Board index ‹ Buddhism

[Horrible]

Supposedly the man lived like a saint, but he clearly didn't belive in god or christ at the time since 1)christ wasn't born yet and 2)jewism wasn't prevalent in China at the time. So, would he be in heaven or hell? Lived like a saint, advocated love for all living things, forgiveness, patience, virtues in general, but didn't believe in god. Similar can be asked a about other supposed good people that weren't christian, but none come to mind for me.

[jimwalton]

First of all, the main thing you need to understand is that going to heaven has nothing to do with whether or not you are a good person or do good things. Those who have the nature of Jesus go to heaven, and those who remain in their sin nature don't. No one can earn their way. All of his virtues are meaningless to that end. So he wouldn't get into heaven by being such "a saint."

Secondly, since he didn't believe in God and was essentially an avowed atheist, that doesn't make his prospects look good. Ephesians 2 is pretty clear. Those who are "saved" are the ones who will see the "heavenly realms". Those who are separated from Christ, "without God in the world" are not reconciled and don't have access. Buddhists believe that religion has its origin in fear, and therefore the concept of a personal supreme being is at best unimportant, at worst an oppressive superstition. With that kind of "theology," it doesn't speak well for him gaining access to fellowship with God in heaven.

Third, people who died before Jesus was alive will be judged on different standards than those who came after. In the book of Romans (5.13), Paul says people will only be held accountable for the information they had and what they did with it. They will not be judged according to a law they didn't have, and we can also assume they won't be judged because they didn't know a person they had no possibility of knowing. There is a principal of reasonable accountability. According to Romans 5.13, people are not held accountable for what they had no possibility of knowing or knowing about. In Deuteronomy 1.39, the children who were too young to make a realistic decision are not judged, but are shown mercy; their level of accountability was directly related to their moral awareness. Isa. 7.15-16 teaches the same thing: God deals differently with people based on their knowledge. So we're getting a sense of the fairness of God, and that he takes many things into consideration as he makes his perfect decisions. So people who had no way of knowing Jesus because of where they lived, or people who were prior to Christianity, will be judged according to a fair standard.

Since the Buddha had information about God (Romans 1.20) but chose to deny that information, it doesn't speak well for him gaining access to fellowship with God in heaven.

Obviously God will be the only judge in this matter, but to answer your question, I would think not.

[Horrible]

Christianity hadn't even existed during Buddha's time, and jewism was non-existent in China and India at the time, so how would Buddha know of god without either of those 2?

[jimwalton]

Gautama Buddha lived in about 500 BC in Nepal and India. He would have been well aware of theism via at least some strains of Hinduism. It's also possible to discern God through observation of nature and its patterns (regularity, order, complexity, balance, purpose, consistency, and beauty). He wouldn't have had to know anything about Judaism or Christianity to understand the probability of a God.

[Libber]

> Buddhists believe that religion has its origin in fear, and therefore the concept of a personal supreme being is at best unimportant, at worst an oppressive superstition.

do you not believe that yourself, as a christian?

religion arises becuase we are all afraid of one thing, universally, and that is: death

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the question. First of all, you have speculated, presumably from deep inside you, why YOU think religion arose. But (A) there is absolutely no evidence that's why religion arose, and (B) that's not the biblical story, nor what Christians believe or feel.

In the Christian Scriptures, religion rose because God made Himself known to humans. This is in Genesis 1.26-2.25. People believed in God because God was the path to life, wisdom, good, and order. It was an affirmation based in truth, not fear.

You say that people fear death, and that's true. Death was certainly in the system when God spoke to Adam and Eve (Gn. 2). You can't eat without "killing" the fruit or vegetables you pick. Humans knew they were mortal (Gn. 2.7, "from dust"), or they would not have needed a tree of life. But there's no notion in the text that they feared death. I would put a verse if there were one, but there's no mention of it. Even in Gen. 3, as Eve is tempted by the serpent, he tempts her with "You will be like God, knowing good and evil," not with "this will help you avoid death." And when Eve takes the fruit, it's because it is perceived that it will make her wise.

We do not believe that Christianity exists because people feared death, nor do I believe that you have any evidence at all that that's the source of religion. But I'm always ready to learn. If you have some source material on that, I'd be glad to read it.

Instead, what we believe is knowing God is the greatest of life's values (Phil. 3.8). The motivation behind Christianity is that we can be freed from sin and live life in fellowship with God. Though death is a formidable enemy (1 Cor. 15.26), I can't off the top of my head think of ANY text in the Bible that associates death with fear. That's just not our belief. Again, if you know of such a text or place in the Bible, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

[Libber]

thanks

i appreciate the detailed message

i'm not religious and i intend to keep it that way, but lately i've been reading some bible passages (mostly because of my long-term GF, she's a christian)

some are actually really interesting and teach good lessons even if you don't believe in the religious stuff

but i must say it kind of disturbs me how many christians can say, for example, that Buddha is in hell

like buddha himself, the nicest human to ever live

It just kind-a makes me scratch my head.

[jimwalton]

I'm glad you've been reading the Bible. It's actually nicer to talk to people who have actually read it than to "argue" (as sometimes happens on this site) with people who don't even know what it says, but they sure have strong opinions about it!

As far as Buddha, the deal with Jesus is two things. Heaven really has nothing to do with being nice or being good; it has to do with those who have a relationship with God and who therefore subscribe to the truth. I could be the nicest guy ever, but believe the Earth is flat, COVID is a hoax, Anthony Fauci is the Anti-Christ, and the Holocaust never happened. Now I'm obviously just naming some stuff, but the idea about heaven isn't about how smart you are or how nice you are. The Bible never teaches that it has anything to do with goodness.

What's going on is that God is inviting people into relationship with Himself. People who affirm the truth (God exists, God loves you, God wants to be in relationship with you, the invitation is always open but you have to respond to it) and who form a relationship of love with God (and therefore give yourselves to Him, much as we do to each other in marriage), are the ones who go to heaven. Heaven is about that love relationship.

Suppose you were giving a banquet and invited everybody—anyone at all who wanted to come was welcome. Some people are going to choose not to, and that's their prerogative. But, you might say, that person who didn't come is REALLY a good person. Well, so what? What does that have to do with it? They didn't respond to the invitation and didn't come. It has nothing to do with someone being "the nicest person ever."

Hell is where people choose to go who don't want to come to the banquet.

Now let's look at this honestly. Buddha lived in India in the 4th century, BC. I'm certainly in no position to say what he knew about Yahwism, but he certainly didn't know anything about Jesus and Christianity—he couldn't have, obviously.

So what will God do with him, and so many others. The Bible really doesn't tell us, except that (1) everyone is accountable for whatever it is they know and whatever it is they do with that knowledge, and (2) God will be perfectly fair with everyone. I can have confidence that God will do what's exactly right and fair with Gautama Buddha, taking everything into account.

He will also hold you accountable for all you know and all you do. To me that's of more concern than what He'll do with Gautama. You're in a position where you know at least some things about Jesus and some things about Christianity—so you've been exposed to the truth. The more important question here is what you have done with what you know and what your responses have been.

[Libber]

i see

yeah my gf has said the same thing regarding heaven

it's interesting because there's this preconception that, even i had, about heaven

in the sense that good people go to heaven as a reward for being morally just etc. in their lives

so, what about that tribe on Sentinel Island for example? (f you aren't familiar, they are an uncontacted tribe, they throw spears at anyone who tries to visit them)

does the bible say anything about those types of people? those who have not had, say, a missionary come to them etc.?

and also, don't you think it's wrong for very nice people to go to hell? in regards to your banquet analogy, what if the person who got the invitation was not sure if it was a real banquet and not just some scam in the mail?

because all throughout their life they have had scam invitations (be it from hinduism, islam, and so on)

[jimwalton]

It's true that a lot of people have the same misconception about heaven—that good people do or should go there, and bad people don't or shouldn't. the funny thing is that that's not at all what the Bible teaches.

I'm familiar with the Sentinel tribe. they were in the news maybe two years back when they killed that young man who was going there to share Christ. the answer is the same as what I said about Buddha. the Bible doesn't tell us what God will do, but it assures us He will be perfectly fair. So we assume God will be both wise and just.

> don't you think it's wrong for very nice people to go to hell? in regards to your banquet analogy, what if the person who got the invitation was not sure if it was a real banquet and not just some scam in the mail?

Not only do we all get spam all the time, but we have to be pretty smart about recognizing it and not falling for it. And I can see where you're making the connection between that and the reality that there are so many religions on the planet. How do we know which one is true, or if ANY of them are true, you know, like being able to tell a real invitation from spam.

I actually think it's a great question and a fair one. My thought is this: We learn how to discern the legit from the spam because we figure out criteria of truth. If we don't, we get scammed. It's no different with religion: we have to use criteria for truth. How do we know something's true? It's things like (1) makes sense [passes the smell test]; (2) corresponds to reality, (3) makes sense out of history, (4) makes sense out of science, (5) has corroboration in history, (6) gives a noble explanation of life, (7) gives a realistic explanation of humankind—you know, things like that. It's how we separate the true from the "spam" and "scam." We use our brains, history, reality, science, reason, observation, and every tool we can muster to figure out what's true and what's fake.