity, every belief system must have some truth.

You said yourself that a truly delusional human being could hold "totally wrong" beliefs. Thus your claim cannot hold by logical necessity (which allows no exceptions).


<snip>


The trouble is, you and your standard for &quot;pretty good&quot; or &quot;good enough&quot; are completely arbitrary. You can't explain why Ted Bundy isn't &quot;good enough&quot; but Ghandi is. Not without being completely arbitarry.

Come on. Doesn't even your morality system recognize different degrees of being "good" or "bad" ? How many people agreed with Gandhi, and how many with Bundy ? The majority opinion may not be your standard, but it certainly is some standard, which can even be objectively determined.

BTW, you cannot explain why your God should be considered as better than Gandhi - not without being completely arbitrary, as you define "arbitrariness". Why should the opinion of one particular being define "goodness" ?

Regards,
HRG.

HRG,

This area of the forum is for theist only participation. Please refrain from posting in this thread.

Thank you.
Bill

[Nimrod]

Neil, I dont' know what Bible you're reading, but Paul wrote that verse to Christians, not unbelievers.
I thought Paul wrote that verse to the churches in Galatia ... :smile:

So, because Paul emphatically states something it must be completely right?


No one is righteous apart from Christ
So then, why are Paul's words relevant?


Thich Nhat Hanh is absolutely not the kind of person Paul had in mind when he penned Galations 5:22-23.
Absolutely? Are you a mind reader?

[NeilUnreal]

Right Idea: …Paul wrote…

Paul’s formulation of the law vs. grace is stated in terms of the Hebrew theology and Greek reason with which he was familiar. Even while believing in those laws as the acme for human conduct, he indicated that the principle he was discussing applied to any law which regulates human conduct (vs. grace). He alludes to the idea of natural law performing the same task for gentiles; had he been a tad more Greek, he might have focused his entire argument on natural law.

Paul was indicating that grace provides as an expression from within, what the law seeks to impose as a stricture from without. He also shows the futility of trying to impose morality from without, except as a bulk method of keeping society regulated and functioning. (Other thinkers including Plato and Jefferson, have observed the same principle.)

This is also the meaning of “writing God’s laws upon the heart.” It doesn’t mean knowing the law by heart, or even having a special way of checking whether something is right or wrong. What it means is no dissonance between desired action, right action, and right deed.


RightIdea: Thich Nhat Hanh is not an exception…our works are like filthy rags…

I’m sure he would agree with you – and he would know a lot more about what this means than 99.9% of us here. But the point is that he isn’t doing it to buy eternal life, he’s doing it because it is the right thing. A good person is not someone who will do the right thing to avoid hell – even a bad person will do that. A truly good person is one who will do good even if it means being consigned to hell. (Although in a spiritual sense, such a person can never be in hell.)

Now God has promised to plant his Spirit in the heart of Christians as a special seed and seal. This is God crying out to us – as prodigal children – in a spirit of adoption. But we are sealed because of our own infirmities and darkened nature. The point of Christ’s sacrifce allowing us to bypass judgement is not to provide a “get-out-of-jail-free-card.” The purpose is to let us put judgement according the law in it’s proper place (behind us), and to get on with the task of becoming good. (And to show us the level of sacrifice that good demands...)

But it doesn’t mean that God isn’t working out the designs of the universe in a broader way in each and every person, and calling those persons to a life of loving kindness. I am compelled to honor the commitment those people have to same standards to which God is calling Christians – especially when they are doing a better job than me! As for eternity, that’s between them and Christ.



Matthew 25:37-40:

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

"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.”


-Neil

[themuzicman]

It's not a matter of being right or wrong, but being a sinner. All the people you mentioned are sinners, and in need of Christ's atonement and God's grace.

If they don't accept it, then they will bear the consequences of their sin.

Michael

[Nimrod]

And what are those consequences? Death? Eternal separation from God? Roasting in Hell?

Do you have any evidence of what God did to Buddha?

BTW, beautiful post, Neil. :smile:

[themuzicman]

Nice bait and switch

[rossum]

Today @ 03:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=394087#post394087)
themuzicman:

It's not a matter of being right or wrong, but being a sinner. All the people you mentioned are sinners, and in need of Christ's atonement and God's grace.

If they don't accept it, then they will bear the consequences of their sin.

Michael

Both Siddhartha Gotama and K'ung-fu-tzu died before Jesus was born. What provision was there for them to avoid hell?

rossum

[Heathen Dawn]

Yesterday @ 05:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=393600#post393600)
Nimrod:

Or Thich Nhat Hanh?
Or Mohatma Gandhi?
Or Siddhartha Gotama?
Or K'ung-fu-tzu?
Or Joseph Smith?
Or Mary Baker Eddy?

Are they all going to suffer eternally?

No, they’re not. But Christians will tell you they are, in order to scare you into accepting Christianity. They have the ultimate bribe for you to take (heaven), and the ultimate blackmail for you to cave into (hell). That’s how Christianity works. Live with that.

Blessed be.

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=394783#post394783)
rossum:

Both Siddhartha Gotama and K'ung-fu-tzu died before Jesus was born. What provision was there for them to avoid hell?

rossum

The would have needed to believe in the atonement promised by God, and walk in faith that they would receive that atonement when Messiah came.

Michael

[rossum]

The would have needed to believe in the atonement promised by God, and walk in faith that they would receive that atonement when Messiah came.
Siddhartha Gotama lived in North India and died in 483 BCE. K'ung-fu-tzu lived in China and died in 479 BCE. How would either of them know anything about the God of a small remote group of tribes living on the shore of the Mediterranean? Communications in that era would not have allowed any details of YHWH to spread much beyond Israel's immediate neighbours. Neither would have had any knowledge of YHWH or any knowledge of a Messiah to come.

I repeat my question: What provision was there for them to avoid hell?

rossum

[Mujibur]

Romans 1:20
"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. "

They would have been able to see God's power through the awesomeness of His creation and would be accountable for that evidence.

[NeilUnreal]

They would have been able to see God's power through the awesomeness of His creation and would be accountable for that evidence.

And perhaps their enlightenment, philosophies, and teachings were a response to recognizing that awesomeness in the creation around them. Not a perfect or inerrant response possibly, but a response according their wisdom and experience of life.

-Neil

[Conductor42]

Is *anybody* completely wrong?

[Nimrod]

Is anybody completely right?

How do you decide who is right and who is wrong? How do you decide which parts of a person's teachings are right and which parts are wrong. Appeals to authority are arbitrary. Claims for absolute authority do not result in absolute decisions. They can be disputed. As can this post.

The statement "Christ is the way" is supportable. Claiming that "Christ is literally and absolutely the only way" is ... what? Well, it's a statement.

Jesus' words appear to conflict with the Old Testatment. Paul's views appear to conflict with the Gospels. All the apparent conflicts can be resolved.

The apparent conflicts in other religions can be resolved. That's why here are so many intelligent, sincere, truth-seeking adherents who believe in something other than Christianity. Are they all wrong? Are they all going to Hell? Some Christians say so. Doesn't mean they're right.

[Conductor42]

Is anybody completely right?

How do you decide who is right and who is wrong? How do you decide which parts of a person's teachings are right and which parts are wrong. Appeals to authority are arbitrary. Claims for absolute authority do not result in absolute decisions. They can be disputed. As can this post.

I test them by Torah. Deut 13.



Jesus' words appear to conflict with the Old Testatment. Paul's views appear to conflict with the Gospels. All the apparent conflicts can be resolved.

I don't know much of either's teachings, but from what I've seen of Jesus', I disagree. Paul, on the other hand, does seem to contradict what you call the Old Testament, IMO.



The apparent conflicts in other religions can be resolved. That's why here are so many intelligent, sincere, truth-seeking adherents who believe in something other than Christianity. Are they all wrong? Are they all going to Hell? Some Christians say so. Doesn't mean they're right.

Well, that would rely on the existence of a place called 'hell'....

(and no, the town in michigan does not count!)