23 Jan, 04:16PM 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 sinweiy:

       

      that kind of truth is unfair and subjective without investigation. so don't make it into something all must accept. unfair is as there's no medium or light sentence, all given life maximum sentence! and the sin here is simply don't believe him. very ego god. we are also like play thing, create already then if not obey, throw into fire and burn. scary. sorry this is not the truth. truth is fairness.

      The seriousness of an action depends on whom you have offended, do you agree with this?

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

      BIC,

      i hope that the christians to do good to be with God, while the buddhists to follow Buddha's footprints to Liberation and dedicate merits to all sentient beings

      The world will be a better place right? Don't you agree? icon_lol.gif

       

      is there really a need to continue debating about your God to us? I think it doesn't make Christianity look good you see... very unchristian-like... icon_lol.gif

      the answers you provided doesn't seem to satisfy the forummers here. Why not you change your target audience to other forums? icon_lol.gif

       

      I suppose it seems that you do not wish that I post my comments here in this forum anymore?

      If the Mods here think that a Christian voice is not welcome here, or that Buddhist-Christian dialogue is a sheer waste of time, then I would be happy to take my leave from this forum. But if this is just your preference, then perhaps we should not respond further to each other in this forum? 

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

      @wl_t

      agreed with you

      If time has inherent existence, there will be no past, present, future. Each moment is dependent on another moment of time.

      To say time has inherent existence is definitely flawed icon_lol.gif

       

       

      Hi BIC... wait a min.... icon_lol.gif

      I agreed with wl_t but please don't change my agreement to wl_t into your belief ok?

      No matter how much you tried to convince, proselytize, debate (whatever), you can't change my views icon_lol.gif

      all i can say is, you talking to the wrong target audience

      Why so fearful of agreeing with me? I only said that I agree with you, I did not say you are a Christian.

      Meaningful dialogue takes place because there is disagreement and different views and people talk to win the other side over. Otherwise, why would Buddha even want to preach to anyone? And if there is full agreement, there is no need for any dialogue at all. Whether you change your views or not is besides the point of any debate or dialogue.

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

      1. The phrase "true for you but debatable to us" would apply to many of your beliefs as well so it doesn't really convey much information at all.

      -> yupe. So no point discussing about whether there is creator god or not. THE ANSWER REALLY MEANS NOTHING TO US.

      2. The Bible tells us a lot about God, so I don't see what you mean by me defining and predicting what God does.

      -> yupe. god’s past, current and future thoughts, action and power are confined to a book written by men millennia ago. i guess the quote "It's not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image,” by Ludwig Feuerbach does hold some water.

      3. Death on the cross = atonement for sin. Eradicating sin = Judgement Day. Analogy would be paying the ransom at T1 and you being released from your captors at T2.

      -> pretty confusing. I thought my English is bad. So, I’ve checked several dictionaries. Atonement means compensation for wrong. Again, my question, “you’ve paid off your credit card debt but the bank still charges you for the debt that you’ve paid?”

      4. You said death is just normal. That would be confusing what is with what ought to be. Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome. And only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed. Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.

      “Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome.” -> you’re comparing to your own beliefs and upbringing. Not every culture shares the same view. eg Mexicans even celebrate death.

      “only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed.” -> as mentioned, it’s only part of life to us. It’s not an enemy etc to us.

      “Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.” -> so god’s creation is not perfect? Or that death is too powerful?

      5. Yes, you have made changes to your life, that's normal. But that's also because you lack an attribute that God has, omniscience. Which is why God can tell us in advance that the devil will be thrown into the lake of fire, completely unrepentant and still the devil.

      -> same as before. I much prefer our buddhist compassion.

      6. The bank cannot charge you for a debt that is paid off. Similarly no Christian would be thrown into the Lake of Fire after his name is in the Book of Life.

      -> so only Christians go to heaven? What about those who aren’t Christians but done a lot of good to humanity? What about kids who died? Unborn babies? Etc?

      So,  pray tell. let me get this straight. you said jesus died for everyone. god's gift to everyone. god doesn't force people to take up his gift yet those who don't take up his offer will be sent to eternal hell.

      7. It will be "back to Eden" but in God's sequence and timing. You are simplying harping on the point that it is not instant. You forget or failed to register that a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.

      “a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.” -> and god already knows what every man will choose, right? Does he know or not? If he does, then why wait? god needs a response which he already know does not make sense.

      8. You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved? If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent. We all know that it is logically possible (and that it does happen) for people not to accept a free gift. And you failed to note that the context is not that of a consumer good. Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?

      “You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved?” -> yes we disagree completely that “no one can be saved” whether it is from your bible or your thoughts.

      “If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent.” -> eerrrmm… kindly refer to my earlier post. I’m tired of repeating.

      "Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?" -> i'm confused now. what are you trying to say?

      9. Yes, you believe that man is caught in samsara (no way out and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism) just like Bible says man is condemned to begin with and need Christ.

      “man is caught in samsara” -> mind you, not just man.

      “no way out” -> there is a way out.

      “and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism” -> need?

      10. Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this. You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket. You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.

      “Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this.” -> yes.

      “You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket.” -> Good karma creates merits and virtues. Donation and charitable work are good and will create good karma and accumulate merits and it constitutes dana, part of the 10 paramitas (perfection).

      “You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.” -> yeah, and?

      11. Yes, there are Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please". Yes, we do not teach advance maths to P1 students, but on what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?

      “Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please" -> and all preach the same? I wonder how renaissance and reformation in Europe started.

      “what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?” ->

      I read it somewhere many years ago. need time to find.

      The Buddha's Silence

      When the questioner himself was not in a position to understand the real significance of the answer to his question and when the questions posed to Him were wrong, the Buddha remained silent.

      The scriptures mention a few occasions when the Buddha remained silent to questions posed to Him. Some scholars, owing to their misunderstanding of the Buddha's silence, came to the hasty conclusion that the Buddha was unable to answer to these questions. While it is true that on several occasions the Buddha did not respond to these metaphysical and speculative questions, there are reasons why the Buddha kept noble silence.

      When the Buddha knew that the questioner was not in a position to understand the answer to the question because of its profundity, of if the questions themselves were wrongly put in the first place, the Blessed One remained silent. Some of the questions to which the Buddha remained silent are as following:

      Is the universe eternal?

      Is it not eternal?

      Is the universe finite?

      Is it infinite?

      Is soul the same as the body?

      Is the soul one thing and the body another?

       

      Does the Tathagata exist after death?

      Does He not exist after death?

      Does He both (at the same time) exist and not exist after death?

      Does He both (at the same time) neither exist nor not exist?

       

      The Buddha who had truly realized the nature of these issues observed noble silence. An ordinary person who is still unenlightened might have a lot to say, but all of it would be sheer conjecture based on his imagination.

      The Buddha's silence regarding these questions is more meaningful than attempting to deliver thousands of discourses on them. The paucity of our human vocabulary which is built upon relative experiences cannot hope to convey the depth and dimensions of Reality which a person has not himself experienced through Insight. On several occasions, the Buddha had very patiently explained that human language was too limited and could not describe the Ultimate Truth. If the Ultimate Truth is absolute, then it does not have any point of reference for worldlings with only mundane experiences and relative understanding to fully comprehend it. When they try to do so with their limited mental conception, they misunderstand the Truth like the seven blind men and the elephant. The listener who had not realized the Truth could not fathom the explanation given, just like a man who was blind since birth will have no way of truly understanding the color of the sky.

      The Buddha did not attempt to give answers to all the questions put to Him. He was under no obligation to respond to meaningless questions which reflected gross misunderstanding on the part of spiritual development. He was a practical Teacher, full of compassion and wisdom. He always spoke to people fully understanding their temperament, capability and capacity to comprehend. When a person asked questions not with the intention to learn how to lead a religious life but simply to create an opportunity for splitting hairs, the Blessed One did not answer these questions. Questions were answered to help a person towards self-realization, not as a way of showing His towering wisdom.

      According to the Buddha, there are several ways of answering various types of questions. The first type of question is one that requires a definite answer, such as a 'yes' or 'no'. For example, the question, 'Are all conditioned things impermanent?' is answered with a 'Yes'. The second type of question is one requiring an analytical answer. Suppose someone says that Angulimala was a murderer before he became an "Arahant". So is it possible for all murderers to become Arahants? This question should be analyzed before you can say 'Yes' or 'No'. Otherwise, it will not be answered correctly and comprehensively. You need to analyse what conditions make it possible for a murderer to become a saint within one lifetime.

      The third type of question is one where it is necessary to ask a counter question to help the questioner to think through. If you ask, "Why is it wrong to kill other living beings?' the counter question is, 'How does it feel when others try to kill you?' The fourth kind of question is one that should be dropped. It means that you should not answer it. These are the questions which are speculative in nature, and any answer to such questions will only create ore confusion. An example of such a question is, 'Does the universe have a beginning or not?' People can discuss such questions for years without coming to a conclusion. They can only answer such questions based on their imagination, not on real understanding.

      Some answers which the Buddha gave have close parallels to the kind responses which are given in nuclear science. According to Robert Oppenheimer, 'If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no'. The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of a man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers in accordance with the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth century science.'

      It is important to note however that the Buddha did give answers to some of these questions to His most intellectually developed disciples after the questioner had left. And in many cases, His explanations are contained in other discourses which show us, who live in an age of greater scientific knowledge, why these questions were not answered by the Buddha just to satisfy the inquisitive minds of the questioners.”

      "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."

      —        Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya" (MN 63), Majjhima Nikaya

      “The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.

      — Nhat Hanh, Thich”

       

      12. Jealousy is an emotion, just like anger. It's what makes us human. We have feelings. You dehumanise yourself if you deny such emotions. God also has feelings because God is a Person. We have feelings because we are created in God's image.

      “God also has feelings because God is a Person.” -> and jealousy is not virtuous. It’s one unwholesome roots that will lead to others like anger in speech, action, thoughts, etc. hence, I think this being sounds like an asura.

      again my question, “if there is one god, then there are no others. If no others, why does god have anything against someone who prays to nothing?” why the jealousy and anger for nothing? If possible, I urge this being to learn about Buddhism and cultivate its own Buddhahood.

      1. If we are going to hurl the "true for you but not for me" retort, then NOTHING would be worth discussing, not just the issue of God's existence.

      2. Your Ludwig quote is irrelevant. The Bible is not the words of mere man, but God using mere man to communicate truths to us. The allegation that the teachings of God are confined to the Bible is not any more different than that the teachings of Buddhism are confined to your own sacred books.

      3. Already answered your question. The bank does not charge you interest for debt paid, in the same way a believer does not get condemned to hell for his sins which have been atoned for.

      4. Mexicans celebrate death? Please elaborate. God's creation is perfect, in the sense that it was as He has intended. Everything in its place and nothing is out of its order and place. Perfect does not means being incapable of being ruined. I can make a perfect car but you can come along and then wreck it. And how can it be that death is more powerful when God is the Giver of Life? Life comes first, not death. And death could not hold Jesus in the tomb. He is risen.

      5. You may prefer that the devil be in heaven, but that's just your preference that is noted. It's not an argument for anything.

      6. The Bible says that only those in Christ are saved. The Bible also says that many of the OT saints who never heard of Christ are also saved. What saved them? Their faith in God that was credited to them as righteousness. God is just, so you do not have to worry about babies dying etc. On the day of judgement God will give to each person as he deserved. Why not leave that problem to God? You and I need not burden ourselves with this.

      7. Just because God knows the outcome does not mean He has to act now. There is a time and place for everything. Just because you know that in a basketball match Team A will win does not mean you just stop the match and award the game to Team A. You still let the game play itself out.

      8. Your disagreement over what the Bible teaches about who will be saved is noted, but mere disagreement proves nothing about the truth of your own beliefs. As for your confusion about the fireman analogy, I shall clarify further. The Bible teaches that all men are already dead and condemned in Adam. Our default position is condemnation, i.e. we are in a burning house. And if we refuse to accept the fireman's free offer of help, our death is on our own heads.

      9. Since you understand that buying your own ticket means that you work out your own salvation, I have no further questions. In the fireman analogy it simply means that you decide to find your way out of the burning house. Unfortunately the person that you look for guidance to get out of the burning house is also found burnt and charred and dead.

      10. You keep going off-topic. I am saying that there are Mormons and JWs does not have anything to do with the allegation that Christianity is about not asking questions.

      11. You can't deny the possibility that ignorance is also consistent with keeping silent. You can say that Buddha chose to remain silent when so-and-so ask him this question. But it seems that he chose to remain completely silent. You mean no one that Buddha ever met can ever understand the answer? A good case can just as well be made that he does not know the answer at all. If there is a Creator God, what's so difficult in saying so? If the universe was created, what is so difficult in saying so? Language may be limited, but that's what we have got. If the Buddha could use words and language and teach till 85 years, what's the problem with using words and language to inform people about origins?

      12. Yes, there are indeed many types of questions. But if Buddha knows the answer to the question of origins, then how can it be also speculative in nature? UNLESS Buddha himself does not know the answer? Yet how does this square with the claim that Buddha is all-knowing?

      13. Just because God has emotions does not mean He is an asura. That would be to impose Buddhist ideas onto the Bible. There is godly anger and jealousy. You should be angry at child-rapers and jealous for your wife. Otherwise your moral compass is faulty.

       

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


      I believe by the time someone attained nirvana, it would no longer matter to him whether others know he has attained or not. Henceforth, why would he feel the need to document down "I xxx have attained nirvana blah blah blah"

      So how can anyone claim something that no one knows? It would just be an assertion without any supporting basis that countless people have attained Nirvana.

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

      neither is

      the claim of people reborn in heaven and return to speak of the heaven.

      NOTE that Nirvana is not annihilation nor a place nor eternalism.

      it's the extinction of individual passion, hatred, and delusion: freedom from the binding of karma. True Freedom and happiness if u ask me.

      /\

      So Nirvana is more accurately a psychological state of mind? Free from Karma means his actions will have neither positive or negative karmic consequeces?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by reborn76:

      A missionary went to India and saw the Indian making goat and chicken sacrifice to Goddess Kali. He said, “Hindu worships a blood thirsty goddess.” The next trip, he went to Taiwan and saw a family offering prayer to Tu Di Gong with cook chicken, duck and roast pig. He said, “ The Chinese also worships a blood and meat hunger god.” He concludes and proclaims that all pagan god and goddess are blood thirsty in nature; therefore it must be devilish in origin.

      A lay man point out to him, didn’t the bible wrote that the God of Israel require his children to make sacrifices to him with blood of dove if you are poor, a lamb if you are rich to atone for the sin. In fact, Abraham was praise by God for having faith in desiring to sacrifice his son, Issac. It was said, none of this sacrifice SATISFIES him until JESUS, his only son was sacrifice. Don’t you think your GOD is also blood thirsty as the pagan gods. Since blood sacrifice is associate with the devil, the man begins to doubt the origin of the Christian god.

      Well Bro In Christ, perhaps the sacrifice was about teaching man kind to love one another. The resurrection was about having a symbolic icon of new beginning when we fall. Whether Jesus did rose from dead is debatable, the eye witness were not historian. Do you know the 4 gospel were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as proclaimed by the church. Perhaps Resurrection was a symbol of hope for the early churches to endure the persecution. Besides, they believe that Jesus is coming back at the turn of century AD 100 which did not took place. That’s y, u r reading this.

      If you take a look at today, one wonders where is God?
      when the prosperity preachers is living out a expensive lifestyle out of the Christian hard earned money,

      when the priest abuse the innocent

      when disaster strike at New Zealand, America and Asia

      when people is dying of hunger

      when girls turn to prositution

      when a heroine is injecting drug to escape the abusive environment

      If God is as powerful, omniscience and omnipresence as per what is proclaim, why did he not intervene? Why does he allow suffering to exist?

      Perhaps u may find the answer by turning to your belief, as much as the Buddhist in the forum can find ours through the Buddha teaching. As Dalai Lama has said, the religion that can make you a better person is the best religion for you.

      I wonder where you get this missionary story from? Is it a true account? There are points in this story that suggest that this missionary lacks the theology required to be a missionary!

      Anyway, the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death. Since the Bible teaches that life is in the blood (medical science knows this now), it therefore requires the shedding of blood (death) for the remission of sins. It is either your death, or someone else who can take your place.This sets the backdrop for the blood sacrifices. The Aztecs or Mayans form of religious and cultic human blood sacrifices are perversions of the Biblical notion of blood sacrifices.

      Re the resurrection, it would not make sense for the early disciples to preach a literal resurrection if it was just a symbolic expression and Jesus was in fact rotting away in the tomb. The apostles suffered and died to proclaim a literal raising from the dead, and an empty tomb. Yes, they preached that Jesus would come back again, but there was no date set at 100AD. So even if it is the year 2013 it still does not invalidate the Blessed Hope.

      It is common to hear arguments against Christianity by pointing out the existence of suffering. But this is illogical. Why should the existence of suffering means the non-existence of God? The existence of suffering also does not logically impact on the attributes of God at all. You may not know WHY God allows this, but that would just be ignorance on our part, how does this warrant concluding there is no God? The point is this: The Bible teaches that God will end suffering. But I think our instant culture insist that it must be now or never.

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


      an enlightened person, would not see the purpose in documenting that he/she has attained nirvana. I think you've made a baseless assumption here. or that, you've choosen to interpret it the christianity way.

      It was documented for the Buddha, and his early disciples, right?

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

      I wonder if broinchrist confused 8fold path with the 8 precepts.

      The Eight Precepts:

      1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

      2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

      3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

      4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

      5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

      6. I undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon).

      7. I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.

      8. I undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

      ______________________________

      Usually, a lay person is encouraged to take the basic 5 precepts not necessary the 8 precepts. 

      The five precepts are:

      1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

      2. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.

      3. I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.

      4. I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.

      5. I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

      ______________________________

      for me, i much prefer precepts to the ten commandments. notice the "i undertake the precept to ....." rather than "thou shalt not ......."

      i wonder which approach one prefers - a doctor telling one that smoking is harmful and advise one to refrain from doing so OR government telling one must not / can not smoke? :)

      I was referring to the 8 Fold Path, but my points equally applies to the 8 Precepts, or 5 if you wish.

      I think you prefer "precepts" as opposed to "commandments" because in Buddhism there is no notion of absolute right and wrong, good and evil. The "thou shall nots" demarcate what is morally right and wrong. Most people don't like that, I can understand that. It is an external authority telling us, and we pretty much prefer our own autonomy.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Spnw07:

      To add in a little to the vigorous discussion, all Buddhas have already conquered suffering and death prior to them appearing as humans to us.

      All Buddhas to be, or highly enlightened Bodhisattvas, descend from their heavenly abodes to undergo their last rebirths as a human being and achieve full awakening of their Buddha nature due to timely fruition of countless past lives' worth of spiritual diligence.

      As mentioned by one commenter in this thread or maybe other threads, all Buddhas can choose to live as long as they desire, as long as they see that there are still sentient beings of their era who will benefit from spiritual guidance by a Buddha in human form. Generally speaking, a Buddha will not choose to live exceedingly longer than the average life span of sentient beings in his era.

      On the main topic of blood sacrifice, other than folk or occult practices, I can't help but to think of Hari Raya Haji, where sheep, goats and cows are mass-slaughtered on this particular day to commemorate Prophet Ibrahim's readiness to sacrifice his own flesh and blood. In the Buddhist context, blood sacrifices for any kind of living being are regarded as unwholesome actions, but generally Buddhists will not go about pointing this out, saying the Buddha said so, unless the questioner is sincerely interested in understanding the Buddhist point of view.

      Correct me on this, but I thought that if one is born into this life that means he is still in the wheel of samsara? So how can Buddhas who have conquered suffering and death still be born into human line? Why go through the last rebirth at all? I think that once you are born into this world you would be accumulating negative karma because as a growing kid you would probably lie, cheat, beat other kids, bully other kids, etc

      Also, if Buddhas are enlightened and attained nirvana, how come they can still have the "self" to exercise a conscious choice to overcome the law of nirvana or karma and come back to help people? I mean, wouldn't they be "snuff out" like a candle going off?

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

      If you practice the dharma, attain wisdom, eradicate the three poisons, then you are already freed from passion, aggression and delusion thus your noble eightfold path is already accomplished and you have attained the goal of liberation.

      From that point on, if you are an arahant, you do not need to be endlessly reborn in samsara "for countless lifetimes" since you already attained nirvana.

      From the point you are an arahant, it is impossible for you to give rise to any passion, attachment, craving, lust, aggression, hatred, violence, fear, jealousy, pride, delusion, etc etc. Not one single thought of it is possible anymore, for your entire life, yes. One also completely eradicates any conceit of 'I am', any sense of self is completely eradicated via wisdom.

      It may sound like an impossible task, well it is truly impossible, if one is trying to force them out of mind by suppression. A Buddhist does not force afflictive emotions out of mind by suppression. We practice vipassana meditation to gain insight into the impermanent, unsatisfactory, non-self and empty nature of everything, and this wisdom leads to dispassion and release of our defilements. When the roots of defilements and delusion are eradicated, our afflictions are also overcome from the root.

      i.e. we do not merely trim off the leaves (treat the symptoms) but uproot the disease from its roots (i.e. ignorance, delusion) so that it will never grow again ever.

      Have you personally met a person whose 8 fold path is already accomplished and liberated? How is he like? Is he married? Have children? Working? Driving?

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

      First of all, it is not so possible to observe the 8 fold path from birth because you were born ignorant. However from the point you start practicing, you are practicing to overcome ignorance, and when you are fully liberated then the three unwholesome roots or poisons of passions, aggression and delusion will be uprooted. Then from that point on your noble 8 fold path will be flawless and accomplished.

      Examples? Buddha, of course, for one. His countless arahant disciples numbering thousands or tens of thousands, of which I cannot name all right now because there are too many, but you may want to check out his top ten disciples who are arahants - e.g. sariputta, mogallana, mahakassapa, etc etc.

      In other words, would you agree that since no one is born a Buddhist, and before one becomes a buddhist in life there would have been negative karma accumulated from young? Even then, after becoming a Buddhist it is unlikely that one will perfectly observe the 8 fold path. Naming the Buddha and his disciples are just 2500 years too far away. But if you know of someone who has perfectly observed it, out of countless many, I would be interested to know of such people currently living or in recent years.

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

       

      "I am sensing your increasing hostility towards me and the increasingly ad hominem nature of your postings to me." -> sorry, i can't sense what you're sensing but are you kidding me? i'm having a hell lot of fun here, no pun intended ;). that's why i check so often. i think many here can tell.

      There are just so many open questions and your replies only create more open questions. also, it's quite interesting to see from your point of view and understand your misconceptions about buddhism. i'm sure many out there have the same miscomceptions about buddhism ie praying to statues etc.

      "ad hominem" -> by asking questions to your replies? but there's nothing personal involved. just to recap its definition which i trust you already know prior to using the word. Definition of AD HOMINEM –

      1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

      2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

      I doubt I fit any of the 2 definitions base on my limited knowledge. Pretty much direct questions-answers-questions to me.

      "The phrase "birth to death" is simply meant to speak of one's entire life. No where am I even suggesting that babies can talk." -> and yet you said, "anyone who have followed the 8 fold path 100% from birth to death." so, you're suggesting observing the 8 fold path since birth, no? you wrote a specific timeline which is "100% from birth to death" and then said "That you would even think of this ". so, pray tell how else should one have thought of it?

      "I am asking if people can perfectly follow it in one lifetime, not to mention countless lifetimes." -> and I'm saying why not? from my earlier post which you haven't responded.

      Noble eightfold path is quite impartial and very non-exclusive.

      1. Right view -> don't you see other people's view to see the bigger picutre before making decisions?

      2. Right intention-> do you have unwholesome wishes for others?

      3. Right speech -> do you deceit others?

      4. Right action -> are you robbing/killing others?

      5. Right livelihood -> are you robbing/killing/cheating others to earn your living?

      6. Right effort -> don't you go all out and get things done?

      7. Right mindfulness -> don't you know what you're doing and where you are?

      8. Right concentration -> don;t you concentrate?

      Eightfold path says right view, right speech etc. to set the context and us to fill in the contents. For example, lets say I'm vegetarian. Today I eat choy sam, tomorrow mushroom, the following day broccoli. All vegetarian. What's perfect vegetarian?

      on a different note, you still haven't responded to my earlier post about jesus's lost years." So, where was he and what was he doing? "

       

      Your point about my mentality was an obvious ad hominem remark which apparently you were oblivious to.

      Fine, since the choice of my words "birth to death" can be so interpreted that I am of such low mentality to think that babies can talk or make decisions, I shall clarify that I use that term to mean one's entire life time. So I am asking whether a person can claim that he has complied and observed the 8 fold path in his life time. Is that now better to you? So you replied that this can be done and has been done. Do you actually personally know of such a person, or have heard of him/her?

      BTW, there is a claim made that when Buddha was borned he took 7 steps and said some words which I think you would believe is false? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha#Birth).  

      I thought I had answered your point about so-called Jesus lost years. One needs to be careful not to impose modern ideas of a biography into ancient times. People back then did not think that it requires a record of one's whole life from birth to death. Anyway, the Gospels recorded the birth of Jesus, His going to the temple at 12 years old with a concluding statement that He went back with His earthly parents and were obedient to them. Then it goes to the beginning of His ministry about 30 years old where it mentioned that Jesus has a custom of attending the synagogue. Using some logical inference, if He had been in India would this statement have made any sense?

      Moreover, one should always employ some measure of skepticism whenever such "new" knowledge comes out in recent years attempting to overhaul what has been the mainstream view of things. The fact that this notion arose in the last two centuries should have given you pause, but I suppose everyone loves a groundshaking for Christianity so much so that such wacky and flakey claims receive a lot of attention and promotion.

      I recommend that you read this http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

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

      Even if they have perfectly followed it, i do not think it is of buddhist nature that the person announces that he has perfectly followed it. Henceforth, i doubt there will really be documentation on that.

      OK, this would seem to confirm my point that the claim of countless people being enlightened and attaining Nirvana up to the present time has no empirical/documentary support at all. I suppose It is just a claim made by followers who themselves do not actually know of anyone who has attained enlightenment and nirvana?

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

      haha... zeus i love your replies. Respectful and non offensive :)

      Hmm....it seems that you are trying to insinuate something...

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by zeus29:
      1. Given that God is the creator of time, I don't see how you don't see that God does not have to comply with time. I suppose He only needs to comply with His own "time table"! In that case God is only bound by His own being which is hardly contradictory or paradoxical. 

      “given that god is the creator of time.” -> true for you but debatable to us.
      “the time to make a decision for God is." but not bound/constrained by time, i don't understand.

      2. I am saying that your demand that the gates remain forever open is an absurd demand just as it is absurd to insist that the doors of the cinema does not close. If not close, then how to start the movie? Forever don't close also means that the movie forever don't start. I don't see how you don't see the absurdity of this demand. 

      -> and this cinema is fixed and the movie cannot start without closing door. So the way how "he" works and all his mysterious powers are fixed and defined in a book which was authored by people millennia ago? I wonder how many times, I’ve been unconventional and unpredictable. But if the “supreme being” can be predicted and defined by you, I guess maybe you’re even more powerful. 

      Also, "why keep gates open" -> why not? for the love of his children? won't you for your kids?

      3. Why would God be precluded from setting a time for us just because He created time? And you have confused eradicating sin with the atonement for sins. What Christ did on the cross was the atonement for sins. The eradication of it would take place on Judgement Day. 

      -> "Why would God be precluded from setting a time for us just because He created time?" why not since he has power over time, right? why the continued suffering? 

      "confused eradicating sin with the atonement for sins" -> pray explain.

      4. Death is not sin. Death is the result/consequences/wages of sin. The first death is physical, your body dies but your soul/spirit lives on. The second death takes place after the resurrection from the dead, your body reunites with your spirit/soul and you get thrown into the lake of fire. Not cool at all. 

      -> we think death is just part of life. natural phenomenon. nothing to do with result/consequences/wages of sin at all. 

      “The second death takes place after the resurrection from the dead, your body reunites with your spirit/soul and you get thrown into the lake of fire.” -> I’m having a little challenge understanding or imagining this. You mean like zombie?

      5. Yes, there is no salvation for the devil. Mind you, he doesn't want to be saved. What makes you think he wants to? Just like how you don't want to believe in God or Jesus. It's a conscious deliberate decisive act of the will. In fact, the Bible already tells us in Revelation that the devil remains the devil still. 

      "What makes you think he wants to?" -> and what makes you think that I think he wants or doesn’t want to? I said “so, no salvation for the devil? no turning over a new leaf? I much prefer our buddhist compassion. Isn't devil too created by god?”
      but yeah you're right. the bible says so and it's fixed and finite. there's no room for any changes. i wonder how many times i've made changes in my life or changed my mind on something.

      6. By saying that there are a lot of free events out there and you get punished for not going to them, you have really stretch the analogy too far that it distorts the whole picture. The fallacy you committed here is that you think the free gift of salvation is like any other free commodity offered out there in the market. 

      -> “really stretch the analogy too far” and yet you could for cinema and movie analogy earlier? Also, was there a limit? set by? 

      “you think the free gift of salvation is like any other free commodity offered out there in the market.” And yet, you compared that gift to free-all-movie ticket? i find inconsistency in your argument.

      7. Make no mistake about it, you are not sent to hell just because you did not believe, but it is because of your sins. Here's another analogy. You are travelling on a highway, the road sign says to turn left as the road in not completed many kilometres down and there's a hole in the ground. There's even a skull sign for visual impact. But you choose NOT to believe the road sign seeing that the road ahead looks fine. You just keep travelling and see the same road signs, and you still choose to ignore it. You think it is a prank. You think it is idiots at work setting up such warning signs for so many kilometres. Or that some idiots are trying to impose their beliefs on you by posting these warning signs repeatedly. At last you suddenly drop and splash and splatter. Who do you blame? Is it a failure to believe or a conscious act of rebellion? I'd say it is both. Either way the responsibility was yours.
      “because of your sins.”

      -> which was already been “atoned” for by jesus? Eg; you’ve paid off your credit card debt but the bank still charges you for the debt that you’ve paid? 

      “You are travelling on a highway, the road sign says to turn left as the road in not completed many kilometres down and there's a hole in the ground. There's even a skull sign for visual impact. But you choose NOT to believe the road sign seeing that the road ahead looks fine. You just keep travelling and see the same road signs, and you still choose to ignore it. You think it is a prank. You think it is idiots at work setting up such warning signs for so many kilometres. Or that some idiots are trying to impose their beliefs on you by posting these warning signs repeatedly”  -> 
      “Who do you blame? Is it a failure to believe or a conscious act of rebellion? I'd say it is both. Either way the responsibility was yours.”
      -> exactly the cause and effect that we’ve been taught. 

      8. I already said clearly that free from the effects of sin means not to experience the eternal separation from God i.e. thrown into the Lake of Fire. I think you read that but somehow it did not register? 

      -> so, you do mean the effects of sin and not power of sin? And I’ve asked you Since free from effects of sin which include the sin of betraying god and eating the forbidden fruit, why not back in Eden? Somehow it did not register?

      9. I did not decide that universalism is wrong. God said so in the Bible. Not everyone will be saved. You need to understand that salvation is conditional upon repentance. This truth should not elude you since you also believe that attaining Nirvana is conditional upon many things. Thus your mega huh is greeted by a mega duh from me. ; p
       
      “God said so in the Bible. Not everyone will be saved.” -> the statement is only true for you and not anyone else. we respectfully disagree. So, there’s no “duhh” which is an expression used derisively to indicate that something just stated is all too obvious or self-evident. And it’s not too obvious or self-evident to us. Hold your “duh” ☺

      “This truth should not elude you since you also believe that attaining Nirvana is conditional upon many things.” -> such as?

      10. The Bible simply teaches that your ticket out of hell is free, why would that be a gift held at ransom? Again this truth should not elude you since you believe in Buddhism that everyone is in samsara to begin with and need to get out of it. The difference is that in your worldview you believe you can buy your way out. But in the Christian worldview, the ticket is given for free, though Christ had to pay for you. But you know, sometimes the self is just too much and we refuse to take something for free. It's often an ego or pride thing.

      “The Bible simply teaches that your ticket out of hell is free, why would that be a gift held at ransom? “ -> let’s backtrack a little. You said “"Christ died for everyone. But the Bible also teaches that not everyone wants to take up the offer. God is not going to force the gift on you if you so insist on refusing it. Or would you prefer that God drag you screaming and shouting into heaven against your will?”  and then “Lake of Fire which is reserved for the devil and his demons and those who rebel against God and refuse His offer of salvation in Jesus Christ.”

      So,  pray tell. let me get this straight. you said jesus died for everyone. god's gift to everyone. god doesn't force people to take up his gift yet those who don't take up his offer will be sent to eternal hell. again, i find inconsistency in your argument.

      “this truth should not elude you since you believe in Buddhism that everyone is in samsara to begin with and need to get out of it.” -> yes, we believe sentient beings are caught in the samsara, but there’s no mention of getting thrown into “Lake of Fire which is reserved for those who rebel against and refuse” and get out. The person continues to be in samsara and rebirth after rebirth after rebirth. EG: you’re stuck in a jam to work everyday. I show you a shortcut but you don’t want to take the shortcut, so you just continue to get stuck in the jam everyday. It’s not like I show you a shortcut and if you don’t follow, I throw you into the river. I think there is a difference. Also, just to let you know, I don’t think we use the word “rebel”. Not following does not mean rebel. 

      “you believe you can buy your way out.” -> how so? I want to learn how to buy my way out. as i asked earlier. "didn't you study hard to get into uni? or the letter of offer just came"

      “But you know, sometimes the self is just too much and we refuse to take something for free. It's often an ego or pride thing.” -> ego or pride thing? Somehow, I can’t see that it points to that. How is it that one is egoistic and proud for not taking something for free? A new meaning to the word? Gosh, I must be very egoistic and proud not to take the free credit cards and free samples offered. 

      11. I don't think it is true that Sutra necessarily means it is the sayings of the Buddha, not from here http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/sutradef2.htm anyway. But what I was asking you to do is to provide specific words from the Buddha teaching, akin to what we have with Chapter and Vers. It is not very nice or helpful of me to throw you the whole NT and tell you that the teaching can be found there.

      “I don't think it is true that Sutra necessarily means it is the sayings of the Buddha, not from here http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/sutradef2.htm “ and it overrides all else? 

      12. It isn't just my perspective that you cannot earn salvation. It's what the Bible teaches. If it's just my perspective you can ignore it. And if you can earn salvation by yourself, then Christ need not die on the cross. It's like paying for bail set at $20 million. If you can bail yourself out, then you did not need help.

      “It isn't just my perspective that you cannot earn salvation. It's what the Bible teaches.” Again, true for you but debatable to us.

      “it's just my perspective you can ignore it.” -> even it is or it isn’t, it doesn’t matter to us. I’ve told you many times that we work on our own liberation. 

      “And if you can earn salvation by yourself, then Christ need not die on the cross. It's like paying for bail set at $20 million. If you can bail yourself out, then you did not need help.” -> we disagree. 

      13. Yes, you got that right. No one is going to heaven simply because no one is morally perfect. That's why the Bible teaches that we are all dead in Adam. Our ticket out is to be in Christ, who is the last Adam.
      Again, true for you but debatable to us.

      14. If you dismiss my beliefs as mere hypothesis, then I can just as easily dismiss yours as well. But that's not going to make for a good discussion. The point is, can you fault the logic that a creation is not above its creator? Is the Windows software superior to the maker Bill Gates?

      “If you dismiss my beliefs as mere hypothesis” -> easy there, tiger. Don’t jump to conclusions so quick. Let’s backtrack. You said, “Why would it cause offence to acknowledge that the Creator is above His creation? It is a fact to be acknowledged, not rebelled against." and I said, “what fact and whose fact? a fact has solid grounding. what's yours? if no, it's just a hypothesis or merely a fact to you only.”
       “The point is, can you fault the logic that a creation is not above its creator?” -> Again, true for you but debatable to us. I’ve told you countless times that whether there is a creator or not, it doesn’t matter to us. 

      15. Why would you think that the word "undermine" carries a militaristic connotation? Who said anything about Buddhism going to war with other religions? But that Buddhism is a missionary faith is not in question. Otherwise how did it spread?

      “Why would you think that the word "undermine" carries a militaristic connotation? Who said anything about Buddhism going to war with other religions?” -> exactly who said? I asked,” where did you get that? do you mean buddhists? you do know that buddhists are quite apathic, right? i don't think buddhists have ever wage war against another faith, fight a war in the name of faith or actively evangelise others.“ to emphasise how apathic buddhists are towards what others choose to believe. You follow? 
      Also, in the past people went to learn rather than people went knocking on people's door nmd preach. You follow?

      16. I was simply asking why he thinks that Christianity is about just believe and don't ask. I am actually refuting this caricature of the faih. If he has come across many Christians who espouse this notion, then it is regretable, but it certainly does not represent the Christian faith truly.
      -> there's only one school of thought in christianity? i don't think so. catholics, mormons, seven day adventists etc...........

      17. Don't care is not the same as saying Don't know, though sometimes people can cover up their ignorance by saying they don't care. So did Buddha know the answer to whether there is a God? Don't ask. It is irrelevant. Is it irrelevant because he don't know or because he knows but don't want to tell? But why don't tell? What harm would it cause if he tells us what he knows? You may ask, what good would it do if we know? I would say "heaps!"

      “But why don't tell?” -> because he said it was irrelevant. Focus on our liberation first just like the earlier analogy about getting shot in the leg by an arrow. Heal the wound first. It's foolish to teach a level further Maths to P1 schoolers. Don't you think?

      “I would say "heaps!" -> Again, true for you only... 

      “If there is only one God, then why pray to others?” -> if there is one god, then there is no others. If no others, why does god have anything against someone who prays to nothing?

      “You are jealous if your wife seems to be attracted to another person. Is that a problem? I would say you have a problem if you are not jealous! 
      Hell is indeed a place of wrath where God pours out his anger on rebellious sinners. It is right to be angry with what is wrong.” -> interesting that you describe human emotions to define a “supreme being”. To me this god being sounds like an asura. But sorry, I'm only comparing it to Buddha's qualities where such emotions do not exist.

      1. The phrase "true for you but debatable to us" would apply to many of your beliefs as well so it doesn't really convey much information at all.

      2. The Bible tells us a lot about God, so I don't see what you mean by me defining and predicting what God does.

      3. Death on the cross = atonement for sin. Eradicating sin = Judgement Day. Analogy would be paying the ransom at T1 and you being released from your captors at T2.

      4. You said death is just normal. That would be confusing what is with what ought to be. Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome. And only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed. Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.

      5. Yes, you have made changes to your life, that's normal. But that's also because you lack an attribute that God has, omniscience. Which is why God can tell us in advance that the devil will be thrown into the lake of fire, completely unrepentant and still the devil.

      6. The bank cannot charge you for a debt that is paid off. Similarly no Christian would be thrown into the Lake of Fire after his name is in the Book of Life.

      7. It will be "back to Eden" but in God's sequence and timing. You are simplying harping on the point that it is not instant. You forget or failed to register that a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.

      8. You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved? If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent. We all know that it is logically possible (and that it does happen) for people not to accept a free gift. And you failed to note that the context is not that of a consumer good. Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?

      9. Yes, you believe that man is caught in samsara (no way out and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism) just like Bible says man is condemned to begin with and need Christ.

      10. Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this. You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket. You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.

      11. Yes, there are Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please". Yes, we do not teach advance maths to P1 students, but on what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?

      12. Jealousy is an emotion, just like anger. It's what makes us human. We have feelings. You dehumanise yourself if you deny such emotions. God also has feelings because God is a Person. We have feelings because we are created in God's image.

       

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

      @wl_t

      agreed with you

      If time has inherent existence, there will be no past, present, future. Each moment is dependent on another moment of time.

      To say time has inherent existence is definitely flawed icon_lol.gif

      I would certainly agree with you. The Bible teaches that time has a beginning. It is a contingent "thing", so to speak.

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

       

      immatured to me. we do not condemn one who can change to the better/good even when one had wronged due to ignorance. learned from mistake is a good thing! just like we don't condemn a child who had not matured. 

      this part of the bible, is we people find the most unacceptable. 

      /\ 

      Just because you find something unacceptable it does not invalidate its truth.

      Why would it be immature for God to judge and condemn sinners? Do you consider it immature for a judge to pass judgement on a criminal? You are basing your allegation that people can change for the better. But you are forgetting one thing, you are not omniscient, God is. His judgement is based on His omniscience. You can't tell the future, but God knows the future. In short, it is not that God is immature, but your understanding of God is.

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

      maybe zeus29 didn't put it correctly. Buddha will answer what you don't know like "an old wise man" as i posted in another thread. unless the questions will effect one's path/ upbringing, or when He see that the person is not ready, He would not say until they are ready.  just imagine a parent teaching their children, not everything the parent can answer, the kid can understand at certain age.  eg birds and bees. eg the use of santa claus to children. if u behave, santa will reward, if u not behave, u will be punished! this is useful when the person is not matured. then when one become matured, there's really no santa claus!

      got oneday, Buddha took up a handful of leaves and point to the forest and say to disciples,  what i know is equivalent  to the leaves in the forests, but what u need to know for liberation is just this handful.

      'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'(Bertrand Russell)

      http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/297.htm

      Buddha was just not interested in discussion about retrospect but introspect is more important.

      /\

       

      I understand that there will be times when we are not ready for some information. But somehow Buddhism seems to be saying that NO ONE is ready for this piece of information at all. Is this true?

      Re Bertrand Russell's words, it has to be the poverty of his understanding that the world does not have a beginning. Science has already proven this to be a fact. Anyway, Russell is dead, he knows the truth now. In fact, there are good reasons to think that the universe has a beginning! So good that people are even now trying to circumvent it by saying that universes are popping into and out of existence all the time!

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

       

      If he created time, then from his point of view, there is a before creation and after creation, which implies that time already existed. So there is a contradiction, and therefore it is not possible for time to be created by him.

      Yes, there is a before creation, and before time began. But that does not mean that time already existed before it was created. This would indeed be a contradiction, but also a strawman argument. The Christian does not argue that time existed before it was created. We use the word "before" to denote logical priority besides just linear chronology. The word "before" does not necessary include a time element. If I am standing before you, it does not mean I am older than you! 1 comes before 2, but there is no time element involved, at least not necessarily so. It may be hard to wrap our head around time and eternity, but I think it is also the time (pun intended) where we recognise our own finite limitations!

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


      it is worst when we impose our religious thoughts onto another religion

      I agree. But usually I will point out what is wrong with it. For example, I think it is very wrong to impose the view that Jesus is just another Bodhisatva. It would be a great distortion of what Jesus taught and how He viewed Himself. It would be wrong to take the Bible and just give it a Buddhist makeover just as it is wrong to baptise Buddhism with a Christian washover.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Spnw07:

      I totally agree with such line of thoughts. So when I ask questions on Christianity, I take care not to compare and judge fundamental concepts from a Buddhist perspective , but merely to understand those teachings as they are and pose questions that relate more to how those teachings are being practised in daily life.

      I think any dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity will inevitably involve some comparison and judgement. So long as it is done with mutual respect I think one should welcome the exchange of views and ideas.

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


      i have got to agree on that... to understand another religion, we should look at things in their context rather than look at buddhism in the christian context. Such things defeats and obstructs learning.

      I also agree on this. One looks at what Buddhism itself teaches about an issue, and whether it coheres with itself and with what we know. And then one can also explain how Christianity looks at the same issue to point out the different ways in which to explain the same issue.

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

       Buddha is truely omniscient, but omnipotent need more explaination, and clarification due to karma. Though Buddha is the highest enlightened beings with unconceiveable spiritual power, he is unable to do the following: 

      1. to eliminate or change the karmic retribution
      2. to cross over those who reject Buddhism
      3. to cross over the entire sentient beings in the Dharma Realms 

      Buddha attained Buddhahood the 8000 times stated in Lotus Sutra. if Buddha said that one can be lost again after Buddhahood, then no one will want to become Buddha. 

      universe is not eternal? then after heaven, it become eternal? another magical saying.  if everything happen in a loop or cycle, then there's no issue. 

      have u imagine living eternally and what would it take to live eternally? would it be bore after some very long time? that's when change/freshness is helpful in an eternal living. 

      where Satan come from? seems like there's always discrimination in Bible. but in Buddhism we are to get rid of discrimination aka dualism in the end.

      /\

      I wonder if your understanding of omniscient is the same as mine? Omniscient means all-knowing i.e. nothing can ever occur to such a being, no new information or new knowledge can be gained. It would seems that your idea of Buddha is equivalent of the theistic God. But I don't think Buddha claimed to be some sort of divine being or deity.

      How did Buddha attained Buddhahood 8000 times? He "lost" it 7999 times? Please clarify.

      The universe we live in is certainly not eternal, this is a fact that cannot be denied. But the new creation is also not eternal, but it can be forever. Something can last forever without being eternally existing. If everything happen in a loop or cycle, there is the issue of how it can be so. No, I have never experienced eternity, so neither me nor you can say anything about it being boring or not. One can also say that Nirvana is boring, but on what basis?

      Satan is a creation o God, a fallen angel. Discrimination is not wrong in itself. Discrimination involves making judgement, and making judgement is necessary in life, and not all jugement is wrong. You cannot live without making judgement. If you do not discriminate then you see no difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa. I don't think you agree to that. Buddhism rejects dualism, but it must be first be shown that dualism is a wrong worldview.

       

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

      all ur answers i see had always being in the context of Bible/Creation, and it also make u want to hear answers that are more in the context of Bible. But while mine is in context of Buddhism. Buddhism talks about Continuum/Change

      sometimes, it's quite far-fetched to say a person did an act (as in died at the cross) and this act had "paid" for our sins. so it can be any kind of act like even traveling around the world by foot, or climb the highest mountain, etc?. and that act had said to "finish" another act(of payment). a bit magical to me. 

      /\

      I think by now you would have appreciate the fact that both Christianity and Buddhism are worldviews. I see the world through the Bible, you see the world through the Sutras. These are the glasses through which we view the world. Both glasses can't be equally right or true at the same time in the same sense. Either both are wrong or only one is right.

      Just because an act can accomplish so much, and so sound "magical" to you, does not invalidate it. That would be an appeal to personal incredulity which is also a fallacious form of argument from ignorance.