Where do the buddhists go?

I've always wondered this. If the way to heaven is through acceptance of Jesus into your heart, the alternative being damnation, what happens to all non-Christian peoples of the earth?I was told as a child that those people chose to live in ignorance of God and therefore deserved Hell.That's just silly, isn't it? It's especially silly when you consider that many other religions have the exact same view of themselves, with all Christians being the ones doomed to damnation.Obviously, the best possible scenario is that only one religion is truly right and the rest either innacurate or plain wrong. And the odds of even that are low. Consider the endless permutations of most religion's holy texts over time.So why do people choose one religion over another and defend them to the death, when obviously most of them (if not all of them) are wrong?When a sweet 11 year old Buddhist dies, does he go to Christian hell for not believing in Christ?

Very good points. But doesn't this then depreciate the value of Christianity? Why do I constantly get Mormons and Jehova's witnesses at my door if the mere fact of being a moral agnostic is enough to get me into this heaven? They try to lead me to believe that their particular flavour of religion is the one true way of being saved.Phat, the reason I brought up Buddhism is specifically because there is no deity involved with it. There is no acknowledgement of a God or any kind of Jesus. The whole religion is just some very wise words by one man, the Buddha. Therefore this sweet 11 year old I mentioned has never looked for Jesus. Will he still get into Christian heaven?

Thank you, AdminJar.So does no one have a comment on what I've said?Would it be wise to then, based on this, reject the idea of any formal religion and just focus on being a good, moral person?Or do I run the risk of simultaneously burning in every single Hell from every single religion on earth?

Hahaha. That would be just too funny.(not really)

Thank you, Jar and Mike. Your answers reveal some good news.

quote:

---

A steady diet of crow (black) for a couple of milenia is good news?

---

I'm not sure I get the reference. I know the Bible, but not that well.

quote:

---

It is just a natural state of your being. Same thing with ascending to heaven or descending to hell. If you are enlightened then you naturally ascend to heaven. If you are bogged down by, say, greed, lust, or some other worldly desire then you naturally descend to hell.

​

There is no judging involved.

---

I really find that type of thinking logical and appealing. That is, if you are saying what I think you are: "Heaven" and "Hell" are what you make of your life. I have to admit, Buddhism has some very respectable and logical views on life. If it weren't for the dualist aspects, such as spirits and reincarnation, I would be a Buddhist in a heartbeat.[edit]
Here's an insight into my motivation:As some of you who have been reading my posts might know, I am an Ex-Fundie who is looking for a secular "religion" to call my own. I want nothing more than to belong to a group of similarily-minded folks who would rather follow Aristotle's Golden Means or Rule-Utilitarianism than some limited, arbitrary and out-of-date commandments written in an ancient text.Really, my goal here at EvC is to sort things out and hopefully come to something of a logical "spritual" conclusion, if there is such a thing.Has anybody here taken a similar journey?This message has been edited by Drewsky, 04-17-2006 04:51 PM

quote:

---

Why not start your own religion?

---

but...

quote:

---

If on the other hand you would prefer to seek the truth then it becomes less a matter of what you would like and more a matter of it is the way it is.

---

Yes, exactly. Keep in mind though, I am using the term "religion" very loosely. I am searching for a group of inherently practical, logical and humane people. I have actually tried joining the INTP mailing list. It turned out to be the closest thing I have found to what I am looking for. Odd, huh?I was raised Christian, yes. In terms of what a Christian is, I don't believe I have any of those qualities anymore. I do, in fact believe the commandments (while still respectable) are not nearly as practical or comprehensive as the works of moral philosophers. (What does the bible have to say about human cloning? Philosophy covers it.)

quote:

---

I never found completeness in the philosophies.

---

I apologize, but what that simply tells me is that you haven't yet read some philosopher's works. Even with my layman knowledge of the area, I can assure you that philosophy covers nearly every aspect of our world from nearly every perspective (Even theologist's perspectives). That's been it's purpose for thousands of years.

quote:

---

In that sense, whilst comprehensive, they are totally impractical. So we have to fudge and provide phlexible-philosophies that take account of our ever shifting perception of reality. Philosophy: the ever-moveable feast.

---

This is similar to the the reasoning sometimes used to discredit science. That is: "It's always changing, therefore it's never right".Let me explain my view of science and philosphy. Imagine the progression of human knowledge as a minivan heading to ... DisneyLand. Now imagine a passenger in this minivan making comments such as "We're constantly moving. I don't see how we'll achieve anything like this. At home, we were sure of things. Why didn't we stay there?". I would be a different passenger, saying things like: "Yes, we're on an unkown road, taking corners and going through new territory, but through this all, I can see that we're headed somewhere that's better than where we started. Sure, we're on new ground every second, but every inch we cover is a refinement over our last location, bringing us closer to our goal" (This goal is ultimate truth, naturally)Yes, philosophy and science are changing. But you would be more accurate to say they are refining.

quote:

---

Christianity is at its most...er...fundemental level, a positional state in which God takes a person out of one position and puts them in another.

---

But you must understand, in order for points such as these to affect me, I must first believe there is indeed a deity guiding my life. While the thought is beautiful and comforting, I have no reason to believe this other than the fact that it's a beautiful and comforting thought. I become more sure of this as I grow older.

Hello again, all.I'd like to dig this thread up for a moment so that I can ask a question.While doing research for my Anthropology of Religion class, I came across this little page: http://home.btclick.com/scimah/memes.htmWhat it does is explain religions through the concept of a meme. (And from my understanding of what religions are, it seems pretty accurate, if not harsh.)Strangely enough, Buddhism is brought up and compared to traditional religions about halfway through the page. It was while reading these comparisons that I realised without doubt that the Buddhist philosophy is nearly perfect for me.I understand that it is not a religion, but a philosophy; a technology of the mind. As far as I know, there is no Bible, like regular religions have.I want to subscribe to this way of thinking, but I don't know where to begin.Shh, I'm not familiar with Taoism and so I can't know if I'd agree with it. But if you have any resources that help me learn Buddhism as it is described in my link, I would love to look over it.Sorry, mods, I know this is getting a bit off topic.EDIT:The page has an interesting bit on exclusivism which reinforces what I was saying earlier:

quote:

---

Unfortunately, in Christianity exclusivism went to extreme lengths with many denominations (at one time) claiming that they were the one true faith and the other denominations of Christianity were corrupt (or even in league with anti-Christ)

​

However this does raise an interesting scenario. Presumably, a Salvation Army officer who devoted her life to rescuing drug addicts and alcoholics would be regarded as damned for all eternity by traditional Catholic theologians. A Buddhist, on the other hand, would regard such a person as an advanced spiritual practitioner
...
So, taken to its logical conclusion, Christian exclusivism would require one Christian to regard a fellow Christian as damned, while a Buddhist would recognise her as a saint.

---

Edited by Drewsky, : For relevance.