Milo

Compared with Buddhism, Christianity has several distinguishing features which show that it deserves consideration.

First, while both Christianity and Buddhism have an historical central figure, namely Jesus and Buddha respectively, only Jesus is shown to have risen from the dead. Many people in history have been wise teachers. Many have started religious movements. Siddhartha Guatama, that is the historical Buddha also called Sakyamuni, stands out among them for having special wisdom and a profound philosophy of life. But Jesus also stands out and he has confirmed his spiritual teachings with a test that only divine power could pass. Jesus’ body of teachings are confirmed by the death and resurrection of His literal body—a fact which he prophesied and fulfilled in Himself (Matthew 16:21; 20:18-19; Mark 8:31; 1 Luke 9:22; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians 15). Jesus deserves special consideration.

Second, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration. One could even say that the history of the Bible is so compelling that to doubt the Bible is to doubt history itself since it is the most historically verifiable book of all antiquity. The only book more historically verifiable than the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is the New Testament. Consider the following.

1) More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other of antiquity. 5,000 Ancient Greek Manuscripts, 24,000 in all w/ other languages. The multiplicity of manuscripts allows for a tremendous research base by which we can test the texts against each other and identify what the originals said.

2) The manuscripts of the New Testament are closer in age to the originals than are any other document of antiquity. All of the originals were written within the time of the contemporaries (eyewitnesses), in the first century AD. And we currently have manuscript parts as old as 125 AD. Whole book copies surface by 200 AD. And the complete NT can be found dating back to 250 AD. Having all the books of the New Testament initially written within the times of eyewitnesses means that they did not have time to devolve into myth and folklore. Plus their truth claims were held accountable by active persecution and by members of the Church who, as personal witnesses to the events, could check the facts.

3) The New Testament Documents are more accurate than any other of antiquity. John R. Robinson in Honest To God reports that the New Testament documents are 99.9% accurate (most accurate of any complete antique book). Bruce Metzger, an expert in the Greek New Testament, suggests a more modest 99.5%.

Third, Christian ethics has a stronger foundation than Buddhist ethics. Christian ethics is founded in the personal character of God. God is personal and moral. His nature is good, and therefore all actions which align with His goodness are actually good. Whatever departs from His goodness is actually evil. For Buddhists, however, ultimate reality is not understood as personal. But morality requires personality. To illustrate consider the morality of a rock. One does not blame a rock for being used in a murder since it is not a person with moral duties. Rather the moral duty lies with the person who used that rock for evil purposes. Buddhism lacks the personal framework for moral duty to hold. With Buddhism, karma is that framework for morality. But karma is impersonal. It is akin to a law of nature. Breaking a karmic “rule” is not intrinsically evil. There seems to be no significant difference between error (non-moral mistakes) and sin (moral wrongdoing). Furthermore, many Buddhists even assert that the dualities of “good” and “evil” ultimately break down. “Good” and “evil” would be part of maya, the illusory world of sensory reality. The categories of morality are not grand enough to map onto ultimate reality. And enlightened individuals will see that good and evil blur into one. But such a position means that ultimate reality would not be “good.” It wouldn’t be “evil” either, but what assurance then exists that “ultimate reality” is even a worthwhile pursuit? And what grounds would there be for living a morally good life as opposed to an amoral life without regard for moral distinctions, or an inactive life avoiding moral choices as much as possible? If Buddhism asserts that reality is not ultimately personal and the distinctions between good and evil are not actually real, then Buddhism does not have a true foundation for ethics. Christianity, on the other hand, can point on both counts to the character of God as personally founding morality and providing a basis for distinguishing good from evil.

Fourth, Christianity rightly appreciates “desire.” Buddhist ethics seems to have a core difficulty at this point. Sakyamuni taught that tanha, “desire” or “attachment,” is the root of suffering and is to be dissolved. But some admittedly good things are based on the idea of desire. Love for example is “to desire the good of another” (See John 15:13; 1 John 4:7-12). One could not even love unless one had a degree of attachment in desiring someone else’s well-being. In contrast, Christianity teaches that desire is good when it is properly directed. Paul urges Christians to “desire the greater gifts” of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1). In the Psalms, we see pictures of worshipers longing for and desiring fellowship with God (Psalm 42:1-2; 84). And of course, God does not simply act loving, He is love (1 John 4:9; Psalm 136; John 3:16). Sacrificing desire altogether seems to throw out the proverbial baby (love) with the dirty bathwater (suffering).

Fifth is the question “What do you do with your sin?” Buddhism has at least two ideas of sin. Sin is sometimes understood as ignorance. It is sinful if one does not see or understanding reality as Buddhism defines it. However, in Buddhism, there is still an idea of moral error termed “sin.” To do something deliberately evil, to break a spiritual or earthly law, or to desire wrong things, these would be identifiable sins. But, that latter definition of sin points to a kind of moral error that requires real atonement. From where can atonement rise? Can atonement come by adherence to karmic principles? Karma is impersonal and amoral. One could do good works to even the balance but one cannot ever dispose of sin. Karma does not even provide a context whereby moral error is even moral. Who have we offended if we sin in private? Karma does not care one way or the other because karma is not a person. Can atonement come by prayer or devotion to a Bhodisattva or a Buddha? Even if those characters could offer forgiveness it seems like sin would still be left unpaid. They would forgive sin showing it to be excusable; it is not a big deal.

Christianity on the other hand seems to have the only adequate theological view of sin. In Christianity sin is moral error. Ever since Adam, humans have been sinful creatures. Sin is real. And it sets an infinite gap between man and bliss. Sin demands justice. But it cannot be “balanced out” with an equal or greater amount of good works. If someone has 10x’s the good works than bad works, then he or she still has bad works on their conscience. What happens to these remaining bad works? Are they just forgiven as if they were not a big deal in the first place? Are they permitted into bliss? Are they mere illusions thus leaving no problem whatsoever? None of these options are suitable. Concerning illusion, sin is too real to us to be explained away as illusion. Concerning our sinfulness, when we are honest with ourselves we all know that we have sinned. Concerning forgiveness, to simply forgive sin at no cost treats sin like it is not of much consequence even though we know that to be false. Concerning bliss, “bliss” is not much good if sin keeps getting smuggled in. It seems like the scales of karma leave us with sin on our hearts and bliss either cannot tolerate us or it must cease being perfect so that we can come in.

Christianity has an answer for sin. No sin goes unpunished, but the punishment has already been satisfied in Christ’s personal sacrifice on the cross. God became man, lived a perfect life, and died the death that we deserved. He was crucified on our behalf, a substitute for us, and a covering (or, atonement) for our sins. And he was resurrected, proving that not even death could conquer Him. Furthermore, He promises the same resurrection unto eternal life for all who put their faith in Him as their only Lord and Savior (Romans 3:10, 23; 6:23; 8:12; 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:21).

This is no “easy believism” where God, like a janitor, just cleans up all our mistakes. Rather, this is a life-long commitment where we take on a new nature and begin a new relationship with God Himself (Romans 6:1; Ephesians 2:1-10). When a person really believes God is who He says He is in the Bible, and really believes God did what He says He did in the Bible, and a person puts his or her life on that belief—that person is transformed. You cannot stay the same once you have that belief. One could just as easily continue reading the morning paper after realizing his house was on fire. That knowledge (the house is on fire) motivates action and changes your life (stop reading the paper and do something about the fire).

Nor is Jesus simply an answer among many others. All the world’s religions have some level of truth in them, but ultimately, Jesus is the only answer to the human condition. Meditation, works, prayer—none of these can make us worthy of the infinite and eternal gift of heaven. None of these can undo the sin we’ve done. Only when Christ pays our sin debt and we place our faith in Him can we be saved. Only then is sin covered, hope assured, and life filled with eternal meaning.

Finally, it is only in Christianity that we can know that we are saved. We do not have to rely on some fleeting experience, nor do we rely on our own good-works or fervent meditation. Nor do we put our faith in a false god whom we are trying to “believe-into-existence.” We have a living and true God, a historically anchored faith, an abiding and testable revelation of God (Scripture), and a guaranteed home in heaven with God.

So, what does this mean for you? Jesus is the ultimate reality! Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for our sins. God offers all of us forgiveness and salvation if we will simply receive His gift to us (John 1:12), believing Jesus to be the Savior who laid down His life for us – His friends. If you place your trust in Jesus as your Savior, you will have absolute assurance of eternal life in Heaven. God will forgive your sins, cleanse your soul, renew your spirit, give you abundant life in this world, and eternal life in the next world. How can we reject such a precious gift? How can we turn our backs on God who loved us enough to sacrifice Himself for us?

Answer: Shintoism is purely a Japanese religion, the origins of which are buried in the hazy mists of ancient Japanese history. It is one of the world’s oldest religions. The Japanese people have a fierce love for their land and believe that the Japanese islands were the very first divine creation. In fact, Shintoism teaches that no other land is divine, making Japan uniquely special in the world. Not surprisingly, Shintoism is not popular outside of Japan.

The two fundamental Shinto doctrines are that Japan is the country of the gods and her people are the descendants of gods. This concept of the divine descent of the Japanese people, as well as the divine origin of the land, has given rise to a conviction of superiority over other countries and peoples. With the exception of a few designated sects of Shinto, the religion has neither a founder, sacred writings, nor any authoritative set of beliefs. Worship takes place at one of the numerous shrines covering the country of Japan, although many Japanese have altars in their home to one or more of the large number of deities.

The word Shinto comes from the Chinese word Shen-tao, which means “the way of the gods.” A major feature of Shinto is the notion of kami, the concept of sacred power in both animate and inanimate objects. There is in Shinto a powerful sense of the presence of gods and spirits in nature. The gods of Shinto are too numerous to lend themselves to a hierarchy, but the sun goddess Amaterasu is very highly revered and her grand imperial temple is located 200 miles southwest of Tokyo. Shinto teaches that the Japanese people are themselves descended from the kami.

The religion of Shinto is entirely incompatible with biblical Christianity. First, the idea that the Japanese people and their land are favored above all others contradicts the Bible’s teaching that the Jews are the chosen people of God “For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God. Jehovah your God has chosen you to be a special people to Himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6). However, though the Jews are God’s chosen people, they have never been designated as better than any other people, and the Bible does not teach that they were directly descended from gods.

Second, the Bible is clear that there are not many gods, but one God (“I am Jehovah, and there is none else, no god beside Me” (Isaiah 45:5), and that He is not an impersonal force, but rather a loving and caring Father God to those who fear Him (2 Corinthians 6:17-18). He alone created the universe and He alone reigns sovereignly over it. The idea of gods that inhabit rocks, trees and animals combines two different falsehoods: polytheism (many gods) and animism (the presence of gods in objects). These are lies from the father of lies, Satan, who “walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

Third, Shintoism fosters the type of pride and feelings of superiority in the Japanese people that are condemned in Scripture. God hates pride because it is the very thing that keeps people from seeking Him with their whole hearts (Psalm 10:4). In addition, the teachings of the basic goodness and divine origin of the Japanese people precludes their need for a Savior. This is the natural consequence of assuming one’s race is of divine origin. The Bible states unequivocally that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), that we all need a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

While Shinto teaches that the kami might commune with those who have made themselves worthy through ritual purification, the God of the Bible promises to be present to anyone who calls upon Him for forgiveness. No amount of personal purification (a form of salvation by works) will make a person worthy of the presence of God in his life. Only faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross can accomplish cleansing from sin and make us acceptable to a holy God. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Some critics of the Trinity doctrine claim that since the word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, it isn’t true. Furthermore, some assert that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have stated the doctrine clearly.

First of all, it is illogical to claim that since the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible that its concept is not taught therein. This kind of objection usually demonstrates a prejudice against the teaching of the Trinity. Instead, the person should look to God’s word to see if it is taught or not.

Second, there are many biblical concepts that people believe in that don’t have a specific word describing them used in the Bible. For example, the word “bible” is not found in the Bible, but we use it anyway to describe the Bible. Likewise, the words “omniscience,” which means “all knowing,” “omnipotence,” which means “all powerful,” and “omnipresence,” which means “present everywhere,” are words not found in the Bible either, but we use them to describe the attributes of God. We don’t have to see a specific word in the Bible in order for the concept it describes to be true.

Following are other words that the Bible does not use but the concepts are mentioned.

Atheism is the teaching that there is no God. “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

Divinity which means divine quality or godlike character. Yet, we speak of the godlike quality of the Lord God. See Psalm 139.

Incarnation which means the word (God) who became flesh. Yet, this is definitely taught in the Bible (John 1:1,14).

Monotheism is the teaching that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8).

Rapture is the teaching that the Christians who are alive when Jesus returns will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-18).

So, to say that the Trinity isn’t true because the word isn’t in the Bible is an invalid argument. Furthermore, to say that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have clearly taught it in scripture, is also an invalid argument. Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid. Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear. Take a look at the book of Revelation. It contains many things that are cryptic that must be interpreted after examining all of the Bible. Even then, there are disagreements as to what some things mean. Yet, we know that the truths there are true whether or not we discover them.

Nevertheless, there are scriptures that demonstrate a Trinitarian aspect.

Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Jude 20-21, “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.”

The Bible never speaks of a place where one can go to be purified of his sin. Rather, it always speaks of a Person to whom we can go to be purified: Jesus Christ. God tells us that those who refuse to trust Christ to cleanse them from their sins are condemned: Whoever believes in Him avoids condemnation, but whoever does not believe is already condemned for not believing in the name of God’s only Son (John 3:18). There are only two choices: Whoever believes in the Son has life eternal. Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure the wrath of God (John 3:36; See also Revelation 20:15; Luke 16:19-31, especially verse 26). Anyone who accepts Christ is completely saved: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Saying that there is no condemnation, certainly eliminates the flames of purgatory.

Another passage which clearly excludes the idea of purgatory is, their sins and transgressions I will remember no more (Hebrews 10:17). If, as the Bible says, God no longer remembers the sins of those who are in Christ, He does not punish them for these sins. To do so would be saying that Christ had not made full payment for them and that God the Father still remembered them. (See also Romans 5:8-11; Hebrews 10:14-18; Psalm 103:12).

Anyone who does not believe that Christ has completely saved him, has not completely trusted Christ to save him. That is, he does not believe that Christ’s sacrifice has paid for all of his sins, and thinks he must pay for some of them himself. However, we are saved when we stop trusting what we can do, and start trusting Christ to save us.

The idea that Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient to cleanse us from all of our sins would condemn a great sinner such as the thief who was crucified with Jesus to suffer a long time in purgatory if not for all eternity in hell! Instead, there was nothing left over that Christ’s death on the Cross did not cover. When the thief placed his trust in Christ, Jesus said to him, I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).

If purgatory existed, and the mass helped people to get out, the rich would have a tremendous advantage by being able to pay for masses to shorten their suffering. The poor instead, would be left to the mercy of the occasional priest who might say an unpaid mass for them. One ex-priest wrote, “If we really believed that the mass would save people from the flames of purgatory, would we make them pay for it? I would even save a dog if I saw one in a fire, and I would never even think of asking to be paid!”

Purgatory was evidently a pagan idea. Virgil, the pagan Latin poet who lived 70 – 19 B.C. divided the departed souls into three different places in his writings: One for the good, one for the dammed, and a third where the less bad could pay for their sins. Since the idea of purgatory existed outside of the church before it came into the church, it is probable that it was brought in by contact with pagans like Virgil. There was a great influx of non-Biblical ideas into the church around 300 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine took many unsaved people in as members of the church.

In any event, there is no mention of purgatory in the Bible. Some would try, however, to make the idea sound somewhat Biblical by referring to 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, a passage in one of the apocryphal books written between the times of the Old and New Testaments. These books were never accepted as part of the Hebrew Old Testament, nor quoted in the New Testament, but they are included in the Catholic Bible, though usually with an explanation that they are of a less inspired category. Apart from this passage in 2 Maccabees, the apocrypha is little used by the Catholic church to support a doctrinal position.

It is important to notice that this passage does not speak of purgatory at all, but actually condemns idolatry, particularly the practice of wearing little images on a necklace or such. Hebrew soldiers were found wearing this sort of thing after a battle, and their buddies, on making this discovery, realized that they had died in the sin of idolatry. They then counselled prayer for their souls. The Roman Catholic position is that prayer for them would have been unnecessary if they were in heaven and useless if they were in hell, so there must be another place. The logic seems good, but the result contradicts the clear teaching of the inspired Scripture. Contradicting inspired Scripture with a philosophical response based on an apparent inference from the Apocrypha is a very weak argument indeed. The very word “Apocrypha,” which comes from the Greek word for hidden, has come to mean “false,” or “of doubtful authorship.”

Karma is a theological concept found in the Buddhist and Hindu religions. It is the idea that how one lives one’s life will determine the quality of life one will have when one is reincarnated. In other words, if one is unselfish, kind, and holy during their lifetime, one will be rewarded by being reincarnated (born again into a new earthly body) into a pleasant life. However, if one lives a life of selfishness and evil, one will be reincarnated into a less than pleasant lifestyle.

The entire concept of karma is based on the theological belief in reincarnation. It is sort of a “you reap what you sow” idea with the reaping to take place in your reincarnated life. The Bible does not agree with the idea of reincarnation, so therefore, it does not support the idea of karma.

In Hebrews 9:27 it states, “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this (cometh) judgment.” This Bible verse makes clear two important points which, for Christians, negate the possibility of reincarnation and karma. First, it states that it is “appointed unto men once to die…” Meaning that humans are only born once and only die once. There is no endless cycle of life and death and rebirth that is promoted in the reincarnation theory. Second, it states that “after this (cometh) judgment…” Meaning that there is no second chance, like there is in reincarnation and karma, to live a better life. You get one shot at life and living it according to God’s plan, and that’s it.

The Bible talks a lot about reaping and sowing. In Job 4:8 it says, “Even as I have seen they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.” And in Psalms 126:5 it says, “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.” And in Luke 12:24 it says, “Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?”

In each of these instances, as well as all the other references to reaping and sowing, the act of receiving the rewards of one’s actions (reaping) takes place in this life, not in some future life. It is a present-day activity and the references make it clear that the fruit one reaps will be commensurate with the actions one has performed. In addition, the actions or sowing one performs in this life will affect one’s reward or punishment in the afterlife.

This afterlife is not a rebirth or a reincarnation into another body here on earth. It is either eternal suffering in hell (Matthew 25:46), or eternal life in Heaven with Jesus, who died so that we might live eternally with Him. And it is this life that our actions of sowing should be oriented towards. The Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 6:8-9, “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”

Finally, we must always remember that it was Jesus whose death on the cross resulted in the reaping of eternal life for us, and that it is faith in Jesus that will gain for us this eternal life. It says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Therefore, we see that the concept of reincarnation and karma is incompatible with what the Bible teaches about life, death, and the sowing and reaping of eternal life.