What is the Buddhist Critique of the Christian understanding of God - Term Paper Example

What is the Buddhist Critique of the Christian understanding of God? Religionists contend that they work towards a course of enlightenment and human emancipation1. Truth is what gears religious people towards enlightenment and emancipation. Unfortunately, religious practices observed in the world conform to some believes which call for disputes among other religions. Whatever the case, misconception of religious aspects have elicited debates which tend to prove or disapprove practices that do not conform to the perceived beliefs. The concern is not to discredit the practices observed, but to contend to factors that led to such practices. Recent development in the religious circle indicates a practice, which does not seek to find the truth, but creates competition among the religionists. The suspicions that a given group of religionist directs towards others does not portray the intention of religion in humanity. The aim of this paper is critique Buddhist understanding of the God served by Christians. Christian Understanding Christianity is a religion that traces its foundation from the teaching, death and life of Jesus Christ. The focus on Jesus Christ by Christians point to the God they serve. History of Christianity points various incidents when God revealed Himself to men2. Understanding the concept of Christian faith necessitate the understanding of nature of God they serve. Christians profess to serve a God who is monotheist and posses qualities such as ever presence, exercises control over nature and has the ability of redeeming humankind from its predicament. The perception cultivated in Christian faith is the existence of sin that results from ones ability to go against the perceived doctrines of God. The moral conscience of humankind borrows several beliefs of Christian faith. Human beings feel that it is wrong to commit ill against a fellow human being. Religionists contend that perception professed in religious faiths tend to promote harmony in humanity. Pointing at the Christian understanding, human beings co exists as a family whose head is God. The teaching of Christianity project evil deeds as influences, which distract the moral will of God. Humankind has thus been lost because of the practices, which they do. The road to redemption from this lose is through Jesus Christ. Redemption from the evils in the concept of Christian understanding is to focus on Jesus Christ whose misery in death and resurrection redeemed humankind from all sin3. The concept of Christian faith has the following elements punishment for sins, redemption, forgiveness and new birth. Christians’ belief observes sin as a factor that separate human beings from divinity of God. God is a divine creature above other creatures. The explanation of Gods existence transcends thought which argue on His visibility. Redemption is relevant to Christians because of the separation created by sin4. The point in the Christian tradition is to serve a God that redeems humankind from the ills of sin. Forgiveness element bring a Christian back to the fold of God since the stain of sin would no longer influence relationship between human beings and God. Forgiveness of sin can only happen when a person believe in the teaching of Jesus and profess the same faith to others. Not until then, human beings have no power over sin. The concept of new birth differentiates a Christian from other human beings who do not profess the same faith. The nature of God that Christians serve is unique in the sense that God respect life, project love, natural order, and harmony. These aspects influence Christians to develop attitudes, which promote the teachings of Jesus Christ. Respect for human life eliminates all manner of evils that a person would be intending to do to the other fellow. Christian doctrines define life and penalty of sin as death with a meaning that the whole idea behind Christianity is life5. Human life is precious or valuable above all other things. The giver of life is thus creature above other creatures that is able to restore soul and body. Criticism Criticism directed to Christianity by Buddhist compares the ideals of Christianity in comparison to ideals of Buddhism. Understandings of the concept of Buddhism religion is essential in projecting the differences that appear bin the two religions. Buddhist traditions and practices transcends from the teachings of Buddha whom they figure as their founder. Buddhists do not accept the Christian belief in the existence of God. The argument behind the notion of rejection of God points on the character of God, which they say, is imperfect. The Bible, which is divine book of the Christian faith, portrays God in various aspects. First, it states that God demonstrate love to his people and jealous to those who go against his will. (Deuteronomy 4:24)6. The depiction of God as Jealous in the above concept should not project a misconception as perceived by critics of Christianity. Human cultures have various practices yet they concede that certain principles are against morals of Humanity. The same analogy would apply in this case. Christian service should demonstrate faith, which only comes through allegiance in worship. It is ill to purport to serve a God whose importance is relevant in times of need. Jealous as a character, thus act to influence human attitudes towards performing the moral will of God not the other way. Buddhists argue that Buddha did not project any character that contradicted his teachings7. He asked his followers to show love to all irrespective of their abilities or beliefs. The ideal taught by Buddha conform to Christian teachings, which identifies the vulnerable in the society as people who need help. Interpretation of the bible verses seems to brew the criticism of Christian religion. It is important to identify the context of Biblical writings. It would be hard for an individual to understand the Character of God by identifying a single element in Bible and sticking to it. It would be a lie to argue that Buddha did have any feelings, yet we know that human beings demonstrate feelings, which are not perfect8. Christians believe that God does not tolerate evil and that any act that drives an individual into committing evil would attract punishment. Buddhists interpret this view to mean that God has an inconsistent character which inclining in performing ill at the expense of moral good. The interpretation is a misconception of Christian teachings. The Bible project the world they way it is without hiding the attitudes of human beings. For instance, examples of personalities used in the Bible had some imperfection, which the Bible projected. Conversely, teachings of Buddha projects of the philosophical aspects of human nature without projecting of the reality. Human beings have failed to reach some ideals. It means that Christian teachings intended to use human character to portray the ability of God in redeeming human kind from evil. The compassion proclaimed by Buddhists as a trait of Buddha is apparent through the action of Jesus Christ. He demonstrated feeling for the less privileged in the society. The intention of his teachings was to disapprove the ideas of humanity that harbours personal interest at the expense of the society9. Jesus shared whatever little He had with his followers an example that Christians should embrace. Buddhists believe that the world would speak what he has perceived as a right and would go a head to implement the very ideas expressed in his thoughts. In the writings of Tipitaka, Buddha does not demonstrate any element of jealousy, anger, or hatred to his followers10. Buddhists cite perfection as an element that excluded Buddha from performing anything that is ill. This argument fails to acknowledge what people know of mortal beings. Men have demonstrated variance in feelings and character traits as observed among men living on earth. The idea of perfection is a lie in the eyes of mortal men as depicted in the bible because of the weakness in soul. Tipitaka does not project other traits of Buddha apart from ideals of moral will. This illustration fails to score because human beings have feelings that depend on intrinsic factors and environmental factors. For instance, the Bible warns against associating with people who find pride in committing evil because they would influence an individual into evil. It means that since the world is imperfect, nothing in the world would be perfect in the world11. Illustrations in the Bible indicate how God handles various imperfections in the world. He warns against committing any ill or against anything that would influence a person into sin. The idea is not to project Gods anger but to show what his love covers. The Bible describes God as capable of winning war against those that are against his rule. (Zephaniah 3:17 and Exodus 15:3)12. Christian interpretation of war in the canonical form differs from the literal interpretation given to the verse by the Buddhists. Many verses in the Bible talking about war award victory to loyalists to God. The teachings of Buddha did not record any content in which Buddha granted victory in War13. The contradiction in the character has made many Buddhist to believe that God likes war. Lessons in the Bible addressed various people at different times. For instance, victory of Israelites over Philistines portrays God ability to rescue an individual out of predicaments beyond his or her ability. Literal interpretation of the statement would project God as a creature that like bloodshed, yet it is not true14. God exercise patients in dealing with human affairs as opposed to laws that man has instituted on earth. Military actions in the Bible define God authority by subjecting people from the other divide to suffer15. Understanding God means one has to know the genesis of suffering. God’s victory through action of Israelites reveals that any action of humankind is subject to judgment. The idea of judgment convicts a criminal to face some punishment. It would be wrong to proclaim the idea of judgment and justice in the society when punishment is not part of the concept of justice. In this case, war is valid because it portrays the effects of unjust ways of men. Buddha does not deliver any of his followers to war or deliver their enemies into their hands. However, the understanding of the playing ground between the two principles differs. Buddha’s teaching illustrates that penalty of evil is evil because it believes in punishment16. It means that Buddha contended to the idea of punishment, which the society would view as war17. In the society, people would retaliate when provoked, thus one would expect war to occur when one had the ability to reverse a judgment, which subject him or her to punishment. It is hard to do away with war when punishment exists. However, God does not love war; he has given opportunity for repentance, which provides an opportunity for forgiveness. Buddhists compares the teachings of peace granted to them through their faith with the punishment, which the Bible portrays in war18. The comparison does not justify the notion that God love war, but one needs to understand factors that necessitate war. For instance, Buddhists community have feelings just like other individuals. The will demonstrate the willingness to seek justice when provoked. Interpretation of this action should not mean that Buddhists are less accommodative but it is a natural course. Buddha did not allow his followers to go to war. He advocated for peace among the communities he served. Christian version of war does not have a literal meaning, but a hidden meaning, which people need to exercise sobriety to understand. The idea of justice elicits debate between the Christian faith and the Buddhists. Fair means that the action exercised in the society promote respect for justice. Some people argue that the idea of fairness various with the existing conditions. Christians believe that God exercises justice among his people. However, Buddhist discredits the idea behind justice as proclaim by Christians. God punishes those that disobey his rules (Leviticus. 26:18)19. The punishment extends to family members of the individual that went against the will of the Lord. It is surprising that innocent victims are part of the onslaught. The punishment proposed by God in the Old Testament has elicited reaction of human rights and other people who feel that stoning an individual is a cruel way of exercising justice (Numbers 15:32-36)20. The modality of exercising justice in the above verses shows the cruelty in the intended punishment. A person should not be quick to judge by projecting his argument on the above verses but should also look at the proposal of punishment that God directed to other occasions. The punishment offered to Jonah and Saul indicates that punishment in the Bible intended to give certain outcomes (Jonah 1:17 and Act 9:3-6). The idea was to influence the perception of the followers to yearn for greater things as opposed to worldly things, which limits their lives. Christians should not define their lives with the cycles of activities on earth. Instead, the focus should be on things that would not perish. Buddhists have used the idea of punishment to discredit the ideals of Christianity without recognising the conditions, which led to the punishment and the anticipated effects of the punishment. Modern law views punishment as a means of correcting individual’s attitudes. Society is keen to learn from what they see in the society. Acting as an example would reverse the ideas of the whole community. Biblical punishment in the days of Moses, (Biblical prophet), had intended to influence the outcome of the society21. Buddha taught people about precepts that he expected from them but failed pronounce judgment. Imagine of a society where rules that govern the society are slacken to offer judgment. It would mean that people would repeatedly commit crimes because they know that judgment comes from a distance. Buddha directed his followers to be slow in judging others a verse that appears in the Bible. Jesus taught by telling Christians to remove logs in their eyes before removing a spec in other people’s eye. The idea of was to discourage self-seeking attitude which is rampant in the world. Quick judgment by fellow human beings may fail to see elements of justice that influenced an action22. It is not the duty of a Christian to judge, but the duty belongs to God. Christian teachings believe in the unbiased will of God in executing judgment because he is not a respecter of any one but grant justice irrespective of ones position in the society. Buddhists know that people commit crimes in the society. They also believe that the judgment process would eventually follow, yet Buddha did not exercise the divine authority to pronounce judgment. Nigrodha transgression recorded in the Digha Nikaya, Sutta No. 2523. Shows the inability of humanity because he failed to exercise moral will. Buddha’s action in this incident shows that he forgave Nigrodha. Buddhists substitute the quest for justice with forgiveness. The Christian idea of forgiveness comes when an individual pleads guilty before God. Justice and forgiveness are relevant in the society and the manner adopted in the Christian understanding should project a misconception that God retaliated to human actions by giving cruel punishment. The concept of forgiveness defines the divinity of God in that it defines the ability of God to reverse a punishment, which would have devastating effects to humanity24. For instance, penalty of any sinful act is death yet the redemption that comes through Jesus reverses the judgment to forgiveness. Buddhists believe that forgiveness is necessary, yet Buddha did not define the impact of the mistake or impact of the punishment that would warrant forgiveness. The authority exercised by God through his actions helps to create an understanding of human weakness, which Buddha recognizes but fails to explain outcomes that a sin is worth. The notion proclaimed makes Buddhism ideals to sound philosophical as opposed to religion. Buddhists have used attitude to disease as projected in a few verses of the Bible to discredit God. Disease is an aspect that brings pain to the lives of human beings. The Bible records untold suffering of people of God who have succumbed to illnesses. For instant, in Egypt, God caused the lives of the Egyptians to be miserable, in sicknesses and plagues because of the treatment, which they directed to the Israelites (Exodus 9:8-12)25. The plagues described in the Bible describe the ability of God to reverse normal life conditions to misery. People fear factors that contribute to misery of sicknesses. However, it is important to acknowledge contributing factors that led to the decisions to plague the Egyptians. It would be bias to discredit Christian God when the whole idea that contributed to the incident is out of discussion. Buddhists observe the incident as one that point out that God like to see human suffering but the reverse is true. God intended to redeem humankind from servitude yet the Egyptians could not let go. Modern world has registered war in many occasions because the warring factions fail to strike a consensus over the disputed fact. Buddhists credits Buddha for his attitudes towards disease and suffering in which he demonstrated concern. However, it does not project a situation in which Buddha failed to convince the warring factions. It is apparent that when warring sides fail to strike a deal over some disputes, the result would be war depending on the choices. The choice to plague and create suffering of people is a choice that human beings make. Evil begets evil and thus the choice for evil lies in the human hands. God does not profess suffering to those that obey his will. He offers reward for good deeds and a reward for bad deeds. Justice demands that ideals for rewarding must offer what commensurate to the quantity of evil committed. The Bible gives examples of people who had to face diseases such as Job and the blind man (Job 3:3-26 and John 9:1-4)26. The interpretation of the above cases would project God to allow human suffering which is not the case. Imperfection of human beings cannot allow holiness to reign in earth. In essence, people are subject to conditions, which object the will of God. The idea of injecting suffering is because of personal choice. God has demonstrated to Christians that He cares by offering manna in the desert and water in the wilderness (Exodus 16:1-36). The ideals taught in Buddhism are attempts, which demonstrate the act of moral support to humankind. Buddha encouraged the sick and offered medicine to those that are sick (Anguttara, Nikaya, Book of Fives, Sutta No. 124)27. The above character portrayed by Buddha demonstrates an act that the Bible describes as Godliness. Misinterpretation of God’s ideals would depict a wrong impression of God. It is not noble for God to award sickness to some people and manna to others. Notion about creation of evil by God as propagated by the Buddhist does not hold any water because God does not respect anything evil. Many scholars who criticise the teachings in the Bible have used the book of Lamentation to back an argument that God creates evil (Lamentation, 3:38)28. The description in the book professes the future of the earth when people fail to follow the moral law. Absence of moral precepts leaves earth as a hollow structure that devours humankind. Principles guiding modern laws argue that an act of inhuman would wipe the human race. The same applies in this context because disasters pronounced in that book are things which occur whenever human beings for great knowledge without obeying natural law. For instance, failure to acknowledge the need of peace as projected during war leads to great destructions. The bombing Nagasaki is an indication of what war can cause to the society. It is important to address a cause of a problem than seeking a solution of the problem. Christianity promotes ideals, which seek to prevent cause s of evils in humanity29. God warns against certain ways, which would lead to destruction. In essence, He does not cause evil, but prevent the human race from evil. Buddhists believe that Buddha created Dhamma that they observe as the light to the world30. Any ideal that proclaim moral precepts that preserve humanity from curse is a message of light. Bible credit many people who sought to save humankind from curse of the law by directing them to do well. The hallmark of the event is death of Jesus that transformed humankind from curse to salvation. Buddhists do not believe in sacrifices and argue that Jesus sacrifice has no meaning31. Christian’s doctrine observes the gravity of committing sin to human death. The ransom paid to transform human death wish to life must be blood because upon shedding the blood death penalty would be no more. God does not take pride in sacrifice, instead Jesus death is a projection of love of humankind. Redemption of humankind defines the cost of love, which is eminent in the cross. In conclusion, Buddhists critique on Christianity touches on the character of God as projected to people. Buddhists believe that God does not profess what his character should be; instead, he creates conditions that allow human suffering. The whole argument fails to acknowledge the divinity of God in response to human feelings and attitudes. Primarily, God create situations, which reverses imperfections of humankind by redeeming human beings from the curse of sin. God does not support predicaments of human beings; instead, He creates situations that would reveal his powers among the human race. The interpretations of actions depicted in the Bible would influence the perception of God idea. Bibliography Abe, Masao and LaFleur, R. William. Zen and Western Thought, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989), p 25-47, 152-156. Buri, Fritz, The Buddha-Christ As the Lord of the True Self: The Religious Philosophy of the Kyoto School and Christianity, (Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1997), p 1-18. Cobb, B. John, Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Pub, 1998), p 56-75. Dharmasiri, Gunapala, A Buddhist critique of the Christian concept of God, (Massachusetts: Golden Leaves, 1988), p 116-124, 246. Kiblinger, B. Kristin. Buddhist Inclusivism: Attitudes Towards Religious Others, (New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005), p 114-116. Panikkar, Raimundo, The silence of God: the answer of the Buddha, (New York: Orbis Books, 1989), p 25-36, 78-96. Schmidt-Leukel, Perry, Buddhism and Christianity in dialogue: the Gerald Weisfeld Lectures 2004, (Indiana: Indiana University, 2005), p 23-28, 140-145. Suzuki, T. Daisetz, Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist, (New York: Forgetten Books, 1957), p 122-125. Wing, Hanaoka, Zen and Christianity: From the Standpoint of Absolute Nothingness, (Kyoto: Maruzen Publishing service, 2008), p 26-30. Yagi, Seiichi and Swidler, J. Leornard, A Bridge to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, (New York: Paulist Press, 1990), p 47-53. Read More