Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


GOD, BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY
 
The foundational doctrine of Christianity is that God made all things out of nothing and nothing exists unless he gives it existence. This doctrine is what all the other doctrines are all about even if does not seem that way. The notion is that God made all things because he loves. We rebelled against that love so in love God had to send Jesus to earn our salvation for us. And nothing can matter as much as God when all things depend on God. To refute creation is to refute Christianity. Buddhism does not believe in creation. It cannot believe in this God. This difference with Christianity is the difference between day and night. Some Buddhist legends speak of a being with great powers who imagines he creates and who needs to be set straight. You cannot be a Christian Buddhist for the foundations of each faith oppose one another.

It is not easy or impossible to explain how there could be an all-compassionate God when innocent beings suffer.  Buddhism and Hinduism deny there is a problem of evil for they just blame the victim. Christians say that evil and suffering are the best and strongest argument against the love of God and thus the existence of such a God. It solves this big argument by saying man is to blame for ruining Godís good work. Christianity blames the victim too! And even more so!
 
Christians say the doctrine of karma denies a person the right to say sorry for sin and start again and walk with God.  But for Buddhists, if you reach enlightenment karma does not apply to you any more.  You can get no good or bad karma.  But that contradicts our experience.  Buddha still suffered and died.
 
Some Buddhists and believers in karma develop a cold lack of concern for others who suffer. They think that the people who suffer are only getting what they deserve. They also reckon that if they intervene and help, they are only hindering them. They reason that it is better to let them suffer so that they will get the payment of their karmic debt over and done with.

Others say that if you can help you should. They say your presence there shows that the law of karma has done its bit with them and it will let up meaning you must help now. In other words, your arrival on the scene shows that karma has done its job and dealt with them and karma has arranged that you must help them. But this leaves it in your hands whether to help or not to help. If you don't help or don't want to, you could reason that karma has arranged this so you are not doing wrong if you refuse to help. The rich, healthy and happy people are supposedly being rewarded by karma. If they are, then why are they not necessarily nicer and better people than the poor or the sick?
 
These doctrines contradict the notion that we love God by working for the wellbeing of others.

Christians observe that the Buddhist wants to stop her suffering and have a future without it. The Christian says it is immoral to try and end your power to suffer for that means ending your power to love. The Christian says that love is not about you loving yourself but about reaching out to others instead which means you have to make yourself vulnerable to being hurt or even killed by them. You also risk the suffering of losing them. Love is risk. It is valuing the other person so much that you will take the risk of suffering for them. For the Christian, Buddhism is basically bad for its core doctrine opposes love. For the Christian, if you find the gate to Nirvana, you will have found the gate of Hell. Hell is seen as the absence of love. Hell is seen as where you go because you are wrapped up in yourself. The Buddhist is said to be wrapped up in herself when she gets rid of the power to be vulnerable. The Church says that even those in Heaven though they do not actually suffer will face the possibility of suffering - suffering can happen though it doesn't and that is the way it will be for all eternity. Heaven is love and as love is necessarily risk, those in Heaven will risk for all eternity. These doctrines suggest that suffering is a gift for it makes love possible and so suffering is a need, it is needed. John Paul II did not shy away from saying suffering is good.
 
Thus Christianity's near approval for evil and suffering totally contrasts with Buddhism's insistence that suffering is terrible and evil and intolerable and that it is possible to be set free from it.
 
Buddhism is about how your mind works and how retraining it can mean you cannot suffer anymore. Christianity is about God as shown by Jesus and not the mind.
 
Most Buddhism is not atheistic but agnostic for it does not care if God exists or not and says he is irrelevant if he does exist. Technically, if there is a God he will seek a relationship with us for being good he will be social so Buddhism would need to be atheistic for it teaches that seeking help from God is wrong, you do it all on your own. The miracles of Buddhism, incorrupt monks and healings would indicate that there is no God!
 
Buddhism is a million times superior to Christianity and God-believing religion. The very concept of God that he is perfect good denies that he could possibly be irrelevant and affirms that it is vile and pure wickedness to say that. We conclude then that Godism must hate Buddha and Buddhism. God, is the idea that wants to crush the nobility of Buddhist thought.
 
We admire Buddhism for having no interest in God but still it is a wrong philosophy.