21 Feb, 01:08PM 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 2009novice:

      Later u kena charged "allegation" then u know... icon_lol.gif

      Sorry, to whom were you referring to and charged over what allegation?

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

       

      as there are people who like to keep asking stupid questions, like why like this, why like that?. so the analogy is to give that person a wake up call. wise questions/koan in Buddhism are ok, but not stupid/useless ones.  

      Buddha was just not interested in discussion about retrospect knowledge but the introspect insight is more important. in layman term, your upbringing, your moral is more important than one who know a lot but no morality etc.

      i only recall, maybe mix up with rich. "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." or "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"

      but Bible got say something related to the chinese expression that say "

      聪明反聪明误the smarter you are, the more easily you can fool yourself."?

       in Buddhism cleverness, knowledge is different from wisdom. cleverness is link with egolistic and selfishness. wisdom is link with humbleness and loving kindness.  

      ignorance is not so correct word. NO need to Know is better. if u sort of compare a wise old man and a young teen/child, the teen will be more agitated while the old man is more calmer and more let go state.  teen ask a lot, seek the answer, but the wise old man no need to ask, as he already know more from experience. the wise old man is more enlightened than the teen. yet there's a sense of no need to know as He know All per se. when Buddha was enlightened, He recalled all his past lifes, hence He know ALL and a lot from experience. the Buddha is like the wise old man and the unenlightened are like the teen/child as we forgotten our past lifes.  

      In what sense is asking about the issue of origins a stupid question? Or a stupid issue for that matter? If that is really the case, then it must be concluded that a lot of scientists are asking stupid questions and answering stupid questions.

      Both verses that you quoted from the Bible have nothing to do with what we are talking about. The first verse is talking about how riches can deter someone from seeking God. The second verse is saying that God works differently from what the world thinks. The world thinks that great accomplishments must be done through great display of feats and marvel. But God uses the suffering servant on a despised cross to accomplish the great feat of salvation.

      But on what basis do you conclude that there is no need to know about origins? Surely the fact that this question is often asked belies its importance? Again it can be suspect that the refusal to answer may not be because there is no need to know as claimed, but because one doesn't know in fact.

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

      u haven't learn Mahayana, even more "oxymoron". denying both extremes is the way Buddhism breaks up one's extreme views, so one do not attach to either extreme.

      it's thought to be lost due to delusion but not really lost. imagine, a deluded/forgetful person looking for his hat/glasses, but actually the hat or glasses is still on his head. never lost in the first place, just deluded.

      haha, my amazing is from True Nature and from an Enlightened Being POV.

      Pure Land Buddhism:-

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism
      cannot be too brief, wait misleading.

       

      Dilgo Khyentse wrote:

      "Vast unoriginated self-luminous wisdom space is the ground of being - the beginning and the end of confusion. The presence of awareness in the primordial state has no bias toward enlightenment or non-enlightenment. This ground of being which is known as pure or original mind is the source from which all phenomena arise. It is known as the great mother, as the womb of potentiality in which all things arise and dissolve in natural self-perfectedness and absolute spontaneity."

      /\

      1. I am aware of the main Buddhist division between the Theravada and Mahayana, the question is, which version is what the Buddha actually teach? I think the Theravada Buddhism sees itself as closest to what Buddha taught, though I believe this is complicated by the fact that what Buddha taught was only written down 500 years later. The Mahayana actually came a few hundred years later. And the issue is not whether a view is extreme, but whether the view is true. Problem is that we too easily attached a negative connotation to the word "extreme" and frown upon it.

      2. A person who forgot he has his glasses on is not deluded, but forgetful. There is a big difference between being deluded and being forgetful.

      3. Pure Land Buddhism is in the same division of Mahayana, and thus I think point 1 above applies here as well.

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


      the analogy is about priority only, not fallacious to me as it's more important to look for the Cure then the culprit. u cannot do both, as time is of most crucial at that particular moment. bringing him to justice is another thing.

      Bible also got tell people not to be too smart what. the fool entering the heaven's gate? the smart will think twice? In Buddhism when one become enlightened to one's true nature, everything will be know. aka Omniscient.

      /\

       

      If it is a mattet of priority, then why was it made into an issue of relevance and then set aside as irrelevant? It is one thing to say that finding the cause is not first priority, it is quite another to say that finding or knowing the cause is irrelevant and does not matter anyway. Can you point out the exact verse in the Bible that tells people not to be smart? BTW, I think your understanding of omniscient is off. If being enlightened means being omniscient, then how can there even be ignorance? Did people start off with ignorance or enlightenment?

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

      here is my experience from this thread.

      before i didn't even think abou this "god". as the thread progressed, i thought "ah, maybe this god being is a deva enjoying the pleasures in heaven but limited to time". as more exchanges and replies from broinchrist, i think this god being is actually an asura. has ego, jealousy and anger yet powerful but limited in power and time, befitting the description of asura realm. how interesting!! 

      "pray to me, me, me, everything me,  only me" -> ego

      "don't go to others" -> jealousy

      "if don't, go to hell" -> anger

       

      If there is only one God, then why pray to others?

      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.

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

      i don't see how you not see that god has to comply with time given your earlier replies. anyone else sees the inconsistency and paradox?

      "Asking God to keep the gates open forever basically means the movie never gets to start" -> so you're saying his awesome power that works in mysterious ways is as defined by you? and limited by your knowledge?

      "absurd demand" -> what's not absurb demand?

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

      didn't you say god created time? why the timing? why not reset back to original paradise when sin has been erased?

      second death? eeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.........................

      and "Free from the power of sin means that the the second death cannot touch believers. " -> death is sin?

      "Lake of Fire which is reserved for the devil and his demons " -> 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? 

      "and those who rebel and refuse the offer" -> so those who refuse get punished? there are plenty of free events out there, are you punished for not going to them? what kind of evil is this?

      hey broinchrist, guess what? You didn't ask for it but I cooked for you a super spicy vindaloo. Come eat as much as you want. If you don't eat, I'll throw it at your face and let the pepper in the curry will blind you for the rest of your life.

      "It does not mean that believers are incapable of sin. Again the Bible does not teach this, so this is your false idea. Again the Bible does not teach this, so this is your false idea." -> free from power of sin yet can sin? MEGA HUHHHHH??? Do you mean free from effects of sin? Since free from effects of sin which include the sin of betraying god and eating the forbidden fruit, why not back in Eden? which you then said it's due to timing but you said god created time but then god has to wait but have limited time for decision which I then said god too has to comply with time which you disagree. Pretty confusing isn't it? So which is true? He has power over time or not? Why wait? Why continue to see people suffer?

      "false idea of universalism which has been denounced as heresy." -> so, you decide? isn't wrong faith sin against god and all have already been paid by jesus? so what's happening? i'm more confused that ever. was jesus able to pay for our sins or not? do you mean jesus is only able to pay for sins up to his crucification? but that too included sin from adam. again above question, why not reset back to paradise? or does god still hold grudges against mankind even though all sins have been paid?

      "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? -> another MEGA HUH!!!???

      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. is that what you're saying? wow. A gift held at ransom!

      dude, didn't you see the name of the sutra? do you what know a sutra is? sayings/teachings of the buddha.

      "The fallacy here is that you think salvation is likened to a skill that can be learned, like fishing. The point of the Bible is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to earn your way to heaven. " -> according to your perspective. Didn't you study hard to get into uni? The letter of offer just came? 

      "One has to be morally PERFECT to merit a place in heaven and no one is in that category. " -> so, no one is going to heaven?

      "Why would it cause offence to acknowledge that the Creator is above His creation? It is a fact to be acknowledged, not rebelled against." -> 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.

      "Jesus also told His disciples that He called them His friends, even though He is their rightful Lord and Master. Jesus never discriminated against anyone either." -> good.

      "undermine the Christian faith!" -> where did you get that? do you mean buddhissts? 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.

      "I don't know how you get the idea that Christianity works better when you just believe and don't ask much questions." -> that's his thoughts and his findings. do people tell you how should feel? let's try this. broinchrist, you're hungry now. go eat. eat. eat. as if i know if you actually feel any hunger.

      "I mean, even in Buddhism you are taught not to ask questions about whether there is a Creator God!" -> taught not to ask? since when and where? "i think you have the wrong idea" :) you forgot about his apathic answer?

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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?

      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

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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?

      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?

      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.

      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!"

       

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

      "historical people who have observed the 8 fold path perfectly in their life from birth to death?" ->

      firstly, "observed the 8 fold path perfectly in their life from birth to death?", really? are you for real, broinchrist? do you know how to speak right out from your mom's womb or know science, maths, etc? seriously, dude? is this the level of mentality i'm actually having exchange with? 

      secondly, mind you, as mentioned earlier, not just historical, present and future too. people can follow the noble eight paths. 

      I am sensing your increasing hostility towards me and the increasingly ad hominem nature of your postings to me. Try to exercise more calm please.

      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. That you would even think of this might perhaps well reflect the level of mentality I'm actually dealing with! ; )

      I am not saying that people cannot follow the 8 fold path. I am asking if people can perfectly follow it in one lifetime, not to mention countless lifetimes.

       

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

      6. There were countless arahants from the time of Buddha till today who have perfected the 8 fold path.

      You don't have to be perfect in the beginning, but when wisdom arises and eradicates the roots of passion, aggression and delusion, your 8 fold path is naturally perfected.

      The point I was also driving at is whether you know of anyone who have followed the 8 fold path 100% from birth to death. Since you said there were countless people having done so from 500BC till today, I suppose it would not be difficult for you to drop some names of historical people who have observed the 8 fold path perfectly in their life from birth to death?

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

      in line, i kind of see a Parallel line, if u cannot join the two line now, u can't join them way back then. (unless there's a "break" in terms of rebirth, then man can be any kind of animal, etc and vise verse.)

      in Buddhism, it's like peeling an onion, peel to the end, empty. so Buddha say don't ask too much, where what why about the origin of universe etc. one disciple who had great powers also want to find out how big is the universe, but flew and flew but never can he find the edge! Buddha said that we are like a person who is shot by a poison arrow, keep wanting to look for the culprit. u don't want to look for a cure, u go and look for the culprit! by then it's too late. 

      /\

      I think the point is that what we know in empirical science agrees with what the Bible has already stated i.e. living things reproduce after their kind. Or put it in another way, if we start with the Bible, and then use the information God provided us to look at the world, we would expect to see living things reproduce after their kind, and that's exactly what we see!

      I find the Buddhist notion of "don't ask too much" problematic and ironic seeing that it is about being enlightened and dispelling ignorane. I suppose it wouldn't be wrong to say that Buddhism would be considered a science-stopper since much have been invested to examine and unravel the origins of the universe.

      Re the poison arrow analogy again. It would be fallacious to argue that either you look for the cure or you look for the culprit. I would say why not do both? Depending on the circumstances, I would suggest that you get yourself cured, and go find that culprit and bring him to justice.

       

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

      in the Shurangama sutra, it's states that 

      知见立知见 to establish knowing on top of knowing即无明本 is the root cause of not knowing/ignorance知见无知见 Knowingness without knowingness斯即涅槃 is the cause of Nirvana无漏真净 without overflow is true pureness.

       

      Not knowing and enlightenment complement each other. so we are like lost Buddhas, who had forgotten the way only. 

       

       

      when enlightened Master Hui Neng left the world, he said:-

      "When one realised one's True Nature, then all sentient beings are Buddhas. But if one looses one's True Nature, then all Buddhas are sentient beings." – Hui Neng

       

      Buddhas and sentient beings are a totality. Buddha can be like the Moon while the reflections of the moon on the water Everywhere is like sentient beings. Both are totality. so there's neither saying of second, as the reflections are from the moon. no up down ward in the perspective of Buddhahood.

       

      or imagine a tree with all the leaves growing from nothing to something then it fall off and disappear. then new leaves start to grow again. u can say leaves appearing are sentient being come about and falling/disappearing of the leaves are sentient beings attaining Buddhahood, given that we have stretched time to the life span of a leaf. new leaves will keep coming, and old leaves with keep falling. within a cycle, there's also a forward motion of an end, yet not so much of an end. everything return to an emptiness truth. and The tree itself is the truth of dharmakaya.

      ditto.

       

      universe is amazing, when u can find truth/quality in some thing small, u can find truth/quality in something big, its part of 'logic' or quantum physic. 

       

      /\

       

      1. The sutra you cited, can you explain more? The idea of a lost Buddha is IMO an oxymoron.

      2. The quotation by Hui Neng is interesting. Can you explain further what is true nature and how it can be lost?

      3. Re the tree analogy. Programmed in the DNA of every seed-bearing tree is the ability fo the seed to grow into a full blown tree. Trees shed their leaves in season. See http://creation.com/autumn-leaves-fall-by-design It is ironic that you would use something that is evidence of design but yet failed to acknowledge the existence of the Designer, and even think fit that the Creator should be consigned to irrelevance.

      4. Yes, the universe IS amazing! I can fully agree with that. It reflects the omnipotence and omniscience of the Creator. And yes, one can also use the earthly things to illustrate spiritual truths, the Bible does that many times.

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

      i think it's hard for broinchrist to swallow because the believe in almighty/creator/etc god is the core of his faith whereas it has absolutely no place in buddhism.

      in buddhism, whether there is god or not, one can still adhere to the noble 8 paths and cultivate one's mind and action. whereas in theism esp monotheism, if there is proof that there is no god(s)/ no proof that god(s) exist, their entire faith system might collapse. 

      that's the beauty of buddhism. it's universal and timeless. it was, it is and it will always be relevant as long as sentient beings are still stuck in samsara regardless of whether there were adam and eve or not, whether there are heaven and hell or not, whether there are gods and demons or not.

      You are right in observing that belief in God is at the core of my faith. The question then is whether God exists or not. If He does, and you decide to ignore that, then all your cultivation of mind and action will come to naught because you failed to find out what God requires of you. But if God does not exist, I won't be any worse off because in Christianity there is also a cultivation of mind and action. The Christian has no objection to the 8 fold path as commendable and good moral values, the only thing I see is that it is impossible to keep them perfectly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for me, the crux of the issue is whether the claims made are true.

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

      With all due respect to BroInChrist. I think if you are trying to convince Buddhists who know their stuff about God, you cannot keep telling us God exist or that God created us without giving a good evidence or at least a line of logic that points in that direction. The fact that we exist definitely does not point and hint that God exist at all.

      Why? If he existed, he would give a more concrete evidence that he exist and why does his existence is revealed to some and not to all. You see, you have to cover these loopholes in your arguments. Otherwise, there's a lot of talk but you don't convince anybody. Right?

      Yet I have not seen an argument from you why our existence does not point to there being a God! You simply assert that.

      I have already given lots of arguments for the existence of God. A painting points to a painter. The universe points to a Creator. Things don't make themselves. Evidence of design is all around us, in fact it is in us! The eye is a marvel of design. It couldn't just evolve by itself. The existence of the universe is already sufficient evidence to show that God exists, just like the existence of a painting is sufficient to prove that a painter exists. I certainly cannot convince someone who refuses to be convinced, but I believe my arguments have been persuasive and compelling. Staunch atheist Anthony Flew saw the evidence for God from the design in living things and finally gave up resisting the conclusion that there is a God. Neither do I agree with you that there are loopholes in my arguments, and you have not demonstrated them either.

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

      is it because it's not the answer you're looking for? Apathy is my answer.

      also, this is where we differ in regards to "only because God made us". we don't emphasize on this at all. still irrelevant to us.

      Apathy is your attitude, not your answer.

      The answer I am looking for is whether God exists or not, a yes and no answer will suffice. Does the Buddha know the answer to that? I don't care is not an answer. Saying the question is irrelevant is just sidestepping the question. At least if you say "I don't know" it can still be deemed an honest answer.

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

      @BroInChrist - One thing is for sure, you do have an indomitable spirit to spread the Gospel I must say. Even when you are unable to convince, you continue to express your beliefs. Unfortunately, Buddhists who know the teachings tend to be the intellectual types that need a religion that answers more questions. You see, Christianity works better when you just believe and don't ask too much questions. While in Buddhism, it works better when you ask more questions as we achieve a better understanding. Now, I know that you will argue with these points and I just wanted to share my understanding and experiences in both religions.

      Thank you for your compliment. I am also aware that there are people with similar indomitable spirit to undermine the Christian faith! Even when their objections have been refuted or neutralised they still continue to press the same old canards.

      I don't know how you get the idea that Christianity works better when you just believe and don't ask much questions. I mean, even in Buddhism you are taught not to ask questions about whether there is a Creator God! If you entertain the view that Christianity frowns upon asking questions, then sorry to say that is your caricature of the Christian faith. Just take me for example, have you heard me telling you and fellow Buddhists not to ask too much questions about Christianity? Nope, I actually welcome them. Websites like www.gotquestions.org and creation.com have answers to hundreds and hundreds of questions. Does that sound like Christianity is all about believing and not asking questions?

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


      that said keep giving fishes/food to a fisherman who don't make their own effort to earn their own living, is not really helping but also make them more lazy. it's better to Teach them how to fish. after Enlightenment, Buddha taught for 45 years. (also on going in other world)

      the different here is one always sit below god, and will never be Equal to god. in Buddha's time, He strongly oppose to slavery. He took in slave as his disciple without discrimination. He told them that they are No different from him!

      /\

      The fallacy here is that you think salvation is likened to a skill that can be learned, like fishing. The point of the Bible is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to earn your way to heaven. One has to be morally PERFECT to merit a place in heaven and no one is in that category. Measured against God's commandments we all fail miserably.

      Why would it cause offence to acknowledge that the Creator is above His creation? It is a fact to be acknowledged, not rebelled against. Jesus also told His disciples that He called them His friends, even though He is their rightful Lord and Master. Jesus never discriminated against anyone either.

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


      Yes. though mostly from Mayahana; Amitabha Sutra, Infinity Light/Life Sutra. Visualisation Sutra etc.

      /\

      OK, do you have specific speeches by the Buddha himself? Something similar to the Chapter and Verse that Christians normally quote to show that the Bible teaches certain things?

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

      Err, didn't you just said "Heaven is not limited but the time to make a decision for God is."?

      Which means he too has to comply with time just like the deva realm is not permanent. Why not forever since he's almighty? And why not keep the gates open forever?

      following the thread, I'm left with more questions.

      Since our sins have been paid millenias ago, why aren't we back in Eden?

      Since we are free from the power of sin, we shouldn't be sinning. Sadly, no.

      Since our sins have been paid, everyone should be going to heaven regardless of one's faith and since having erroneous faith is sin against god but that too has been paid. 

      I don't see how you come to the conclusion that God has to comply with time. God is the creator of time. He decides when to start the movie, so to speak. Asking God to keep the gates open forever basically means the movie never gets to start, that would be rather absurd demand. And why keep the gates open forever?

      Now to address your questions:

      1. Why aren't we back in Eden? It's a matter of timing. The Bible teaches a time when the lamb would lie with the lion. Sounds Edenic doesn't it? Anyway, if you read Revelation the Bible talks about the saints who would dwell in a place where the Tree of Life is in abundant all the time! 

      2. Free from the power of sin means that the the second death cannot touch believers. In other words, believers will not be thrown into the 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. It does not mean that believers are incapable of sin. Again the Bible does not teach this, so this is your false idea.

      3. You are promoting the false idea of universalism which has been denounced as heresy. Sad to say, many Christians are promoting this idea too. The Bible teaches that salvation has been freely offered to all, 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? That would be hell for you, wouldn't it? And I thought most people do not like to be imposed upon?

      3.

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

      nope. still irrelevant to us. life still goes on, right?

       

      Apathy is no substitute for a reasoned answer. Yes we are still here, but only because God made us.

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

      "believe" is not the word. clarify is more suitable.

      there's two kind that Buddhism mention. one is Brahma, the first being who first appeared in our universe, who have the great power to create using his freewill. but he's also subjected to death after a very very long eon.

      the second is about the ultimate source. clear light, but it need to be accompanied by more explaination, so that Buddhists will not be misleaded.

      "We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.  "--Dalai Lama

      http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

      /\

      So this Brahma you speak of is not the Creator of the universe, but appeared in the universe i.e the universe existed prior to this Brahma?

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

      dude, i said "Who said Buddhists say creator god does or doesn't exist? We just don't emphasize and don't really care".

      as mentioned on another thread, the question of whether creator god exists or not is irrelevant as we're already here. we're in charge of our own destiny and live our current life to the fullest and benefit others, no?

      Your apathy towards the issue of God's existence is noted, but apathy does not settle the question of whether God exists. Why would this question be irrelevant just because we are already here? Wouldn't it be relevant to know what is God's purpose for creating us so that we are living our lives to the fullest extent in accordance with the purpose for which we are created for? Why do you think it does not matter whether our view of our own destiny matches with God's intention for us?

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

      Huh? so my "sarcasm" is the center of the entire thread? What was the real argument? And what is right or wrong perspective? If You wear red glasses, you see things red. Another wears blue sees things blue. Who's right and who's wrong?


      Chill man, I was simply pointing out that you made a sarcastic remark. Both sets of color lenses would be wrong if the right lenses are the clear ones.

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

      BIC,

      pardon me... i think u have gone from debate to proselytise... that's what i think now. This is a buddhist forum afterall icon_lol.gif


      This allegation that I am proselytising sounds like a conversation-stopper. I am fully cognizant that this is a Buddhist forum, but I am also aware that there are buddhists here who holds certain views about Christianity that are wrong or distorted. I believe that they are open-minded about my correcting some of these wrong ideas. But if you or the Mods here think that I have overstayed my welcome here, I will be happy to take my leave from this forum. It is a Buddhist forum after all. So just feel free to let me know.

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

      certainly u are entitled to have your own views... but again your views shouldn't impose to others


      How have I imposed my views on you or others? I was rebutting your earlier point that I have gone too far in stating that the gods people worship do not exist. But this is not anymore going too far than atheists or some Buddhists saying that the God that Christians worship do not exist, be it because of the so-called problem of evil or some other reasons. I think I made a fair statement here, don't you agree?

      I would urge that you do not hastily throw such allegations that I am imposing my views on others, anymore than I would accuse you of the same. All I am doing is stating my beliefs, defending them where necessary, and contrasting them with yours and fellow Buddhists here. No one is forced to read what I wrote or to accept my beliefs.

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

      Who said Buddhists say creator god does or doesn't exist? We just don't emphasize and don't really care. "it seems you have the WRONG idea" :p


      So Buddhists believe a Creator God exists but just couldn't care less? Ok, this is something new coming from you. I think the Mods here would disagree with you.

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

      to borrow a scientific conclusion from a renowned scientist to support this thread icon_lol.gif


      A fishing net has many holes in it, you can say it consists of a lot of empty space. But so?