Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
After reading your replies, I have to accept what you said. I don't want to comment anything about God. I felt outsiders will think I'm not showing respect.
All the questions I asked points at how people interpret their God. Practically speaking, you think what God is and you say God is everything. I have no choice but to end further discussions.
Pardon me being straightforward, what you said is sound contradictory. For example, in 1, you said self is not permanent... i thought all along self is permanent in Christianity... then suddenly now it changed there is no permanent self because the Bible say so.
In the earlier post you said the universe has a beginning, but when i pose the question of permanence in my previous post, you said God sustains it. Then my question of whether permanence is valid or not becomes side-tracked. Conveniently.
I mentioned that it is the wisdom of our ancestors that provide what we have today. Otherwise i think we don't even know how to grow rice. But you attributed the wisdom or intelligence to the God you mentioned. The counter-question you asked makes me wonder what you mean, arguing back again why i felt regrettable.
If I were to tell my friends about this, they will think you damn ungrateful lot
The question you asked: how good is good? I really don't how to reply. Is good quantitative...? Measurable or comparable..? Or even perfect?
You have been cordial, but the replies shows that you don't understand and tries to put God in the front picture, leaving us no alternatives.
I got a sense of ill-will from you when i read the last paragraph. Describing yourself as a soldier to lay down the weapon and fight the enemies.Anyway.... that's not the main point. I have already mentioned debating fundamental difference in religions is pointless (in fact, very early in this thread). No matter how much you bring in Christian concepts is wasting your time and effort here. You can't bring in Christian values to question emptiness, karma etc etc.... It doesn't fit!
1. Thanks for reading my replies. It is perfectly fine by me if you choose to offer your comments. I am not easily offended by fair and thought-out comments.2. The fact that people have various views/interpretations about God does not detract or negate the fact that objective truth about God exists. Logically not all views are equally true.
3. What you saw as contradictory is really more of your misunderstanding.Remember, a contradiction takes the form that A is non-A at the same time in the same sense. The Bible does not teach a permanent self in the sense that Buddhism says. Only God is eternal, everything else is contingent upon God. The only "permanent" self to speak of would be God Himself who is self-existing and uncaused and the ground of all that exist.
4. Since the universe has a beginning, it cannot be permanent in the Buddhist sense of having "inherent existence" of itself. The universe is a contingent entity, brought into existence by an eternal all powerful God. God, who is eternal, can sustain the universe for as long as He wishes, even for all eternity. Again the source of this sustenance is God.
5. You are mistaken if you think I am undermining the wisdom of our forefathers. My point is that only God can explain why human beings are intelligent. All other naturalistic explanations fall flat as inadequate to account for what needs to be explained.
6. I am asking about the standard of good you use to call something good. And yes, I was referring to moral perfection.
7. I am not so much putting God in the front picture as much as putting God in the whole picture. Apart from God, nothing can be explained. God's world must be seen through God's Word to be understood and seen correctly.
8. The soldier analogy is just that, no ill will intended. The Bible uses the metaphor of war, battle, soldier many times.
9. I think the main point is to compare and contrast the two religions in some ways, to see similarities and appreciate the differences. Ultimately what we have are two worldviews, or ways of looking at the world to make sense of the world we live in. They are two fundamentally different worldviews. Logically both cannot be true at the same time in the same sense.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
So is rebelliousness is by default or by design?
1. What do you mean by default? And by design?
2. Have you read Genesis 3?
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
As long as one misidentify "Self" as permanent soul, it will not be unusual to identify a higher existence as "God". As each person's relationship and perception of God is different, as there are different levels of awareness. Each case is different. For example, even though I am not my dog's creator, to it I am God! I am not familiar with Sir Antony Flew so unable to relate to his opinions and views, and neither should he be the final arbiter in the existence of God.
1. The question is whether God exists, regardless of whether you correctly or incorrectly identify "self" as permanent soul.
2. Does your dog think of you as God? Does it even have that ability to reason and think such thoughts? Anyway it is irrelevant what your dog thinks of you since thereis no way to get into your dog's head to know what it thinks. The fact is, you are not God.
3. The point is that Anthony Flew was a noted atheist philosopher who debated many years for atheism, but gave up atheism when the case for theism was overwhelmingly too strong to refute. I'm not saying that he is the finer arbiter for the existence of God. But if you have not considered his reasons for abandoning atheism, then you have not considered enough the case for theism.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Another example, sinweiy made allusion to your God as Mahabrahma, I see differently. You see, I take into account of the destructive violent propensites of your God, eg. the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God’s jealousy,( exodus 20;5), and God’s vanity, the seraphims, whose job is to sing praises of him!
I tend to view to see your God as of tavatimsa / asuric realms, given the struggles with other Gods and Demons.You have tended to see a distorted picture of God, and have rejected a caricature instead of the God the Bible reveals.
-
So the question rephrased for you BroInChrist is whether the rebelliousness of man is an inherent through faultly creation or is rebelliousness a deliberate inclusion in man's creation. I should have read genesis 3 but don't recall its contents, maybe you would post what you would like to highlight to me?Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. What do you mean by default? And by design?
2. Have you read Genesis 3?
-
Just as there s no eternal soul the is no permanent god or creator. Even though I am with flaws even to the inconsistent care of my dog, it does not judge me, I am shown adoration even I am not perfect! As a simile, my dog shows blind faith in me! It does not require reason to show affection to me!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The question is whether God exists, regardless of whether you correctly or incorrectly identify "self" as permanent soul.
2. Does your dog think of you as God? Does it even have that ability to reason and think such thoughts? Anyway it is irrelevant what your dog thinks of you since thereis no way to get into your dog's head to know what it thinks. The fact is, you are not God.
3. The point is that Anthony Flew was a noted atheist philosopher who debated many years for atheism, but gave up atheism when the case for theism was overwhelmingly too strong to refute. I'm not saying that he is the finer arbiter for the existence of God. But if you have not considered his reasons for abandoning atheism, then you have not considered enough the case for theism.
-
For Antony Flew, I can only speculate that he fallen to the two extremes of views at different point of his life. As an atheist he may have held a nihilistic views and to a greater awareness later on develop an eternalistic view. Perhaps someone more acqainted with Antony Flew can comment further. Holding views of god may mean there are concurrence in the possibility of god. Existence of god is still not established.
-
I happen to come across this website that refers to the accounts in the bible, perhaps you ike to prove it non existent in the bible or the passages narrated is false! http://listverse.com/2010/10/15/top-10-fieriest-books-in-the-bible/Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You have tended to see a distorted picture of God, and have rejected a caricature instead of the God the Bible reveals.
-
.
-
Also, another interesting on human thoughts which may be of some interested to readers here from the same website :- http://listverse.com/2010/04/12/10-more-common-faults-in-human-thought/
-
Top ten fierest books in the bible from listverse:- http://listverse.com/2010/10/15/top-10-fieriest-books-in-the-bible/
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
I happen to come across this website that refers to the accounts in the bible, perhaps you ike to prove it non existent in the bible or the passages narrated is false! http://listverse.com/2010/10/15/top-10-fieriest-books-in-the-bible/
I wonder what's the point of this link. I do not deny what the Bible records, but I do take issue with the additional unfair and uncalled for comments made by the compiler of the list. He made them in a very disparaging manner using emotive words that reflect his prejudice towards the Bible.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
So the question rephrased for you BroInChrist is whether the rebelliousness of man is an inherent through faultly creation or is rebelliousness a deliberate inclusion in man's creation. I should have read genesis 3 but don't recall its contents, maybe you would post what you would like to highlight to me?
I think I asked this before. When God finished creating man and woman on Day Six, what did He say? That is was all "Very Good". Can you understand what that means? Not just "good" as in the previous 5 days, but "very good" sia!
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Just as there s no eternal soul the is no permanent god or creator. Even though I am with flaws even to the inconsistent care of my dog, it does not judge me, I am shown adoration even I am not perfect! As a simile, my dog shows blind faith in me! It does not require reason to show affection to me!
You said "Just as there s no eternal soul the is no permanent god or creator."
What is the basis of the above statement, and why do you think it is true? Atheists like Anthony Flew (before his leaving atheism) would have agreed with the above statement.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think I asked this before. When God finished creating man and woman on Day Six, what did He say? That is was all "Very Good". Can you understand what that means? Not just "good" as in the previous 5 days, but "very good" sia!
don't know, but sound frictional/mythical again, like the 女娲 Nüwa. like Marvel comic book. i mean the 7 days part. no offense. -
whalao, this one long -winded back again. blah blah blah, professional beggar, phedophiles, anti-gay machine chio kaopeng!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. What do you mean by default? And by design?
2. Have you read Genesis 3?
dont know arh? you mean genesis 3 define 'default' and 'design'?defaulters' parage arym alot. design, interior films alot. not wrong mah. hahahha
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You have tended to see a distorted picture of God, and have rejected a caricature instead of the God the Bible reveals.
i can make a photo of god distored.jus tell me you want what focal length to use. i can easily make it barrel distorted, perspective distorted.
noworries, no photoshopping needed i can still distrot it. hahahahah
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The question is whether God exists, regardless of whether you correctly or incorrectly identify "self" as permanent soul.
2. Does your dog think of you as God? Does it even have that ability to reason and think such thoughts? Anyway it is irrelevant what your dog thinks of you since thereis no way to get into your dog's head to know what it thinks. The fact is, you are not God.
3. The point is that Anthony Flew was a noted atheist philosopher who debated many years for atheism, but gave up atheism when the case for theism was overwhelmingly too strong to refute. I'm not saying that he is the finer arbiter for the existence of God. But if you have not considered his reasons for abandoning atheism, then you have not considered enough the case for theism.
whalao - i find hor you all lose alreaddy write a lot of rot leh. i read dand rad and find your rot rubish and throw back silly questions so many. ask askask askaskakaksakskasksk until hor god also 'facepalm'. god says ' my dear, you all really photoshop me until i disown youall arh'. hahaha
-
Then ignore the emotive comments and apply the highest of morals and ethics that we aspire and try to apply ourselves to such acts of cruelty and violence, or do you wish to justify and persuade us that violence is ok. Or is it we are made in the image of god and thus cruelty and violence is being godlikeOriginally posted by BroInChrist:
I wonder what's the point of this link. I do not deny what the Bible records, but I do take issue with the additional unfair and uncalled for comments made by the compiler of the list. He made them in a very disparaging manner using emotive words that reflect his prejudice towards the Bible.
-
Then also allow to express my artistic a bit also:- Is it a very good"sia" with an afterglow smile of satisfaction or a diabolical manical smile of glee and added effect of wringing of both hands! So "very good" can be interpreted either way and not very helpful. The end product "man" is flawed either way.Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think I asked this before. When God finished creating man and woman on Day Six, what did He say? That is was all "Very Good". Can you understand what that means? Not just "good" as in the previous 5 days, but "very good" sia!
-
I would welcome you presentation of Antony Flew arguments, in fact I would think any less if it were the argument of your own. The rationality of your arguments can bolster your conviction, but you conviction does'nt automatically mean your position correct. As explained we can fall in either extremes nihilism or eternalism which Buddhism is not! Buddhism is the Middle Way!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You said "Just as there s no eternal soul the is no permanent god or creator."
What is the basis of the above statement, and why do you think it is true? Atheists like Anthony Flew (before his leaving atheism) would have agreed with the above statement.
-
Actually God does not need defending, God can anything you want to be. If God is good then just let yourself be good. If you as a human being is flawed that accept that you are created flawed. The god we have conversed about is ver.1.0 god in the Old Testament. There also the improved ver.1.1 and other updated versions in New Testament which talk of love and forgiveness; but still with strings attached. What you have not realised is that you are just defending "Self" , your beliefs, your world view, your conviction, your existence.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
I would welcome you presentation of Antony Flew arguments, in fact I would think any less if it were the argument of your own. The rationality of your arguments can bolster your conviction, but you conviction does'nt automatically mean your position correct. As explained we can fall in either extremes nihilism or eternalism which Buddhism is not! Buddhism is the Middle Way!
that sounded like ä¸åº¸ä¹‹é�“ -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
don't know, but sound frictional/mythical again, like the 女娲 Nüwa. like Marvel comic book. i mean the 7 days part. no offense.Again, other than you calling it fictional or mythical you have give no reasons why. Perhaps you wish to back up such claims and assertions? One could also dismiss all narrated exploits or teachings of Buddhism as mere fiction too, right?