19 Apr, 09:36PM in sunny Singapore!

Recent Posts by BroInChrist

Subscribe to Recent Posts by BroInChrist

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

      u everytime confuse me with other people. when did i said first there was nothing? or said we came from germs?

      if i believe got a very very begining, then i am rejecting Buddha's teaching of cause and effect, Causality, dependent origination or dependent arising. "begining" of  our earth is just a speck of dust in the countless universe and limitless space. space, mind unit and 4 abstract elements are already there beginless.

      /\

      Did I? So let's clarify this. I assume you know what the evolution story is. Which part do of the story do you accept or reject? Why?

      BTW, there is only one universe, and it has a beginning. You have to agree to this if you wish to be scientific. The universe did not exist in space, that would be a wrong understanding. The universe is the totality of time, space and matter.

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

      within our context:-

      Wonderful Dharma Lotus Sutra

      Chapter Sixteen -- The Thus Come One's Life Span

      Quote:-


      At that time, the World Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke verses, saying,

      From the time I attained Buddhahood,
      The eons that have passed
      Are limitless hundreds of thousands of myriads
      Of kotis of asamkhyeyas in number.
      I always speak the Dharma to teach and transform
      Countless millions of living beings,
      So they enter the Buddha Way.
      And throughout these limitless eons,
      In order to save living beings,
      I expediently manifest Nirvana.
      But in truth I do not pass into quiescence.
      I remain here, always speaking the Dharma.
      I always stay right here,

      http://www.fodian.net/world/0262_16.html

       

      /\

      The article began with "AT THAT TIME the Buddha spoke to the Bodhisattvas and the entire great assembly..."

      When was this? Where did this take place?

      Who were the Bodhisattvas he spoke to and the great assembly?

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


      ok, either which it's still within context, rather than common eyes.

      i know of a true story: the wife of the "founder" of the paper burning custom, who died and was already in the coffin, but later came to life, after a few days.  maybe shd worship her too?

      Source of your true story please.

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

      Well if Jesus was still alive, he would still be with us right now. The only thing saying that he resurrected is the bible. If Jesus could do it, why can't he do it for any of the Christians since his time. I have not heard of anybody who was resurrected from the dead except in zombie movies. Pardon my irreverence here. ; )

       

      Yes, Jesus is still with us, but not in the flesh, since He has ascended to heaven. He said to His disciples in Matthew after He rose from the dead and before ascending to heaven, "I will be with you always until the end of the age."

      Of course you have not heard of anyone who was resurrected, except Jesus. I am sure you heard of that, right? That's what Good Friday and Easter Sunday is all about. Zombie? Too much movies lah. Anyway, you need to understand what resurrection is. It is not resuscitation, nor is it zombie.

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

      i guess sames goes to jesus, too. no?

      No, not at all.

      Unlike Buddha, Jesus NEVER denied His humanity. In fact, anyone reading the Gospels cannot fail to see that in all aspects Jesus was 100% man. He never denied He was human, but He never said He was just a mere man. He made claims to be God. He was God in human flesh.

      http://creation.com/incarnation-why-god-became-man

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

      oh, no wonder, from a documentry i saw, they say Lucy where more 2 legged and non-ape like, so i was thinking that Lucy was more human like compare to the four legged(?) ape. but what ever, i also not interested,  if she is ape-like, then we skip this to the next that is more human-like. as long as i agreed that there's still a missing link and a little change/mutation/"evolving" in body/bone structure/skin color is ok due to location and different habits.  yes?

      Buddha never teach yes, but also never rejected reincarnation, as there's still karma. karma is the cause of reincarnation. so long as one has not reached an arahat stage, they still undergo endless reincarnation. rebirth is more like becoming again, stream of consciousness, cycles in nature, continuum. nothing is fixed unchanging. hinduism thought that their god was unchanging, but Buddha said no. 

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

      dunno, rejecting reincarnation in some zazen school is a skill in mean(?) to directly jump into a higher level. though if jump wrongly, can result into nullism. 

      /\

      That's the problem with evolution. The evidence is so scanty that evolutionists are desperate to make a big issue out of a few pieces of bones. It makes for a great story with lots of money in it. It will usually last for a while so that they can milk it for a while. And then when it is finally revealed as just an ape, they call it still a relative of humans and look for the next thing to hype on.

      So if Buddha never teach reincarnation, yet you claimed that he never rejected reincarnation, then wouldn't your belief in reincarnation be a belief resting on silence?

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

      7 days creation i read is 

       

      Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

      Day 2: Heaven

      Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

      Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

      Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

      Day 6: Land animals and people.

      Day 7: God "rested".

      to common looking eyes, it's pretty obvious it is more toward fictional/mythical and un-scientific.  at least we said that earth was form very slowly between a period of millions of years, where there's no life form yet, later when the earth settle down and cool down then have life form, which is accordance with science. 

      later then i see how to extract. but extract a few no use, u need a few lot.

       

       

      btw

      Steveyboy posted

       

      So, you think a six day creation week by an almight God is fictional, mythical, and un-scientific but that your BELIEF that first there was nothing, then something come out of nothing, then over millions of years some of that something become living, and then over millions of years that living something become more complex until it becomes human, is true, fact, and scientific?

      In short, you think that God making the universe is myth but that the universe made itself is fact. I think you have not gone through the thinking process enough to know what that implies.

      BTW, the Biblical account is not un-scientific, but it is certainly written in a non-scientific way. Do you know the difference?

       

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

      later also die what? if no 'die' or 'disappear' or return to heaven (or in our context, Buddha went into parinirvana), he should be standing here right now.

      btw rose from dead can be explained in todays health science knowledge. 

      btw Shakyamuni Buddha was also known as an embodiment (Manifestation Buddha) from Dharmakaya. Lotus sutra mentioned that this was his 8000 times coming here. 

       

      The doctrine says that a Buddha has three kāyas or bodies:

      1. The Dharmakāya or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;
      2. The Sambhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;
      3. The Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space.[1]

       

      He was supposed to live to 100, but gave up 20 to mara/"devil" so as to delay the dharma ending age. 

      /\

       

      I think you have confused resurrection with resuscitation.

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

      Precisely. Please share what is the truth of God? What is our purpose on earth? To live a mundane life, worship God and die? 

      You can actually read about this in Genesis 1 and 2. It will answer what role God gave to man on earth. Anything but mundane and no death at all.

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

       

      that is also within ur context. so long got birth, grow older, and die, that to people is human. same as ur argument that Buddha, got birth, grow old and die is human to your view. u believe Jesus is god or father , we believe Buddha is teacher of gods, beyond human and god. hence i said the argument and excuse apply to both. /\

      I think you overlooked one difference, Jesus did not remain dead. He rose on the third day.

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


      ?brother, are u confused? did i sound like i agreed that human came from ape?. the missing link i already know and mentioned to u. or are u supporting me or thought i disagreed. funny.

      reincarnation no need to teach. people in India already knew during that time. rebirth is what Buddha redefined the meaning since He taught selflessness or not soul. rebirth is every moment. now we also discovered that the cells of our body undergo an entire change every 7 years. however i do came across a school from zazen that reject reincarnation. they had jump the gun into going straight into Enlightenment, as when one is rid of karma, there's no more rebirth. they stress on emptiness a lot. no this, no that, no rebirth etc.

      /\

      You said Lucy evolving to man is OK, but Lucy is an ape. So I am not confused, but are you?

      http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

      So you are agreeing that Buddha did not teach reincarnation and in fact rejected it? And what does the knowledge that our cells can renew and repair themselves (again this testify to an intelligent designer) have anything to do with rebirth?

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

      How do you that? How do you know that God who is a spirit of the spiritual realm and is not subject to impermanence? 

      You said earlier that everything in the universe is subject to impermanence, I prefer the word "contingent". So I completely agree! Everything IN this universe is contingent. In fact, the universe itself is contingent. The universe has no existence in and of itself. It's existence is dependent arising from that which is external to it and not part of it and does not have its characteristics, otherwise it would also require an explanation and then we go back to "turtles all the way down" which explains nothing. But the cause that creates time, space and matter must certainly be eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent.

      Of course, the above itself is just reasoning, just like in Buddhism, it does not answer the question of how I know. This can only be known via revelation from God Himself, who declares Himself that He does not change.

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

      as between the 7 day of creation and narrative exploits. i was simply picking between this two particular issues, not the entire teaching. 

      detail explaination of Buddha regarding the creation of form, like moutain, river, sky, sea etc can be found in The Shurangama Sutra. but very long and quite philosophical and to the core.

      http://www.longbeachmonastery.org/The%20Surangama%20Sutra%20with%20commentary.pdf

      /\

      Still that doesn't tell me much about how you went about comparing the creation narratives to arrive at the conclusion that it is "pretty obvious" that Buddhism is more plausible and Bible is fictional and myth. It is still an assertion you make for your own beliefs.

      BTW, that is a long document so it would be extremely helpful if you can be so kind as to identity the "creation" passages which you used to compare with the Bible's account in Genesis 1.

      Edited by BroInChrist 03 Feb `13, 9:20AM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:


      hmmm, is the current humans that we are, a result of the sin from adam? and has it been verified?

      If it is stated in the buddhism doctrines that there be indeed no karma and no more rebirth, but it is claimed(by you) that it is beyond verification and yet, the theory(not sure if it is called theory) of us humans as the result of sins from adam also came from the chirstianity doctrines(bible), doesn't that makes your statement a bias account?

      Excellent question! But you have jumped the gun. It doesn't make my statement a bias account. I did not say that it means similar beliefs claimed by Jesus are verified. There are many truth claims that cannot be verified. But all is not lost. Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12).

      So if the Bible can be trusted on the many things that it claimed which have been verified by what can be known, then there are good reasons to trust the Bible in its heavenly claims.

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

      Bodily there will not be any appearance of difference from the rest of sentient beings. But the difference lies in that there is no more grasping and no more rebirth for that person. No more karma to be played out in further lifetimes.

      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.14.01.than.html

      "I don't delight in death, don't delight in living. I await my time like a worker his wage. I don't delight in death, don't delight in living. I await my time mindful, alert.

      The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One's bidding, done; the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I've reached: the end of all fetters. Attain completion through heedfulness: that is my message. So then, I'm about to be Unbound. I'm released everywhere."

      Whether there be indeed no more karma or no more rebirth is in the realm of belief, beyond verification.

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

      @2009novice, 

      Yes, I totally agree with you. I think that any of the major religions have a role and purpose in the spiritual development of an individual. Buddhism may work for some of us and it may not work for others. The same thing it would be for Christianity. However, If you ask me, it is a lot easier to embrace Christianity because it is a relatively easy faith to understand and embrace when compared to the philosophy-heavy Buddhism. This does not mean it is better or worse, it is just an observation of mine. 

      When it comes to issues of truth one cannot take the pragmatic approach of whether it works for you or for me. Truth applies to everyone, it cannot be for you or for me.

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

      @Sinweiy & @BroInChrist

      Well, it looks like Christianity is incompatible with current scientific thinking. Buddhism talks nothing about evolution as far as I know but it does accept that there are other worlds with other beings and that we have been reincarnating for a long, long time, even before this planet was even formed yet. 

      Christianity is not incompatible with current scientific thinking, it is only incompatible with popularly accepted "scientific" thinking on the subject of origins. The Bible's focus is on earth. I believe life exists only on earth, and thus far the evidence is fully consistent with the Bible.

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


      "evolution" from Lucy to modern man to us is okay. Bacteria to 'evolve'/mutate up the life chain is far fetch. "evolution" that is related to reincarnation is of another sort. to Buddhism and hinduism, there is reincarnation from one body to the next body, be it human or animal etc. like how one consciousness reborn into lower or higher lifeform. but for now reincarnation can only be proven by deep meditation and or a bit with hypnosis(?). it was not a Buddha's founded concept but a norm then for yogis.

      /\

      1. Problem is, there is no evidence to show that Lucy was a transitional missing link between ape and man. See http://creation.com/lucy-isnt-the-missing-link

      2. You would be surprised that bacteria evolving to man is what is being taught as fact to school children! Darwin said that life may have begun in a warm little pond. That's a nice way of calling pondscum.

      3. Urrm....correct me if I am wrong but I think Buddha did not teach reincarnation.

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

      ... molecules are in constant flux and they will eventually break down over time. In other words, everything is impermenant and can change so there's nothing we can perceive that is permanent or absolute as in a necessary existence. If God truly exists, ...

      The problem is, your view above only applies to the material universe and all that is in it. It does not apply to God who is Spirit or the spiritual realm.

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

      erm, this kind of argument apply to both religion. 

      I beg to differ.

      Jesus was not an ordinary man who achieved some spiritual status. He was God who took the form of ordinary man. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, though He set aside the full use of His divine faculties and limited Himself. But He suffered and died as a man, and rose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven 40 days later before the eyes of His closest disciples.

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

      You're talking about the passing away of the bodily aggregates. But the liberated ones cannot be measured in terms of the aggregates. There is no more identification or inclination of 'I' or 'mine' to those passing aggregates.

      As the Buddha puts it: The Tathagata is liberated from reckoning in terms of material form, Vaccha, he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable like the ocean.

      http://measurelessmind.ca/four_noble_truths.html

      It’s also worth mentioning that once liberation has been realized an arahant cannot be measured (mīyati) or labeled (saṅkha) in terms of the five aggregates. For example, SN 22.36 Bhikkhu Sutta:

      An arahant’s consciousness is not dependent (anissita) on any findable support, and therefore, is untraceable (ananuvejja) here and now. MN 22 Alagaddūpama Sutta:

      Elsewhere this non-abiding mind is designated as consciousness which is “not established” (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta:

      Discerning that “birth is ended” is the gnosis of elimination (khayeñāṇa) and discerning that “there is nothing further here” is the gnosis of non-arising (anuppāda ñāṇa)1 — knowing that there are no remaining conditions for existence. Both of these gnoses together are designated as gnosis and vision of liberation (vimuttiñāṇadassana).

      In a number of discourses2 an arahant’s mind is designated as a “measureless mind” (appamāṇacetasa). There is no criterion or measurement (pamāṇa) which can be used as a reference point to define a measureless cognition. SN 6.7 Kokālika Sutta:

       

      Actually I am talking about the person dying. In my view it makes little sense to speak of a person in a deconstructed sense since that is not how we look at each other in our daily lives.

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

      Regarding Antony Flew, he posits that the must be a beginning and if so life must be created at the beginning, there must be with creative intelligence. However I don't and we can witness creation of new life from another life with conditions being present everyday if we care to! Life begets life. Just the last moment ends a new moment begins, since beginningless, no need to speculate!

       

      Ex-atheist Anthony Flew realises that naturalism is untenable and cannot account for the existence of the universe and the complexity of life. As an atheist he also knows that the universe has a beginning and rejected the idea of an eternal/beginningless universe. Your view that life as we know it has been going on since beginningless is at odds with what we know about the universe. But yes, in one area you are right, Life begets life. The law of Karma is unable to account for the existence of life since it was conceded earlier that it is inanimate and impersonal. But the Bible teaches that God is Spirit and is Life, and thus God can create life.