27 Aug, 06:54PM in sunny Singapore!

Recent Posts by BroInChrist

Subscribe to Recent Posts by BroInChrist

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by A dot dot B dot dot:

      Atheists debunked the existence of Jesus but waste no time in circulating the similarities between Jesus and some pagan gods.  

       

      This is one of them.

       

       

       

      Atheists are confused people who cannot decide whether they do not believe in the existence of god or they believe in the ancient religion.  

      Free thinkers are called free thinkers because they do not think.

       

      what say you? 

      Has any atheist successfully debunked the existence of Jesus? Who might that be? I know there are those who tried but did they succeed?

      Then there are a few who write books attempting to prove the non-existence of Jesus yet their books are copyrighted with the year 19xx or 20xx which is with reference to the birth of Jesus.

      Irony huh? It's like writing a book to tell people that reading books are a waste of time.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aik TC:

       

      This is a Buddhist Forum, kindly stop bringing in your Christian perspectives and views here. Place them in some other Christian forums instead.

      Noted. Thanks to all in this forum who have taken the time to interact with me. I will now take my leave from this forum.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by NDQ:

      Hello all,

       

      I have an issue that's been bothering me lately, that is, per Master Hsuan Hua below remarriage is a sexual misconduct? Been looking into this matter and came across several source that said remarriage is allowed in Buddhism, but that seems contradicting to what was said here. Anyone has insight on this?

      http://www.dharmasite.net/bdh59/whatghostsare.html

      If I may add a Christian perspective to this. The issue of sexual misconduct is addressed in the Bible too. The Bible has a lot to say about sex!

      Firstly, God created the first man and first woman. It was thus heterosexual relationship. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This is the basis for marriage between one man and one woman. Neither did God make one man and many women, for that would imply polygamy. It was one man one woman.

      Secondly, marriage is the closest union because Eve was taken from the side of Adam, thus the notion of husband and wife as "one flesh" union. It was so historically and thus so now.

      Thirdly, the body is supposed to be the temple of God, which is why God restrict sexual relations to husband and wife.

      Fourthly, the Bible is silent on the issue of remarriage, and Christians have differing views on this.

      Fifthly, the notion of sexual misconduct presupposes that there is right conduct in terms of sexuality. What is this right conduct? Where do we get the notion of right conduct from?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      i dont' think it has no basis in dharma (since ultimately everything is false:). i can say it do have it's effectiveness in his time period. i think Dharma can have infinite possibilities, hence the saying of 84000 method 八万四千法门. and from the Diamond cutter there's no dead fixed dharma door 法无定法.

      http://baike.baidu.com/view/1771178.htm 

      just like Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche mentioned in his talk, that some "cult"-like-buddhist application had it's effectiveness in some way, due to its inner meaning.  

      /\

      Would the statement "ultimately everything is false" be subject to itself too? If everything is false, then so is that statement!

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by zeus29:

       

      In what way is the question of God's existence irrelevant? I think it is very relevant and has big implications for Buddhism. Why? Because if God exists, then many of the doctrines and teachings of Buddha would have to be reconsidered. Same for Christianity, if there is no God there would be grave implications for my faith. I cannot simply say I don't care and think that would make the problem go away. To do so would be exhibiting blind faith.

      >>>> "In what way is the question of God's existence irrelevant?" > good for you. for us, we've told you before. no point going in circles. 

      >>>> "I think it is very relevant and has big implications for Buddhism." -> exactly, that's only what you think.

      >>>> "Why? Because if God exists, then many of the doctrines and teachings of Buddha would have to be reconsidered." -> not really. we are action-oriented. refer to eightfold path

      >>>> "I cannot simply say I don't care and think that would make the problem go away." -> is it a problem? what is the problem?

      >>>> "To do so would be exhibiting blind faith." -> we don't. do you remember the following? 

      – Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.

      – Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.

      – Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.

      – Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.

      – Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.

      – Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.

      – Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.

      – But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

      The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.

      – Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.

       

      I do not know what you intend to demonstrate with that mathematical issue. You think I have a problem with that? I don't. There are infinite mathematical equations to get the number 2. But what is this supposed to prove anyway? Every single equation there is objectively true, just as 1+1=2 is. It seems that you are making a categorical mistake in assuming all truths can be reduced to mere mathematical truths.

      >>>> "I do not know what you intend to demonstrate with that mathematical issue. You think I have a problem with that? I don't." -> ok. let me explain. we believe in many paths, hence the 84,000 dharma doors. there is no just one way. Some meditate, some chant, etc. another way, one chooses to walk the christian path, buddhist path, muslim path, jewish path, hindu path, sikh path, bahaii path etc. if the teaching resonates with one and helps one become a better person, why not? THERE IS NO ONE WAY. EVERYONE IS UNIQUE. JUST LIKE YOU AND ME.

      >>>> "It seems that you are making a categorical mistake in assuming all truths can be reduced to mere mathematical truths." -> first of all, mistake? what mistake? you decide? you make the call on what's mistake or not? i don't think i gave you the mandate. secondly, eh, i thought you said "if one is true, it's true for all". no? anyway, how do to test something so abstract such as the existence of this creator god. i put aside my buddhism, you put aside your christianity. pray tell, how to test?

       

      If God exists, then God would have told us how to get right with Him. Surely this would have implications for your 8 fold path. Buddha did not claim to hear from God and he came up with the teachings all by himself. That means he could well be wrong about the causes of suffering and the solution to it.

      You said you do not have blind faith. But what aspect of Buddhism teachings have you employed the advice you cited? For example, the notion of no-self or not-self, how do you go about examining whether this notion is true or not?

      Did the Buddha teach that there are many ways to attain Nirvana? Please do not confuse this with the many ways that one can do good works. Whether the 5 precepts or the 8 fold paths, are there any other ways that the Buddha taught?

      The Christian way of salvation is entirely different from the Buddhist way of liberation from samsara, both have opposing foundational beliefs, so both cannot be equally true. The issue of resonance is thus misguided. It must be whether the path is true, not whether you like the path.

      I don't need you to give me any mandate when it comes to making judgments on what you claim. I think we all can employ critical thinking in these matters. When I say that you make a mistake I explained why.

       

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      hello, u are looking at Fourth Buddhist Council.

      if u are into Buddha and his teaching, u do have to based on Buddha and his teaching. same as u to yours.

      /\

       

      The point is that it was preserved orally and written down only centuries later. You can only take it by faith that what was recorded centuries later was what was uttered by Buddha himself.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      re it had more profound meaning than a car knocking down a jay-walker which is still retrospect. like said, it's about introspect rather than retrospect. it's a form of wisdom in teaching.

      our approach also as mentioned is just about "seeing/testing for yourself is believing".

      that's when i said, faith can be misused when one is too obsessed with one's religion, including Buddhism.

      /\

      What is the wisdom in teaching supposed to teach when you deny that it is the flag or wind that moves?

      I have no problem with seeing or testing for yourself with regards to truth claims. The Bible tells us to do that.

      I think the issue is not about obsession, misuse is not obsession. The problem is when people either understood the teaching wrongly, or the teaching is wrong to begin with.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      by the word contingent u mean not necessary or questionable?

      it's not refering to necessary or not necessary. everything that existed, is just like an illusions/dream, due to continuous changing and dependent arising. "affirms the existence of existence" mean there's existence/phenomona/creation/manifestions, but no permanent inherent existence. it's the ultimate truth/noumenon. everything is inter-connected(quantum physic theory).

      the "necessary" source is not a being. it's neither changing nor not changing. it's BOTH and neither. to say just not changing is a disgrace to the Ultimate source. however it does have the functions of 见闻觉知(see, hear, sense, & cognize) which are the Essential Nature of Tathagata and ALL Phenomena.

      imagine a being/entity/God that look like a Man, with all the organs, skin, eyes, face, hair, height, size and also have a man's organ etc. then there must be some type of look. a handsome look? a normal looking man? does it look like Morgan Freeman? like in the movies Evan Almighty or Bruce Almighty ? Is he black, white or asian looking? might be a mix of all ethnic group or from the middle east. organs are for supporting life. if can life forever, what is a human form with all the organs for? and why must He, not she? why discriminate women? that's what make the religion questionable/ irrational/nonsensical.

      if there's a being form then to us is just a divine/deva being in heavenly realms. to us the Ultimate source do not have a personal form what so ever. it cannot be found, aka sunyata. yet all manifesting.

      Buddhism is flexibility rather than rigid/stubborn. one universe began to exist at a certain time, yes, but before that there was a previous universe. if there's a very beginning of universeS then it will disgrace the Ultimate source's perfect manifestation. the explaination of time in Buddhism is close to science that talk about light-years. note that :

      Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed.

      the Void period, is also about 1/4 of universe's life-span! so people might think that the universe had ended. but not actually. after certain long aeon, it will start again. to me, this explaination are very science like, rather than story like.

      (Abhidhamma is our science in Buddhism. http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/425491 . there's less tale-like/story-form teaching. ) time space in Buddhism IS inconceivable!.

      /\

       

      By contingent is it means that the entity need not have existed or the event need not have happened. But just because things/events are contingent it does not mean they are illusions. The problem would be in mistaking that which is contingent as necessary, which is what I think the Buddha was addressing. Where I think he went wrong was in saying that therefore ALL things are contingent and thus illusion. But if everything is an illusion, does that apply to that statement itself? If so, it self-refute. If not, then that statement is false.

      I have no idea what this ultimate source it is that you refer to. Basically you would deny that it is God but somehow it is being reified or deified to be like God.

      Anyway, movies are movies, take them as pure entertainment. God is Spirit, and thus any physical manifestation of Him (a theophany or even the incarnation) should not be idolised. God has no physical attributes because He is an invisible spirit. The God of the Bible is thus transcendent yet immanent. He is distinct from His creation but yet can act within His creation.

      We only know of one universe which is the one we live in. It is not scientific to speak of multiverses or prior universes at all. And neither is there any evidence to think that the universe is cyclical. Such a notion goes against what we know in science. Where does the energy come from to kick start the big bang?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      u hearsay. not centuries, if not 3 months, then a year later.

      if refering to earth's life span, Buddha mentioned that He is the fourth Buddha, there are three others.

       

      and not to mentioned the jakata stories of Buddha's past lifes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales

      /\

      According to Wiki it is centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon

      Whether Buddha claimed to be the 4th Buddha or not, the fact remains that Buddhism is only based on Buddha, not anything prior to him. There is no Buddhism or practice of it before Buddha existed.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by zeus29:

       

      Like I said, the answers you gave are but variations of the "true for you but not for me" self-refuting slogan. The irony is that such replies are immature and ridiculous.
      >>>> "the answers you gave are but variations of the "true for you but not for me" self-refuting slogan." -> I don't think so. 
      >>>> "The irony is that such replies are immature and ridiculous." -> and I think the same for your comments like "willing to bite the bullet" "shoot yourself in the foot"

      I am telling you that your repeated slogan of "true for you but not for me" is false, and till now you still can't see that? I know you don't believe in God, or rather, you don't know if there is a God or not since that is a question the Buddha evaded. I am referring to your wrong ideas about the nature of truth.
      >>>> and I'm saying that "I am telling you that your repeated slogan of "true for you but not for me" is false" is true for you not me. I disagree.
      >>>> "I know you don't believe in God, or rather, you don't know if there is a God or not since that is a question the Buddha evaded." -> sure. Despite many attempts to tell you how irrelevant that question is to us. But yeah whatever suits you. Doesn't affect us at all.
      >>>> "i am referring to your wrong ideas about the nature of truth." -> which is?

      I think you have trouble understanding that you yourself intended the statement "true for you but not for me" to be true for both you and for me too.
      >>>> no trouble at all. We offer you the space and freedom for you believe whatever you choose to believe. Do you offer the same? Mind you, you're the one who keeps telling us that there is creator god and its importance even though we have told you countless times that it doesn't matter to us AT ALL. Remember?


      and remember the number 2? i wonder which one is THE TRUTH. (mind you, the list is not limited to below). i trust you know what i'm demonstrating here. 

       0.01 + 1.99 =
       0.02 + 1.98 = 2 
       0.03 + 1.97 = 2 
       0.04 + 1.96 = 2 
       0.05 + 1.95 = 2 
       0.06 + 1.94 = 2 
       0.07 + 1.93 = 2 
       0.08 + 1.92 = 2 
       0.09 + 1.91 = 2 
       0.10 + 1.90 = 2 
       0.11 + 1.89 = 2 
       0.12 + 1.88 = 2 
       0.13 + 1.87 = 2 
       0.14 + 1.86 = 2 
       0.15 + 1.85 = 2 
       0.16 + 1.84 = 2 
       0.17 + 1.83 = 2 
       0.18 + 1.82 = 2 
       0.19 + 1.81 = 2 
       0.20 + 1.80 = 2 
       0.21 + 1.79 = 2 
       0.22 + 1.78 = 2 
       0.23 + 1.77 = 2 
       0.24 + 1.76 = 2 
       0.25 + 1.75 = 2 
       0.26 + 1.74 = 2 
       0.27 + 1.73 = 2 
       0.28 + 1.72 = 2 
       0.29 + 1.71 = 2 
       0.30 + 1.70 = 2 
       0.31 + 1.69 = 2 
       0.32 + 1.68 = 2 
       0.33 + 1.67 = 2 
       0.34 + 1.66 = 2 
       0.35 + 1.65 = 2 
       0.36 + 1.64 = 2 
       0.37 + 1.63 = 2 
       0.38 + 1.62 = 2 
       0.39 + 1.61 = 2 
       0.40 + 1.60 = 2 
       0.41 + 1.59 = 2 
       0.42 + 1.58 = 2 
       0.43 + 1.57 = 2 
       0.44 + 1.56 = 2 
       0.45 + 1.55 = 2 
       0.46 + 1.54 = 2 
       0.47 + 1.53 = 2 
       0.48 + 1.52 = 2 
       0.49 + 1.51 = 2 
       0.50 + 1.50 = 2 
       0.51 + 1.49 = 2 
       0.52 + 1.48 = 2 
       0.53 + 1.47 = 2 
       0.54 + 1.46 = 2 
       0.55 + 1.45 = 2 
       0.56 + 1.44 = 2 
       0.57 + 1.43 = 2 
       0.58 + 1.42 = 2 
       0.59 + 1.41 = 2 
       0.60 + 1.40 = 2 
       0.61 + 1.39 = 2 
       0.62 + 1.38 = 2 
       0.63 + 1.37 = 2 
       0.64 + 1.36 = 2 
       0.65 + 1.35 = 2 
       0.66 + 1.34 = 2 
       0.67 + 1.33 = 2 
       0.68 + 1.32 = 2 
       0.69 + 1.31 = 2 
       0.70 + 1.30 = 2 
       0.71 + 1.29 = 2 
       0.72 + 1.28 = 2 
       0.73 + 1.27 = 2 
       0.74 + 1.26 = 2 
       0.75 + 1.25 = 2 
       0.76 + 1.24 = 2 
       0.77 + 1.23 = 2 
       0.78 + 1.22 = 2 
       0.79 + 1.21 = 2 
       0.80 + 1.20 = 2 
       0.81 + 1.19 = 2 
       0.82 + 1.18 = 2 
       0.83 + 1.17 = 2 
       0.84 + 1.16 = 2 
       0.85 + 1.15 = 2 
       0.86 + 1.14 = 2 
       0.87 + 1.13 = 2 
       0.88 + 1.12 = 2 
       0.89 + 1.11 = 2 
       0.90 + 1.10 = 2 
       0.91 + 1.09 = 2 
       0.92 + 1.08 = 2 
       0.93 + 1.07 = 2 
       0.94 + 1.06 = 2 
       0.95 + 1.05 = 2 
       0.96 + 1.04 = 2 
       0.97 + 1.03 = 2 
      font-family: MarkerFelt-Thin; font-size: 18px; line-height: 24px;

      In what way is the question of God's existence irrelevant? I think it is very relevant and has big implications for Buddhism. Why? Because if God exists, then many of the doctrines and teachings of Buddha would have to be reconsidered. Same for Christianity, if there is no God there would be grave implications for my faith. I cannot simply say I don't care and think that would make the problem go away. To do so would be exhibiting blind faith.

      I do not know what you intend to demonstrate with that mathematical issue. You think I have a problem with that? I don't. There are infinite mathematical equations to get the number 2. But what is this supposed to prove anyway? Every single equation there is objectively true, just as 1+1=2 is. It seems that you are making a categorical mistake in assuming all truths can be reduced to mere mathematical truths.

       

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      that makes Buddhism flexible and not rigid/extremist. possibilities are infinite. and ironically, middle way Is the enlightenment nature of Buddhism.

      When the Buddha renounced his princely world he became an Ascetic.

      He lived on very little food and his body became skeletal. He was very severe in his methods. He tried various forms of asceticism but still he failed to accomplish his goal.

      Eventually he realised that his approach was wrong he determined that the best path was one of moderation... A middle-way between indulgence and abstinence. He is said to have drawn a metaphor between the way we think and act and a bow string on a musical instrument. If a bow string is too taught it will snap when played; if it is too loose it will produce an inferior tone. Likewise, said the Buddha, we should walk the middle path to achieve optimum results.

      It was at this stage when he followed "The Middle Way" he reached Enlightenment whilst Meditating under a Bodi tree.

      it's also the wisdom on how one should live his/her life. that's the reality.

      /\

      On the contrary, I think it makes Buddhism impervious to being faulted! If you refuse to give a clear definite answer, then any answer will do. I am sure if Christians give you this type of answer you will find fault. For example, do all nonbelievers go to hell? Well, I won't say yes and I won't say no. Go figure! Pardon me for saying this but this sounds more the evasive way than the enlightened way. It's like always giving yourself the escape door.

      The problem with indulgence and ascetism is not just because they are extremes, but because there is simply no basis to think that these are the ways out of suffering. When Jesus was on earth He ate with sinners (and was faulted for that by the hypocritical religious leaders) and He also fasted and prayed. In other words, there is a time for everything. So it is not about right, left or middle way. But that there is a time for everything. There is a time to fast and there is a time to feast.

       

       

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      there IS a clear answer to it. u have to find it out urself.

      Buddhism have a different approach to truth. there's no much of blindly believe.

       

      • Do not believe what I've said without investigating wisely and deeply. Use ur intelligence,find out for urself. This is the Buddha's attitude of Ehi Passiko...come and see for urself!

        E.g : I can tell u that an apple is really sweet and delicious for 3 hours but u won't know what it actually taste like until u urself try it. To blindly belief me that the apple is delicious is foolish.

      Initially, prajñā is attained at a conceptual level by means of listening to sermons (dharma talks), reading, studying, and sometimes reciting Buddhist texts and engaging in discourse. Once the conceptual understanding is attained, it is applied to daily life so that each Buddhist can verify the truth of the Buddha's teaching at a practical level. Notably, one could in theory attain Nirvana at any point of practice, whether deep in meditation, listening to a sermon, conducting the business of one's daily life, or any other activity.

      Extremists can also use the name of Truth to do sucide bombing btw. where is wisdom in truth? truth that lack wisdom is as good as no truth. in Buddhism wisdom/middle way is very important.

      /\

      Re the flag and the wind, I believe the answer has got to do with the mind, but this is not the proper answer to give at all. It is again more like playing mind games. It's like witnessing a car knocking down a jay-walker. Which is moving? My answer is both. Yours? The mind? So it did not happen at all?

      How many approaches are there to truth anyway? You said not to blindly believe, but I am afraid you did not really walk the talk. There are truths that can be experienced and there are truths that can only be known cognitively. Yes, there is a sense in which the truth can be both cognitively grasped and also experienced. But trusting someone need not be seen as blindly believe, so long as one has a good reason for trusting. 

      Bringing in the issue of suicide bombers is a red herring.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by 2009novice:

      but it didn't appear icon_lol.gif

      Not true. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is seen in that which was made. And about 2000 years ago God became human in the person of Jesus Christ.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      all i can say is, to us, IT neither change non do not change. to say a word of it is misinterpreting IT. creation is prefect when it never stop creating. if creation had a start and simple just end like that, makes it less interesting per se.

      /\

      Again the answer you gave violates the law of the excluded middle. It makes communication difficult if not impossible because the answer refuses to nail down the answer.

      Whether the answer is interesting or not is a matter of subjectivity. The issue is whether the answer makes sense and corresponds to reality.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      sorry i see that which u think is necessary is Not even contingent(if personal). we already had our scientific analysis. sunyata Is the necessary for all to exist.  without sunyata, everything is not possible. sunyata IS change. 

      It affirms the existence of existence; but negates the self nature of existence. 

      A water fall seen from a distance appears like a shiny solid sheet in one complete piece. but upon closer inspection, we see clearly that the pieces is only a continous flowing stream of water. there is essentially no fixed waterfall, there is only water falling. 

      /\

      That which changes is caused ultimately by that which is unchanging, aka the necessary being.

      The statement "affirms the existence of existence" sounds irrational. Something either exists or it does not. That which exists is either contingent or necessary. The entire universe began to exist a finite time ago, it is thus contingent. The cause of the universe is not.

      Water falling or water fall? Mere semantics and grammar tense. One is noun whereas the other is present continuous tense. Surely it is strange to base doctrine on the syntax and grammar of language? Yes, the waterfall may not have existed before, but insofar as it has been there, it is true that it existed or is existing if it is still there. The issue of existence is distinct from the duration of its existence.

       

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      written down mean He did existed before. actually First council was three mths after Buddha's death.

      Naturalistic does not concern good or bad btw. it's the personal minds that discriminate the good and bad. like money, is a neutral thing. its human charity and greed that makes it good or bad. like water, water is again neutral. it can support life mean it's good. it can destroy life mean it's bad. same thing goes with the ultimate source and the karmic law. there's no good or bad. it's neutral, it does not need to think in order to work. hence it's impersonal

      erm history of buddhism as recorded is past lifes after past lifes, eons after eons, previous Buddhas after previous Buddhas. much much more earlier than this mere earth lifespan BTW, let alone the age of tower of B. 

      /\

       

      Note that it was a grand gathering of recitation. It was not written down until centuries later.

      It is precisely the naturalistic fallacy I am pointing out, that you get what ought from what is.

      It is really a moot point to assert that history of Buddhism went into the eons past before there was any earth when the writings and teachings of Buddhism only came about 2500 years ago. http://buddhism.about.com/od/thetripitaka/a/tripitakahistor.htm

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by zeus29:
      Looking back at our exchanges It seems to me that you are unable to articulate any rational defense of Buddhism, except to vary your answers along the same self-refuting and self-defeating slogan of "what's true for you is true for you but not for me" which is intended to be conversation-stopper.
      >>>> defend Buddhism from what? How is it self-refuting and self-defeating? Did I give you answers that you didn't want to hear or "bite the bullet" or "shoot myself in the foot"? Lol. How ridiculous and somewhat immature.

      What's even worst is that you can't see how the slogan is nonsensical and self-defeating since you are expecting me to agree with you that the slogan is true for me as well as it is for you which renders the slogan false. If it is true then it is false! Or is that slogan just true for you??? Why should it apply to me?
      >>>> can't see that at all. Why would it be nonsensical? We are saying if Christianity works for you, great. If you believe in creator god, great. We don't. Just because you care about creator god, it doesn't mean we do. As mentioned countless times, we neither reject nor accept there is creator god. We work on our own liberation with or without the presence of this creator god.

      You thus fail to see that statements like “That’s true for you, but not for me” are not only self-contradictory but guilty of the self-excepting fallacy. You cannot even be consistent on applying it to yourself.
      >>>> do you have trouble reading or understanding or both? I said what's true for you is for you and what's true for us is for us. Where's the inconsistency? Looking at earlier posts, I find your arguments have more inconsistencies which I had pointed out earlier. Perhaps, you should try meditating? It's nonsectarian and many people have benefited from it. www.dhamma.org

      Like I said, the answers you gave are but variations of the "true for you but not for me" self-refuting slogan. The irony is that such replies are immature and ridiculous.

      I am telling you that your repeated slogan of "true for you but not for me" is false, and till now you still can't see that? I know you don't believe in God, or rather, you don't know if there is a God or not since that is a question the Buddha evaded. I am referring to your wrong ideas about the nature of truth.

      I think you have trouble understanding that you yourself intended the statement "true for you but not for me" to be true for both you and for me too.

       

       

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by zeus29:

      If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking.

      >>>> "If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet?" -> It's universally true for me. so, how?

      >>>> "Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking." -> were you expecting something else? LOL! i find your way of thinking amusing.

       

      Yes, there are many colours, but here you are confusing colours with the notion of truth. How can there be many truths? Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?

      >>>> oh so, grey is not the greatest colour? but it is for me.

      >>>> "Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?" -> are you still ignorant to our position? we said whether god exists or not, it doesn't matter to us. we neither accept nor reject. YOU UNDERSTAND?

      >>>> "Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?" -> he was in person just like jesus. so, what do you think?

       

      You said I should realise that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different perspectives. But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'

      >>>> "But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'" -> huh? i said you're wrong? where? look at your earlier posts. i think it's more like you telling us that "you're wrong", "it's a fallacy", "you're confused" etc. are you talking about yourself?

       

      Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative. Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything. If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all. In fact, truth does not even exist. But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself. Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false.

      >>>> "Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative" -> you seriously don't get it? we believe in many dharma doors. if you live as a good person as a christian, by all means. we as buddhists. just different approach. 

      >>>> "Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything" -> correcting you? nah. 

      >>>> " If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all." -> oh yeah. of course, there's no truth in buddhism at all. christianity has all the truth and is the only truth............FOR YOU.

      >>>> " In fact, truth does not even exist" -> who said truth doesn't exist? oh wait. you equate truth to god? not in our dictionary. it's only in your mind. 

      >>>> "But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself." -> a monologue or asking a question?

      >>>> "Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false." -> again, jumping to conclusions?? 

      Looking back at our exchanges It seems to me that you are unable to articulate any rational defense of Buddhism, except to vary your answers along the same self-refuting and self-defeating slogan of "what's true for you is true for you but not for me" which is intended to be conversation-stopper.

      What's even worst is that you can't see how the slogan is nonsensical and self-defeating since you are expecting me to agree with you that the slogan is true for me as well as it is for you which renders the slogan false. If it is true then it is false! Or is that slogan just true for you??? Why should it apply to me?

      You thus fail to see that statements like “That’s true for you, but not for me” are not only self-contradictory but guilty of the self-excepting fallacy. You cannot even be consistent on applying it to yourself.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by zeus29:

       

      It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here. If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone? It can actually be false, true or not? It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.

      >>>> “It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here.” -> funny. I thought it was you. even after so many many many replies, you still don't get it. what's true for you is for you and may or may not be for others, too. you really don't get it or you're messing around?

      >>>> “If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone?” -> dark grey is the best colour in the world. Is it true for you also?

      >>>> “It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.” -> are you trying to crack me up again with your self-endorsed authority on what’s false, worst and flawed? 

       

      A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke, in the same way that a person with a warped sense of logic can see truth as relative. Yet such a person believe that "truth is relative" is absolutely true! If you still cannot see the self-refuting nature of relativism, then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me."

      >>>> “A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke” -> "twisted sense of humour" such as? And what’s “the most serious thing”?

      >>>> “then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me." -> you have unwholesome wish for another? This is terrible. This is the “twisted humour” you mentioned earlier? Quite twisted, indeed! I suggest you see a REAL specialist. Try to experience the real world. It’s not that “hellish place”.

      >>>> “"well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me." -> aiyo. Are you for real or are you trying to crack me up? what do you think? Will the train knock one down or not? 

       

      And your attempt at mathematical equivocation is very disingenuous!

      >>>> oh yeah. Sure!!

       

      1+1=2 is true for everyone everywhere, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false. This is called OBJECTIVE truth, if you do not know by now. It means that something is true, regardless of what you think or like or prefer or believe.

      >>>> “1+1=2 is true for everyone everywhere, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false” -> errm. Did you read? I said “yes, 1+1=2” I think my theory that you only read what you want is beginning to actualise.

      BTW, water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded to form 1 water molecule, so your equation is already wrong, even if you somehow think it is true. Thus it is 2+1=1 expressed not in absolute mathematical terms but in atomic terms.

      >>>> Err. You are referring to atoms. I was referring to elements. By now, after so many attempts, you should already know that there’s no right or wrong. Just different perspectives. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY NOT GETTING IT??? And just because you saw it in atomic terms and I was trying to illustrate elements, I have to change my view?

      As to 1+1=3/4/5/6, the sense in which it is used is different, it is talking about how from 2 people you can get more people in family.

      BUT IN ALL THE ABOVE EXAMPLES

      The numerical logic of 1+1=2 is never negated and it is true for everyone everywhere. It is exclusive.

      >>>> aiyo!! You’re still not getting it ah? 1+1 is not exclusive as mentioned in the earlier post. Is getting the number 2 exclusive? You mean you can only derive the number 2 by 1+1? What about 1.5+0.5? 3-1? 5-3? 4/2 ? 16/8?


       

      If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking.

      Yes, there are many colours, but here you are confusing colours with the notion of truth. How can there be many truths? Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?

      You said I should realise that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different perspectives. But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'

      Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative. Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything. If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all. In fact, truth does not even exist. But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself. Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      as change is the only constant. if universe just stopped all at once, then the law of change also does not existed at all.

       

      regarding the the Impersonal mind, the answer is still in the passage:-

      If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

      when it is an Agent in all of us, sentient being, then it can be attained by ALL.

      in Buddhism, there's also the revealing of Buddhas/bodhisattvas in term of manifestation bodies to teach the dharma and help liberate sentient beings from suffering. imagine a moon's reflected on the water everywhere. the moon is the Buddha, the reflections are the manifestations.

      /\

       

      Constant change is an oxymoron. Anyway, just because we observe changes around us, it does not mean that everything changes. Things that are contingent changes. But God does not change, He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. The issue is not the universe stopping, but that it began. It began because God decided to cause it to exist. Conditions can exist, it can even have necessary conditions, but they are not sufficient to cause anything. You need a Mind to cause anything to take shape or exist. All events have causes because they have a beginning. But God does not require a cause because God is eternal. God is the only cause who has no beginning. Thus creation is possible because there is a Creator.

      A reflection is but a mirror of that which is being reflected. And reflections are caused by changes in direction of wavelengths of light. The moon really exists even if there is no reflection on the water.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      u can sort of say, an ultimate source is "necessary". but it's also something that's sunyata, non-dual or no words can describe "IT". that say:-

       

      By itself, Nibbana is quite unexplainable and quite undefinable. As darkness can be explained only by its opposite, light, and as calm can only be explained by its opposite, motion, so likewise Nibbana, as a state equated to the extinction of all suffering can be explained by its opposite?the suffering that is being endured in Samsara. As darkness prevails wherever there is no light, as calm prevails wherever there is no motion, so likewise Nibbana is everywhere where suffering and change and impurity do not prevail.  http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/102.htm

       

      same as the ultimate source, can only use its opposite to explain. u use insight to see it. like finger pointing the moon, but it's not the finger pointing. IT is like the reflection of Moon in the water. it is there, but u cannot grab or attained IT. hence Buddha taught Sunyata as it. even use many name for it, but he's aim is for us to let go of the name/words in order to discern IT. as an "agent" in all of sentient beings, it can be attained by All.

      /\

      You said it well. Darkness can only be experienced with reference to light. Likewise the notion of emptiness (contingent) can only be explained with reference to that which is necessary. And the necessary precedes the contingent.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by zeus29:

       

      You are confused.

      >>>> eh. I thought you are confused one even after so many attempts by so many people about our position on the question about the creator. 

      I do not have to love Audi like you do.

      I do not have to love rugby like you do.

      I do not have to love real estate like you do.

      WHY NOT?

      Because none of these things places an obligation upon us. We don't owe them anything. They are THINGS created by us to be used for our enjoyment and pleasure.

      Consider our parents. They gave birth to us. Without them we do not exist. If that does not create an obligation on our parts to honor them and provide for them, then it shows how unfilial we are. 

      >>>> errr. Isn’t it obvious? Without our parents, we wont be here? 

       

      How much more so when we are talking about God our Creator? God made us. Without Him we do not exist. God is not just the centre of our lives. He is the REASON we are alive. If that does not create an obligation on our parts to worship Him, then it shows how reprobate we indeed are.

      >>>> “How much more so when we are talking about God our Creator? God made us. Without Him we do not exist. God is not just the centre of our lives. He is the REASON we are alive.” -> err. Kindly speak for yourself. You do realize that it’s your belief. Not ours. There’s absolutley nothing wrong with you believing in it and if it makes you a better person, why not? It’s not ours, though. 

      >>>> “If that does not create an obligation on our parts to worship Him, then it shows how reprobate we indeed are.” -> nope. 

       

       

      Yes, without our parents we won't be here. But without God the universe won't be here.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Bmax25:

      The basic of Christianity is God.
      The basic of Buddhism is Mind.
      The differences is that God is far imaginary beyond from us. As the bible started with In the beginning God created heaven and earth. While in Buddhism, Mind is much closer to our very own heart. Most of us to not understand the true nature of our mind. The main teaching is to purified our mind from defilement and suffering. By nature, our mind is pure. Mind can be defile from attachment to material, craving, clinging, greed, hatred and delusion. Therefore, to free our mind or to purified our mind from all this defilement then one can be awaken from stress or suffering and reach enlightenment.
      Mind is the foundation of all good and evil which arise within and befall on us without.
      Mind precedes thing, dominate them and create them.Emoticons

       

      Purify whose mind? Our mind. Again the notion of self is inevitable. And you have not explained what is this true nature of the mind. Humans possess minds. We are conscious beings with minds. And this points to a greater divine Mind that created us, God. Indeed Mind precedes matter. When the Bible says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Hebrew merism to denote the entire universe) it speaks of mind preceding matter.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by 2009novice:

      does BIC also debate his god to other gods like Hinduism or Islam too...? icon_lol.gif

      why still want to argue god on buddhists...? Why....? icon_lol.gif

      Because this is erm...Buddhist forum? smile.png