Are the majority of Christians and Muslims going to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts?

[SarathW]

Abrahamic religions teaches mundane right view which can lead to sensual heavens.

To do them justice, they don't do that. They teach something which you interpret to be mundane right view which can lead to sensual heavens.

This is a very good point.
Abrahamic religions do not teach the mundane right view.
According to Buddhism, they are wrong views.
Mundane right-view is limited to the Buddhists who are not Ariya.

[SarathW]

Since we're talking about Moses (edit: Moses was the topic in another thread, but perhaps still relevant here in comparing 10 Commandments with Buddhist Precepts), let's look at the Ten Commandments:

1. Thou shall have no other gods before me. I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4. Honour thy father and thy mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife or his slaves, or his animals, or anything of thy neighbour.

Number 3 corresponds to Uposatha Days.
Number 4 corresponds to general sila and respecting one's parents.
Number 5 corresponds to the First Precept (although buddhism includes all sentient beings, not just humans)
Number 6 corresponds to Third Precept
Number 7 corresponds to Second Precept
Number 8 corresponds to Fourth Precept
Numbers 9 & 10 corresponds to brahma viharas, not having greed and instead having mudita.

Only numbers 1 & 2 would be considered wrong view, from the buddhist perspective.

Actually, we can't compare the five precepts to the ten commandments.
If you practice five precepts the Abrahamic way it will be considered clinging to rites and rituals. ( Silabbatha Paramas )

[SecretSage]

Are these just rumors and stories you have heard in this world full of mara's lies, who's cunning is dull, or is this something you've experienced first hand?

I'm talking about based on Theravada teachings it seems like a lot of things Christians and Muslims support lead towards hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts.

Many Christian and Muslims support intolerance:

“Mendicants, there are these five drawbacks of intolerance. What five? Most people find you unlikable and unlovable. You’re cruel and remorseful. You feel lost when you die. And when your body breaks up, after death, you’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These are the five drawbacks to intolerance." AN 5.216

To kill and support killings:

“Mendicants, someone with four qualities is cast down to hell. What four? They themselves kill living creatures; they encourage others to kill living creatures; they approve of killing living creatures; and they praise killing living creatures. Someone with these four qualities is cast down to hell. " - AN 4.264

The 10 commandments doesn't really have much against bad speech, many Christians and Muslims speak harshly and divisively

“Bhikkhus, possessing ten qualities, one is deposited in hell as if brought there. What ten?

(1) “Here, someone destroys life; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.

(2) “He takes what is not given; he steals the wealth and property of others in the village or forest.

(3)“He engages in sexual misconduct; he has sexual relations with women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives; who are protected by their Dhamma; who have a husband; whose violation entails a penalty; or even with one already engaged.

(4) “He speaks falsehood. If he is summoned to a council, to an assembly, to his relatives’ presence, to his guild, or to the court, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do not know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not see.’ Thus he consciously speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.

(5) “He speaks divisively. Having heard something here, he repeats it elsewhere in order to divide those people from these; or having heard something elsewhere, he repeats it to these people in order to divide them from those. Thus he is one who divides those who are united, a creator of divisions, one who enjoys factions, rejoices in factions, delights in factions, a speaker of words that create factions.

(6) “He speaks harshly. He utters such words as are rough, hard, hurtful to others, offensive to others, bordering on anger, unconducive to concentration.

(7) “He indulges in idle chatter. He speaks at an improper time, speaks falsely, speaks what is unbeneficial, speaks contrary to the Dhamma and the discipline; at an improper time he speaks such words as are worthless, unreasonable, rambling, and unbeneficial.

(8)“He is full of longing. He longs for the wealth and property of others thus: ‘Oh, may what belongs to another be mine!’

(9) “He has a mind of ill will and intentions of hate thus: ‘May these beings be slain, slaughtered, cut off, destroyed, or annihilated!’

(10) “He holds wrong view and has an incorrect perspective thus: ‘There is nothing given, nothing sacrificed, nothing offered; there is no fruit or result of good and bad actions; there is no this world, no other world; there is no mother, no father; there are no beings spontaneously reborn; there are in the world no ascetics and brahmins of right conduct and right practice who, having realized this world and the other world for themselves by direct knowledge, make them known to others.’ - AN 10.211

Many Christians and Muslims also support warfare and killing animals which is mentioned caused people to go to hell.

Then also many Christians and Muslims have wrong views that there is no such thing as kamma, no power in deeds or energy all things happen by God's will rewarding or punishing others similar to Makkhali who The Buddha said was the greatest threat to the world.

“Mendicants, a hair blanket is said to be the worst kind of woven cloth. It’s cold in the cold, hot in the heat, ugly, smelly, and unpleasant to touch. In the same way, the teaching of Makkhali is said to be the worst of all the doctrines of the various ascetics and brahmins.

Makkhali, that silly man, has this doctrine and view: ‘There is no power in deeds, action, or energy.’

Now, all the perfected ones, the fully awakened Buddhas who lived in the past taught the efficacy of deeds, action, and energy. But Makkhali opposes them by saying: ‘There is no power in deeds, action, or energy.’" - AN 3.137

“Mendicants, I do not see a single other person who acts for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of many people, of devas and humans like that silly man, Makkhali. Just as a trap set at the mouth of a river would bring harm, suffering, calamity, and disaster for many fish, so too that silly man, Makkhali, is a trap for humans, it seems to me. He has arisen in the world for the harm, suffering, calamity, and disaster of many beings.” - AN 1.319

So based on my reading of Theravada I think that the majority of Christians and Muslims are probably going to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death except for those groups dedicated to metta (loving-kindness).

If people disagree with me they're free to explain themselves.

They're just like hell worshippers. Hopefully in the future Christianity and Islam will disappear we can create a better world here and how and in the afterlife....maybe that'll happen by the 2100s or 2200s.

When's the last time you've actually met a mean Christian or Muslim?

I know many Christians and Muslims who aren't mean but if you really want to know the main thing that convinced me to speak up against Christianity and Islam were devout Christians and Muslims who re-appeared as ghost spirits after death asking me "why didn't they go to heaven?". Then I thought in my mind "if a person is a devout Christian or Muslim they must achieve nothing but rebirth as a ghost spirit, how fruitless of a path, a teaching".

I saw others of other religions re-appear in the ghost realm as well but they were not devout followers.

Many Christian and Muslims don't really have any concept that suffering or anything negative exists they think that they're going to heaven no matter what with ideas like "it always work out in the end, it's always a happy story with a happy ending".

If someone observes the unbiased truth they would observe that both negative and positive things exist not only that positive things exist that people can only to go heaven I find that ridiculous.

If suffering exists in this world then why couldn't there be a such thing as suffering after death?

I think your question can be equally applicable to Buddhists too.
Only a Sotapanna has assured a favorable rebirth.

That's right I also think the majority of modern day Buddhists are going to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death but not because of Buddhist teachings because of themselves as an individual.

If the world is empty of arahants or those near arahant beings who speak up well then people will be prone to misinterpreting things, practicing incorrectly.

Even during the teacher's time it's just mentioned that some monks went to hell and some monks misinterpreted things...that was when the teacher was alive in a human body.

[Sam Vara]

If people disagree with me they're free to explain themselves.

Thanks! I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but two things combine to make me sceptical. The first relates to the suttas, where the Buddha cautioned against thinking that breaching sila and having wrong view in this lifetime necessarily means that a person will go to a bad post mortem destination.

But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html

Indeed, the Buddha specifically warned against trying to predict where a person's kamma will take them:

There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The second point is to do with your summary of what adherents of particular religions actually do. Many Christians and Muslims are doctrinally convinced, for example, that their actions do make a difference; they are very far from determinists. Many are open and tolerant, again based on scriptures. Christ himself warned against certain types of speech. And so on.

Conversely, although you quite rightly make the point that Buddhists should, according to their precepts, avoid certain things like speaking harshly, killing, etc., it's clear that in practice, many actually do those things. Hence Sarath's point about the risk of hell not being over until stream-entry.

[Mahabrahma]

If you think you're using the Dhamma to hurt anyone, or Christians and Muslims, that is not what the Dharma is for. So think again.

[Ontheway]

When their religion is of wrong views, I don't think it wil lead them to heaven.

I remember Lord Buddha said: holding wrong views can only lead to either animal birth or wind up in Hell realm.

[SecretSage]

If people disagree with me they're free to explain themselves.

Thanks! I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but two things combine to make me sceptical. The first relates to the suttas, where the Buddha cautioned against thinking that breaching sila and having wrong view in this lifetime necessarily means that a person will go to a bad post mortem destination.

But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html

Indeed, the Buddha specifically warned against trying to predict where a person's kamma will take them:

There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Well yes, but certain details about kamma are also very well explained.

It's explained that:

“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from bad bodily...bad verbal … bad mental conduct. But it is possible for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from bad bodily...bad verbal … bad mental conduct.”

“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from good bodily...good verbal … good mental conduct. But it is possible for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from good bodily...good verbal … good mental conduct.” - AN 1.284–289

This means when good people go to hell it's not on the account of being a good person but on the account of something else.
And when bad people go to heavenly realms it's not on the account of being a bad person but on the account of something else.

So I think that the majority of Christians and Muslims are probably going to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts on account of Christianity and Islam unless they follow more the metta type teachings.

The second point is to do with your summary of what adherents of particular religions actually do. Many Christians and Muslims are doctrinally convinced, for example, that their actions do make a difference; they are very far from determinists. Many are open and tolerant, again based on scriptures. Christ himself warned against certain types of speech. And so on.

Conversely, although you quite rightly make the point that Buddhists should, according to their precepts, avoid certain things like speaking harshly, killing, etc., it's clear that in practice, many actually do those things. Hence Sarath's point about the risk of hell not being over until stream-entry.

Well The Buddha wasn't really against determinism more against the belief that deeds, energy, action have no power.

Also Christianity, Islam, and basically every non-Buddhist religion isn't really a teaching just poorly explained stories, their teachings are just a collection of stories that can be interpreted in different ways.

The main distinction between the Sammasambuddha and others is in not only being fully enlightened but also being the Teacher.

It's explained that:

“Mendicants, the one who encourages someone in a poorly explained teaching and training, the one who they encourage, and the one who practices accordingly all make much bad karma. Why is that? Because the teaching is poorly explained.”

“Mendicants, the one who encourages someone in a well explained teaching and training, the one who they encourage, and the one who practices accordingly all make much merit. Why is that? Because the teaching is well explained.” - AN 1.320-321

What are Christian or Muslim teachings? No one really knows since it's just some stories interpreted differently by different people.

Some Christians and Muslims don't believe in an afterlife and others only believe in heaven.
Some Christians and Muslims don't believe that deeds, energy, action have any power whereas others do.
Some Christians and Muslims support warfare, intolerance, violence, beating children whereas others don't.

No one really knows what their religions mean since their teachings are poorly explained.

If you think you're using the Dhamma to hurt anyone, or Christians and Muslims, that is not what the Dharma is for. So think again.

I'm not using the dhamma to hurt anyone, it's many Christian, Muslim, and Communist atheist groups trying to exterminate any group that disagrees with them that's trying to hurt people including Buddhists...many want to exterminate Buddhism and any group who disagrees with them.

Many Christian, Muslim, and Communist groups do support intolerance, violence, and warfare.

Scholars have concluded that the Bible is actually more violent than the Qu'ran but many modern day Christians don't really support the Bible.

A Christian woman actually once told me that she disagreed with Jesus' teachings on love and supported warfare and fighting back.

Many Christian and Muslim support warfare for going to heaven this was similar to a warrior who asked The Buddha a question:

When a warrior strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already low, degraded, and misdirected as they think: ‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!’ His foes kill him and finish him off, and when his body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The Fallen’.

But if you have such a view: ‘Suppose a warrior, while striving and struggling in battle, is killed and finished off by his foes. When his body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the company of the gods of the fallen.’ This is your wrong view. An individual with wrong view is reborn in one of two places, I say: hell or the animal realm.” - SN 42.3

Warfare and violence generate such terribly negative kamma.

If we could convince Christian and Muslim groups to more support more metta (loving-kindness) teachings we could make the world here and now better and the afterlife better too.

Certain aspects of many non-Buddhist religions do support metta (loving-kindess) maybe we could convince them to practice more in that way.

I found some sayings of Muhammad supporting metta, Muhammad says:
- "Do you love your Creator? Love your fellow being first"
- "Adhere to the truth, for truth leads to good deeds and good deeds leads to Paradise"
- "They will enter the Garden of Bliss who have a true, pure, and merciful heart"
- "Ye will not enter Paradise until ye have faith and ye will not have faith until ye love each other"

But the Christian and Muslim teachings are poorly explained so I'm convinced that the majority are probably going to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death.

When their religion is of wrong views, I don't think it wil lead them to heaven.

I remember Lord Buddha said: holding wrong views can only lead to either animal birth or wind up in Hell realm.

Yes this is mentioned many times that on the account of wrong views someone's goes to hell or the animal realm.

From my own direct experience and observations I'm sure that the modern world is on fire...people sin ceaselessly without thinking of it as anything bad.

The life expectancy is still the same as in The Buddha's time eliminating deaths connected to the infant mortality rate, physical injuries, and drugs around the 70s/80s.

It's mentioned many times in the Theravada sutta that a long life back then meant a "100 years or a little longer" same as now. Since we don't live in a time-period where's people live to 200 or longer I can be pretty certain it's the same age.

It's also mentioned that violence and killing causes rebirth in hell or a short lifespan:

“Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell.

But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings." - MN 135

I know a few wealthy people that appeared healthy and went to doctor commonly but still unexpectedly died in their 40s/50s....they did a lot of fishing and hunting and were killers of animals.

People in this modern world still sin ceaselessly and generate painful feelings. Like you might drive with someone who thinks of themselves a good person and all of a sudden they see something they don't like and start shouting "this guy's an idiot, why did they do this, why didn't they do that, why can't they do this" and so on it's just normal common they generate painful feelings automatically without caring.

They probably came from hellish worlds prior to their human existence...they use to be murderers.

[Sam Vara]

If people disagree with me they're free to explain themselves.

Thanks! I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but two things combine to make me sceptical. The first relates to the suttas, where the Buddha cautioned against thinking that breaching sila and having wrong view in this lifetime necessarily means that a person will go to a bad post mortem destination.

But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html

Indeed, the Buddha specifically warned against trying to predict where a person's kamma will take them:

There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Well yes, but certain details about kamma are also very well explained.

It's explained that:

“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from bad bodily...bad verbal … bad mental conduct. But it is possible for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from bad bodily...bad verbal … bad mental conduct.”

“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for an unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable result to come from good bodily...good verbal … good mental conduct. But it is possible for a likable, desirable, agreeable result to come from good bodily...good verbal … good mental conduct.” - AN 1.284–289

This means when good people go to hell it's not on the account of being a good person but on the account of something else.
And when bad people go to heavenly realms it's not on the account of being a bad person but on the account of something else.

So I think that the majority of Christians and Muslims are probably going to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts on account of Christianity and Islam unless they follow more the metta type teachings.

Well, you are entitled to your view, of course, but I don't find as much evidence to support it in my own experience. Even if your major premise is true (i.e. that people go to hell, the animal realm, etc. as a result of doing certain things) I see lots of Christians and Muslims who seem to have beautiful intentions towards others, and do the things that Buddhists ought to be doing. But ultimately, we don't know people's intentions. And Christians and Muslims would not, of course, even agree with you that one can be reborn in an animal or hungry ghost realm. That's a cosmology that you have chosen without, I assume, any personal experience.

Also Christianity, Islam, and basically every non-Buddhist religion isn't really a teaching just poorly explained stories, their teachings are just a collection of stories that can be interpreted in different ways.

Again, you are entitled to that view if it makes you happy, but how would you answer the Christian or Muslim who claims that their religion does contain teachings, that their stories are well explained, and that - to them - Theravada Buddhism looks like an incoherent collection of philosophical theories which can be interpreted in different ways? I mean, there's no shortage of different interpretations on this forum, is there?!

[Ontheway]

Theravada Buddhism looks like an incoherent collection of philosophical theories which can be interpreted in different ways? I mean, there's no shortage of different interpretations on this forum, is there?!

No, that's not true. The existence of different interpretations is due to the rejection of traditional Theravada.

Theravada (Doctrine of Elders) is intact teachings preserved via councils of Arahants and it is very well preserved as what EBTs people called "classical Theravada"

Actually, Theravada is just Theravada. There's no classical Theravada or EBT Theravada or western Theravada or Asian Theravada. Theravada is what we known as Vibhajjavada, contains Pali Tipitaka along with Atthakatha as tradition scriptures. It is consistent and still making impacts in countless people nowadays.

It is a mistake to compare Theravada with Christianity. Christianity relied on faith on a Creator God that human beings have no control of their own senses but only to submit themselves to this Creator God concept. Christianity has this concept called Original Sin and Theravada has the concept of Kilesa. But Original Sin concept is very toxic as it suggests that such Original Sin can only be forgiven by God, in which our happiness lies in the hand of others; but Kilesa is something that can be removed by our practices, which we are in power and responsible for our own happiness.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings SecretSage,

If people disagree with me they're free to explain themselves.

I think the main problem with your analysis is that you're not adequately differentiating between people who know and follow their selected scriptures, from that those who don't follow the teachings of their religion.

Yet, if all Buddhists adhered to the Buddha's scriptures, would Burma and Sri Lanka be in perpetual civil war, turmoil and dispute?

Similarly, what you describe as Christian seems to have little correlation to what I've seen in the New Testament. (I cannot speak for the Qur'an as I've never had any inclination to look into it).

Anyway, if you're going to compare scripture with scripture, fine. If you're going to compare behaviour with behaviour, fine... but what you've written reads like a partisan hit-job, as you're not comparing like for like. Sorry.

Metta,
Paul.

[Mahabrahma]

Once the Dalai Lama was doing a large group Meditation, and showed that every Spiritual Path can Meditate in their own way, including Islam, asking Muslims to envision Mecca as their object of Meditation.

[TRobinson465]

The majority of people are going to the unfortunate realms in this day and age. The Buddha even said the ratio of heaven to hell is like the horns of a bull compared to the hairs. Buddhists, christians, muslims and athiests included. Among Buddhists in the Buddha's time, this probably wasnt true, most Buddhists went to fortunate realms or attained nibbana in his time, but nowadays its a different story. Religion and character is not the same thing.

There are many good christians like Jimmy Carter out there who dedicate thier lives to charity and relieving the suffering of others. Many muslims who give generously and act with good conduct and eschew the violent interpretations of the quran. There are also many Buddhists out there who are not good people, run night clubs, brothels, kill animals or steal/cheat people routinely. Every Burmese military dictator and almost every Thai military dictator has been Buddhist, yet they are greedy, power hungry tyrants who violently suppress dissent and throw ppl in jail on trumped up charges.

If every Buddhist followed the word of the Buddha perfectly, or at least with good effort, the vast majority would go to heaven or higher. but most Buddhists dont. If the majority of christians followed the word of Jesus perfectly or at least with good effort, the majority would probably also go to heaven, except for the ones who see the old testament barbarism as superceding Jesus's comments on love and peace. but most christians dont. Muslims its the same, majority would probably go to heaven if they followed the zagat and all the nice stuff in the koran, the ones who wouldnt are the ones who interpret the violent passages as literal, which most dont.

Scripture does not equal character.

[Sam Vara]

Theravada Buddhism looks like an incoherent collection of philosophical theories which can be interpreted in different ways? I mean, there's no shortage of different interpretations on this forum, is there?!

No, that's not true. The existence of different interpretations is due to the rejection of traditional Theravada.

Theravada (Doctrine of Elders) is intact teachings preserved via councils of Arahants and it is very well preserved as what EBTs people called "classical Theravada"

Actually, Theravada is just Theravada. There's no classical Theravada or EBT Theravada or western Theravada or Asian Theravada. Theravada is what we known as Vibhajjavada, contains Pali Tipitaka along with Atthakatha as tradition scriptures. It is consistent and still making impacts in countless people nowadays.

Have a look again at the point I'm making. "How would you answer Christians and Muslims who think that Theravada looks like an incoherent jumble of philosophical theories which can be interpreted in different ways". Just as you are certain that there is a definite and coherent set of teachings which is the "real Theravada", so there are Christians and Muslims who say exactly the same about their faith and texts and teachings.

It is a mistake to compare Theravada with Christianity. Christianity relied on faith on a Creator God that human beings have no control of their own senses but only to submit themselves to this Creator God concept. Christianity has this concept called Original Sin and Theravada has the concept of Kilesa. But Original Sin concept is very toxic as it suggests that such Original Sin can only be forgiven by God, in which our happiness lies in the hand of others; but Kilesa is something that can be removed by our practices, which we are in power and responsible for our own happiness.

This passage exemplifies what the problem is. You don't know enough about Christianity to make those sort of claims about Christianity as a whole. They seem to be based upon an extrapolation from ideas that you have heard about, but which are not typical of Christianity as a whole. It's like a Christian stumbling upon the writings of (say) Ñāṇavīra, and criticising Theravadan Buddhism for being overly influenced by existentialism.

[Mumfie]

Mundane right-view is limited to the Buddhists who are not Ariya.

The Buddha didn't seem to think that it was limited to these.

In the Vinaya he makes it a requirement that samanas from outside dhammas should undergo four months probation before being allowed bhikkhu ordination. But later he grants several exemptions. One of these is to the Jaṭilas and is granted precisely on the grounds that the Jaṭila dhamma affirms kammic efficacy:

Ye te, bhikkhave, aggikā Jaṭilakā, te āgatā upasam­pā­detabbā, na tesaṃ parivāso dātabbo. Taṃ kissa hetu? Kammavādino ete, bhikkhave, kiriyavādino.

"Monks, if those come who are fire-worshipping matted hair ascetics they may be ordained, probation should not be given to these. What is the reason for this? These, monks, are affirmers of kamma, affirmers of kammic efficacy."

Commentary:

Ete bhikkhave kiriyavādino ti ete kiriyaṃ na paṭibāhanti, ‘‘atthi kammaṃ, atthi kammavipāko’’ti evaṃdiṭṭhikā.

"These, monks, are affirmers of kammic efficacy" means that they do not deny kammic efficacy. 'There is kamma and there is ripening of kamma,' – such is their view.

See also the Cankisutta, in which we find the brahmin Cankī praising the Buddha for being a kiriyavādin. Since the praise is given before Cankī's conversion, the implication is that he himself was already a kiriyavādin even before meeting the Buddha.

[SarathW]

Mundane right-view is limited to the Buddhists who are not Ariya.

The Buddha didn't seem to think that it was limited to these.

In the Vinaya he makes it a requirement that samanas from outside dhammas should undergo four months probation before being allowed bhikkhu ordination. But later he grants several exemptions. One of these is to the Jaṭilas and is granted precisely on the grounds that the Jaṭila dhamma affirms kammic efficacy:

Ye te, bhikkhave, aggikā Jaṭilakā, te āgatā upasam­pā­detabbā, na tesaṃ parivāso dātabbo. Taṃ kissa hetu? Kammavādino ete, bhikkhave, kiriyavādino.

"Monks, if those come who are fire-worshipping matted hair ascetics they may be ordained, probation should not be given to these. What is the reason for this? These, monks, are affirmers of kamma, affirmers of kammic efficacy."

Commentary:

Ete bhikkhave kiriyavādino ti ete kiriyaṃ na paṭibāhanti, ‘‘atthi kammaṃ, atthi kammavipāko’’ti evaṃdiṭṭhikā.

"These, monks, are affirmers of kammic efficacy" means that they do not deny kammic efficacy. 'There is kamma and there is ripening of kamma,' – such is their view.

See also the Cankisutta, in which we find the brahmin Cankī praising the Buddha for being a kiriyavādin. Since the praise is given before Cankī's conversion, the implication is that he himself was already a kiriyavādin even before meeting the Buddha.

So in your opinion that Alara Kalama and Uddhakarama would have had the right view?
On what grounds?