23 Jan, 01:52PM 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 troublemaker2005:


      depned on how serious or the type of illnesses you toking about. some very serious major and conplicated ones doctors no matter how experince good they are always and can seek a second opinion fomr his peer doctors colleagues. its a very complex human body, let alone the fact that each and everyone of our bodies behavors defeerntly and certain areas are very unique of individuals.

       

      yes its good to alwasy seek a second opinon.


      Your point is noted but if I were to respond it would be to deviate far from the original point of the analogy. Point being that an effective cure would mean to know the cause or being able to identify the correct cause.

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

      @BroInChrist - Well, its very easy to see non-believing Biblical scholars are unbiased -they base their research on scriptural, archaelogical and socio-political conditions of the time the bible was written. Theologians based theirs on fixed established theological beliefs. Even if the Atheist doesn't believe in God like Dr Francesca, she's saying that based upon research and archaelogical findings. They don't come up with it arbitrarily. You may not agree with Dr Francesca but you cannot really deny that her findings and her summary is compelling and believable. 

       

      It is easy to say that it is easy to see that nonbelieving so-called Bible scholars are unbiased, question is, is it true that they are unbiased? What about other Bible scholars who disagree with her? It is fallacious to allege that believing Bible scholars are biased and their conclusions cannot be trusted simply because they are believers. It would be very naive to think that nonbelievers are objective and nonbiased simply because they are nonbelievers. Truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Such a creature does not exist in reality. So long as you are human you are biased. Recognition of such bias is more important than denial of it.

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

      Another metaphor (last one tongue.png). Hopefully, this one is a better one. 

      Suppose you have all the symptoms of scurvy,

      the doctor identified that you have scurvy,

      the doctor identified the cause of your scurvy,

      the doctor identified that your scurvy can be cured,

      the doctor identified ways to cure your scurvy. 

      the doctor gave you vitamin c, does it matter whether the vitamin c is derived from oranges/ apples/ passionfruits/ grapefruits/ tomatoes/ cantaloups/ cabbages/ blueberries/ raspberries/ cranberries/ pineapples/ lemons/ kiwis/ mungbeansprouts/ broccoli/ guava/ peppers/ papayas/ guavas/ stawberries/ clementines/ grapes/ etc?

      the doctor expounded various forms of vitamin c - tablets/ powdered crystalline/ effervescent/ liquid and with many flavours/non-flavor so you could take it according to your preference - orally/dilute in water/juices/IV therapy.

      do you take the cure or go looking for the one who gave you scurvy/ created scurvy /created vitamin c etc? 

      I think you are still confused between cause and cure. Once the doctor identified the cause of your problems he could prescribe the cure. That would presuppose that the doctor had the right knowledge about such things to begin with. But if he does not, then he will want to know what is the cause by asking some diagnostic questions.

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

      Duality is in the unreal world of samsara. got up sure got down, got good, sure got bad. got dark sure got light. i still reject evolution in the form of mutation and coming from germs. to me if there's a split of species many millions of years ago, u should also see that 'split' now in term of species with quite similarity feature.  moreover Buddha is all knowing, and since He talk about how the form material like river, mountian, the realms, the whole existence are created etc especially in Shurangama Sutra(wisdom opener), He should also mentioned about evolution (in the form of mutation) in the sutras, but i only feel that species of animal like owl, fox, snake etc were already there in the sutra. and all these animals are very different, but are born by certain karma. 

      Buddha said that when one attained Buddhahood, they would not turn back into sentient beings. it's like ore turning into gold, the gold remain as gold, and will not become ore again. it's like a person lost his way, but later found the way, then next time he wouldn't be lost again. when i said we are "originally" Buddha, i mean that we have the quality to become Buddha. ore have the quality to become gold. we call this quality Buddha-nature. u can become Buddha. we all can. Buddhism is Equal to all. not bias. 

      perfect state is ruined by sin? where does the sin came from? 

      /\

      You said that Buddha is all-knowing, you mean omniscient as traditionally an attribute of God?

      So now you you have qualified your statement that we were all originally Buddha to mean having the potential to become Buddha. It would seem to be a wrong choice of words you used as it conveys a completely different idea! Of course, it is a matter of debate as to whether anyone can become a Buddha. Given the Buddhist's premise that we have infinity past or countless lives, we should all have become Buddhas already. It's the same with the idea of an eternal universe. If it were true, we would have reached heat death infinite time ago. But since we have not, then clearly the universe is not eternal.

      Sin doesn't come from anywhere. Sin is disobedience against God. It first took root in Satan, and then man. Only free-will moral creatures can sin. God gave free will to angels and man, who then exercised the wrong choice.

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

      formation is like birth, as in birth, old, ill, death. then birth again, old, ill, death. then again on and on....this is samsara. cause is karma. simple.

      /\

       

      I don't think you addressed my question at all.

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

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

      We also thought that there was one galaxy but as science advance, we found that there are many galaxies out there. Why limit our minds to our current limited resources?

      I think you have not grasped the meaning of the word "universe". It is defined as "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." People who invoke multiverses in order to avoid a theistic cause also commit the same mistake. They redefined or distort the word "universe".

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • The Woodlands Regional Library would be holding a Darwin Day 2013 event today in the afternoon. Interestingly it is hosted by the Humanist society. http://www.humanist.org.sg/darwinday/2013

      If their article in Darwin Day 2012 means anything, it is that there is an agenda to tell people that evolution has made religion nothing more but a superstitious fad that also evolved to help humans cope and survive. Here's what they conclude, "The father of modern evolutionary biology is a figure worth commemorating. His great work, “On the Origins of Species” has not only revolutionized modern biological sciences but also the outlook of many people worldwide, allowing them to understand how life could arise elegantly, without having the need to resort to unsatisfactory supernatural explanation of creation or divinity."

      As you can see, evolution is not just science, it is admittedly a WORLDVIEW that says there is no God who made us and gave us purpose and morality. Nature made itself, and made us. Of course, it must be stated too that humanism is a religion itself. It makes metaphysical claims about ultimate reality and morality as you can see from their Constitution on the website. One can probably also say that their religion is SCIENTISM. See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/humanism.shtml

       

       

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

      :)

      By the way a month ago I wanted to find out what Ven Hui Lu thought about evolution... and I searched very long, finally found it.

      Then very funny.... just nice I click "Play" on the Ven Hui Lu DVD passed to me then instantly is talking about that exact part.

      http://blog.fo.ifeng.com/article/14407657.html

      齐含万象。】

      这 个森罗万象就是一法所包容,就是性空,当体就是空。简单讲:森罗万象;诸位!佛陀讲的空的思想有几个层面,有几个层面:第一层就是因为生灭,刹那生灭,所 以,佛陀讲空;因为是缘起、条件所构成的,所以,佛陀讲空;因为是无常法,万法都是无常法,所以,佛陀讲空。所以,空有很深的含义,空有很深的含义。简单 讲:空就是透视相的不实在性;空就是透视相的没有永恒性;空就是透视相上的无常性;空就是透视相的刹那变化性。所以,佛陀告诉我们:微细的变化,本身就是 一种苦。这一句话,很有智慧的人才能讲出。微细的变化,其实是一种苦,这是佛陀在《阿含经》讲的。你注意观察这个天地万物,山也会变高,因为板块的运动。 所以,这个山,有的山每年都在长高,每年都在长高,每年都在长高……对不对?每年都在长高。地球它有板块运动,譬如说菲律宾板块、欧亚板块等等这些板块运动,所以,推挤的能量,山就会变高。有一个徒弟问说:师父!那陆地到底怎么来的?我说:陆地就是火山喷出来的,碰到海水凝结,它就一直喷一直喷。所以,包括现在的夏威夷,夏威夷Hawaii 它 每一年喷出来的岩浆,碰到海水,冷却了,又增加了土地。所以,我们现在的这个土地,其实就是由地壳变动来的、火山喷出来的,冷却下来的,经过几亿年的风 化,变成了土壤,就是这样来的。大海的生命怎么来的?大海的生命,里面的生物是怎么来?就是因为大海、这个海水冲刷了岩石,这个岩石里面有氨基酸、有蛋白 质、有生命的基本元素;碳、氢、钙、铁、氨基酸、蛋白质。所以,海水冲刷了这个矿物,变成矿物质,变成了氨基酸、蛋白质,阳光一照射的时候,因缘具足,刹 那之间变成了生物,微生物,生命就是这样来的。

      所 以,有一个人看了佛经就说:师父!我看了一本佛经,他说:人是由光音天来的,因为吃到重的东西,所以,飞不起来,因此就留在地球。我这一段实在是看不懂! 我说:哎呀!很简单!外太空的陨石夹带着人类身上的元素,撞击到这个地球;撞击到这个地球,四、五十亿年前,没有这个动物、没有这个植物的。这个元素,生 命的元素,因缘具足的时候就单细胞,单细胞,那个时候是没有氧的世界。诸位!五十亿年、四十亿年前的天空,看起来完全是火红色,火红色!是为什么?因为是CO2的世界,就是二氧化碳,火红的世界。那么,由一种藻类分,一直排出来制造这个氧,制造这个氧……海中的这个藻类制造这个氧,这个氧慢慢地慢慢地气候改变,慢慢这个改变,慢慢这个改变。所以,我们现在看到的天空,为什么是蓝色的呢?因为有O2,因为是充满着氧气,充满着氧气,所以,我们看到的天空是蓝色的,是蓝色的。

       

      Is there an English translation?

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

      then again, originally we are Buddha, there's no up (non down). 

      /\

       

      This is where I find that it is incoherent, if we were all originally Buddha that would mean an enlightened stage to begin with, or Nirvana. So how come the downward evolution to ignorance?

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

      Why not solve our problems? Didn't you say salvation ONLY through him? Logically, since "our sins" have been solved, we should be sinless but why are there so much suffering and injustice happening right now? Are we a puppet show?

      You need to understand the big picture of salvation presented in the Bible. Furthermore, there is no such teaching in the Bible where once saved we are sinless. You have to deal with what the Bible actually teaches, and not knock down a strawman version of your own making.

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

       

      Dear Atlas,

      What you said is rather compelling and beautful but I am afraid nobody is convinced that it is just a matter of words. Just take Christianity, Judaism and Islam for example, they can't even get along enough to see that they are praying to the same God. We don't even have to look at Buddhism, whose ideas of the ultimate is elaborately presented in its various philosophies.

      Your criticism is unfair because it is rather superficial and sweeping statement. Though Judaism and Christianity worships the same God, their ways departs on other significant issues, notably on the Messiah. As for Islam, even Muslims themselves do not think that we are praying to the same God. But I do not wish to go much further than this comment.

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


      quite in the middle of farfetched, i mean how come species b stopped evolving while species a continue to evolve. then more dinosaurs species should be around. and another problem i consider quite strange is we should be seeing many or some of the middle species(missing linkS) still around instead of such a big gap between species.  like species A and B should have a smoother transition of species still around, not only man but animal too.

      what i know from a documentry is that the time when Lucy first appeared and the time apes first appeared is too close apart for it to evolve. say u need at least x million of years to evolve for A to B, but the time is less than x.

      /\

      In short, where are the transitional fossils? There should be lots and lots of them. But what we have are only bits and pieces, and with lots of artistic imagination you can turn an ape into a more manlike looking illustration.

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

      I see. Neanderthal is man-like but they are not human, there are clearly distinguishing features between human (as in homo sapiens) and the neanderthals. Neanderthals share a common ancestry with the homo sapiens, but the neanderthals died out later. Either way, Neanderthals have never been considered 'human ancestors'... they are a different evolutionary branch from the Homo Erectus. Neanderthals are however considered to be as or in fact slightly more intelligent than the homo sapiens (they have slightly larger brains than us).

      I read one article some time ago, here's something about why they disappeared from the face of Earth, part of their decline is because "the base of the Neanderthal tongue was positioned higher in the throat, crowding the mouth somewhat. As a result, Neanderthal speech would most likely have been slow-paced and nasalized. "... ..."although Neanderthals did have the ability to speak, they were capable of articulating only a smaller number of phonemes. Jared Diamond described this limitation using the following example: imagine how many words you could say if the only sounds you were able to make were a, u, c, p. Imagine trying to say "Trinity College is a fine place to work." All you could say were something like "Capupa Cappap up a cap capupap." (also see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM)

      And also there is a curious fact that some European and Asian races (not all) have a few percentage (1 to 4) of Neaderthal DNA in them due to cross-mixing tens of thousands of years ago. Chinese is included in those races so I'm probably a bit neanderthal and mostly homo sapien myself.


      See http://news.softpedia.com/news/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-to-survive-15264.shtml

      You said that Neanderthals were NEVER considered as human ancestors. I think you are wrong. The first Neandertal was reconstructed as a “missing link" by famous paleontologist Marcellin Boule (1861–1942). He was called Homo neanderthalensis, implying a primitive evolutionary link to modern man, Homo sapiens.

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

      Actually the correct way to say it is that man evolved from a common ancestor to the apes. We just branched off into a separate species at a certain point in time. So asking why there are still apes around if we evolved "from them" is actually a wrong question.

      Which begs the question, did man evolve from a common ancestor to the apes? You can't just assume the truth of the very thing in question.

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

      Kirk and Ray definitely can't stand up to the scrutiny of real scientists.

      I'm not a scientist and I am simply not interested in debating stuff like these with creationist. It gets boring after a while.

      What do you mean by real scientists? Evolutionists? Beware lest you commit the no-true-scotsman fallacy.

      I am not a scientist either. But I think you find it boring because you do not have the information to debate this issue. In your belief system it has already been set aside as an irrelevant issue, so there's nothing to debate about.

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

      You prefer to quote fabrications rather than science.

      You are still unable to " find just one expert – by which I mean an actual paleo-anthropologist – who claims that Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee"

      and

      You still ignorantly think that "there is only one fossil of Homo neanderthalensis;" and ignore the fact that "in fact, there are dozens of them."

      Gosh, you really think there are no such thing as neaderthalensis?

      Even if I can find no paleo-anthropologist to claim that, so what? Are they the ONLY people who have the authority to make such claims? Even Wiki can tell us the facts that it is 3ft7 and looked like a common chimpanzee. Well, maybe that's what it is after all! It is the evolutionary-blinkered eyes that want to make a man out of a monkey. I think anatomists like Dr David Menton may be even a better expert to examine what Lucy was. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm

      You have misrepresented my beliefs. Since when did I ignorantly think there is only one fossil of neanderthal man? This would be a srawman fallacy on your part. Creationists do not think there is only one fossil of neanderthal man. We just disagree that they are half-man half ape or some transitional missing links between ape and man. http://creation.com/neanderthal-childrens-fossils

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

      @BroInChrist :-

      If we don't have to accept God and everything will be alright. Why do Christians pray to God? How does God help his believers? If God created us, why can't God help us to solve our problems? 

      You may have misunderstood. I am rebutting the false notion that acceptance of God means everything will be alright. The only thing that is made right is one's relationship with God. The only time when everything will be alright is when Jesus comes back to restore all things. Again, God is no genie in the box to solve our problems. Our problem is sin, which God has already solved on the cross.

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

      depending on his teaching, right? 

      ours is trusting and depending on the dharma for our salvation and the salvation of others.

      No. Depending on Him. An analogy would be like trusting the fireman to carry you on his back to take you out of the burning house, as compared with someone who pointed out that you have to find your way out of the burning house by yourself.

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

      @BroInChrist 

      Of course she is a biblical scholar. Bear in mind that biblical scholars are not theologians and I trust her view point more than a theologian because they are unbiased and in fact, very logical. I read the 'rebuttal' and I am sorry, I find it biased and half of it was a character assassination and I think such fresh views would elicit such response and it may make the writer seemed angry. An angry response to me means that the writer was provoked by fear. Is there a less biased review of the program? 

      What makes you think that these non-believing Biblical scholars are unbiasd? An atheist is 100% biased against God to begin with.

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

      huh? you mean walk through him?

      It means trusting and depending on Him for salvation.

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

      karma, rebirth etc also shared by hinduism which exisited before the gautama buddha's time. you kept mentioning jesus is the way. what way??

      Jesus said no one comes to God except through Him.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • When accusations that religious followers are causing trouble is being hurled, it is always important to understand that people can fail to live up to the teachings of the faith. Take for instance Christianity. It is always catchy and news worthy to see headlines like the above. It gives readers a bad vibe and immediately causes readers to take offense. But readers need to ask themselves, are what these professing believers acting in accordance to what Christ taught, or contrary? Critics like to raise issues like the Crusades to insinuate that Christianity is a blood-thirsty religion responsible for violence, but yet failed to note that neither Jesus or His apostles taught that physical warfare should be waged to gain converts.

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

      no need to be a "being" what ..God is the ONLY necessary (full stop); Tao is the Only necessary. 

      ps: but the rest of the explaining i can relate, some what mystical in a sense. 

      Why not? In fact, a personal Being makes better sense than some inanimate force. You can't give what you do not have. It is irrational to believe that inanimate forces can be the cause of moral values, consciousness, reason etc.

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

      So, there are other ways. Some call it god, gods, universe, true self, buddhahood etc. Just different paths, right?

      No. The Buddha did not recognise many ways. Neither did Jesus. Both made EXCLUSIVE claims. Buddha claimed to show the way. Jesus claimed to be THE Way.

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

      5. Nonsense.

      Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm:

      "...And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years.

      Mahayana sutras were almost certainly later compositions.

      Tantras later than that.

      But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths.

      All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded." 

      So this answer http://www.pabuddhistvihara.net/uploads/Q25transmitCanon.pdf is nonsense?