Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
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 godlike
Again you failed to note that I have repeatedly mentioned that we are now living in a fallen world. It is not that violence is good per se, it is that it is now part of a fallen world.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
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.
Just because there are two interpretation, surely it does not mean both are equally true. Only one interpretation can be correct or both wrong. Again there is nothing in Genesis 1 to suggest that man is a flawed product. And neither have you provided the evidence for that.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
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.1. The reason why I am not a perfect being is because I am a descendent of Adam and inherited his sin nature. So did you, and every other human being for that matter.
2. To speak of a Ver 1.0 or Ver 1.1 God is to distort the Scriptures and to misunderstand them.
3. Yes, I am defending my beliefs, just as you are defending yours. You are either promoting your views, or defending them when being challenged.
-
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!
The ad hominem nature of your remarks is really unwarranted.
Anyway, you can read up Anthony Flew's argument here http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew
and read an interview with him here http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
The issue is not whether it is the left, right or middle way. The issue is whether the way pointed to is the truth.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
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?
comparing the both, plausible wise, it's pretty obvious.Steveyboy posted:
It is not out of ignorance. If you had watched the videos I posted, you will see that authentic bible scholars agree that much of the bible is fiction.
Watch this:-
The Big Question: Is the Bible still relevant today? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfDJbi5gfC0&playnext=1&list=PL22EC954EB904C8DF&feature=results_main
Dr francesca stavrakopoulou in the video above is a biblical scholar and historian. She tells us that according to archaelogy and scriptural research (meaning they look into the difference between the original Hebrew text and compare it with the modern Christian bible) concludes that much of the bible is fiction. However, majority of scholars still believe that Jesus did exist.
-
Keying error, what I 've meant to say is that I would not any less of you if it were your views. I apologise for any distress caused unto you. I value the strength of the argument you bring.Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The ad hominem nature of your remarks is really unwarranted.
Anyway, you can read up Anthony Flew's argument here http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew
and read an interview with him here http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
The issue is not whether it is the left, right or middle way. The issue is whether the way pointed to is the truth.
-
Man is created flawed in the first place, that is why degeneration takes place.Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Again you failed to note that I have repeatedly mentioned that we are now living in a fallen world. It is not that violence is good per se, it is that it is now part of a fallen world.
-
Thank you for helping put forward my point," very good" simply indicates satisfaction, we may even stretch it further to mean "perfecto" , much like a Italian kissing his fingers. But whether Man is flawed by default or design is not established, thus let us look at man and his actions ask yourselves, what is your position?Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Just because there are two interpretation, surely it does not mean both are equally true. Only one interpretation can be correct or both wrong. Again there is nothing in Genesis 1 to suggest that man is a flawed product. And neither have you provided the evidence for that.
-
Yes you are imperfect because you believe you descended from the imperfect Adam made by God who said very good! Sin nature is inherent in God's design! God was never forgiving in the Old Testament, there even the Covenant of the Ark, a fearsome machine, the New Testament is where Jesus Christ professes love and forgiveness, unless you are talking about two different Gods.Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The reason why I am not a perfect being is because I am a descendent of Adam and inherited his sin nature. So did you, and every other human being for that matter.
2. To speak of a Ver 1.0 or Ver 1.1 God is to distort the Scriptures and to misunderstand them.
3. Yes, I am defending my beliefs, just as you are defending yours. You are either promoting your views, or defending them when being challenged.
-
Unfortunately, you are unable to grasp "No self", therefore, more time is actually spent on the creation myth and whether God is omniscient or imperfect owing to man being in the image of God. Violence is violence and the anger is very personal, without love and compassion, and certainly without wisdom or all this flawed creation and following destruction would not have happened in the first place. I would such an entity; powerful?yes, low eq? also yes, wisdom? No! Love and compassion? Very conditional! Why we should accept and worship such an entity!
-
Regarding Antony Flew, he posits that the must be a beginning and if so life must be created at the beginning, there must be with creative intelligence. However I don't and we can witness creation of new life from another life with conditions being present everyday if we care to! Life begets life. Just the last moment ends a new moment begins, since beginningless, no need to speculate!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The ad hominem nature of your remarks is really unwarranted.
Anyway, you can read up Anthony Flew's argument here http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew
and read an interview with him here http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
The issue is not whether it is the left, right or middle way. The issue is whether the way pointed to is the truth.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The ad hominem nature of your remarks is really unwarranted.
Anyway, you can read up Anthony Flew's argument here http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew
and read an interview with him here http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
The issue is not whether it is the left, right or middle way. The issue is whether the way pointed to is the truth.
what?!
still so long winded. my fart is shorter than your words leh. go and sleep so thwt wake up more refersh with a clearer mind lah.
dont so long winded okay?!
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
comparing the both, plausible wise, it's pretty obvious.Steveyboy posted:
What do you mean by "pretty obvious"? What and how did you go about comparing both?
BTW, Dr Stavrakopoulou, a senior lecturer in the department of theology and religion at Exeter University, does not believe in God. She said: ‘I’m an atheist with a huge respect for religion’. It is thus no wonder that her views would undermine Christianity since that would be consistent with her atheism. But there are other Biblical scholars who disagree with her. You just need to read both sides.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Keying error, what I 've meant to say is that I would not any less of you if it were your views. I apologise for any distress caused unto you. I value the strength of the argument you bring.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Man is created flawed in the first place, that is why degeneration takes place.
But this view is not supported by the Scriptures at all. Man was created perfect, he had no sin in him and there was no death and suffering. Degeneration took place after the Fall.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Thank you for helping put forward my point," very good" simply indicates satisfaction, we may even stretch it further to mean "perfecto" , much like a Italian kissing his fingers. But whether Man is flawed by default or design is not established, thus let us look at man and his actions ask yourselves, what is your position?
Your question needs to be broken up this way to avoid the fallacy of begging the question.
1. Is man created flawed?
2. If yes, was it by default or by design? (Note that you have not distinguished what is meant by the term "default").
I have already answered question 1, that man was NOT created flawed in any way. This is the meaning of "very good". If you disagree then please explain in what way was man flawed in Genesis 1?
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Yes you are imperfect because you believe you descended from the imperfect Adam made by God who said very good! Sin nature is inherent in God's design! God was never forgiving in the Old Testament, there even the Covenant of the Ark, a fearsome machine, the New Testament is where Jesus Christ professes love and forgiveness, unless you are talking about two different Gods.
Again I need to reiterate the point that Adam was NOT created imperfect. He was created perfect, without sin. But because he chose to disobey, he fell into sin. Thus the Bible explains that we are all dead in Adam but we can be made alive in Christ who is the Last Adam.
To say that God was "never forgiving" in the OT betrays an utter lack of knowledge of the OT. It is a claim that is easily refuted, just one example would suffice! But there's more than enough to completely bury this claim deep down. See the links below
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Unfortunately, you are unable to grasp “No self”, therefore, more time is actually spent on the creation myth and whether God is omniscient or imperfect owing to man being in the image of God. Violence is violence and the anger is very personal, without love and compassion, and certainly without wisdom or all this flawed creation and following destruction would not have happened in the first place. I would such an entity; powerful?yes, low eq? also yes, wisdom? No! Love and compassion? Very conditional! Why we should accept and worship such an entity!
On the contrary, I do understand the meaning of "no self" but I have shown how such an idea is really incoherent. It probably suffers as a bad or inappropriate label to use. Better to call it as philosophers call it, contingent vs necessary being.
To call it a creation myth is simply another question-begging fallacy you committed. You first need to establish that it is a myth, but you failed to do so. Let me ask you, do you honor and respect any of the Chief Justices who served Singapore in the past many years? Why? On one hand, many who know the CJs can speak of them as loving husbands or compassionate people, yet they also know of the CJs as men of integrity and justice and who will mete down the harshest of punishment on criminals. If you think about this, then I think you can answer the question of why God deserve our worship. If you think of God as just a love-machine then again I am sorry to say that you have only rejected a false God or a straw-God.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Regarding Antony Flew, he posits that the must be a beginning and if so life must be created at the beginning, there must be with creative intelligence. However I don't and we can witness creation of new life from another life with conditions being present everyday if we care to! Life begets life. Just the last moment ends a new moment begins, since beginningless, no need to speculate!
Ex-atheist Anthony Flew realises that naturalism is untenable and cannot account for the existence of the universe and the complexity of life. As an atheist he also knows that the universe has a beginning and rejected the idea of an eternal/beginningless universe. Your view that life as we know it has been going on since beginningless is at odds with what we know about the universe. But yes, in one area you are right, Life begets life. The law of Karma is unable to account for the existence of life since it was conceded earlier that it is inanimate and impersonal. But the Bible teaches that God is Spirit and is Life, and thus God can create life.
-
whao - still so long winded. can lose for 1 time. you type of people argue must win1. typical.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
What do you mean by "pretty obvious"? What and how did you go about comparing both?
as between the 7 day of creation and narrative exploits. i was simply picking between this two particular issues, not the entire teaching.
detail explaination of Buddha regarding the creation of form, like moutain, river, sky, sea etc can be found in The Shurangama Sutra. but very long and quite philosophical and to the core.
http://www.longbeachmonastery.org/The%20Surangama%20Sutra%20with%20commentary.pdf
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
as between the 7 day of creation and narrative exploits. i was simply picking between this two particular issues, not the entire teaching.
detail explaination of Buddha regarding the creation of form, like moutain, river, sky, sea etc can be found in The Shurangama Sutra. but very long and quite philosophical and to the core.
http://www.longbeachmonastery.org/The%20Surangama%20Sutra%20with%20commentary.pdf
/\
Still that doesn't tell me much about how you went about comparing the creation narratives to arrive at the conclusion that it is "pretty obvious" that Buddhism is more plausible and Bible is fictional and myth. It is still an assertion you make for your own beliefs.
BTW, that is a long document so it would be extremely helpful if you can be so kind as to identity the "creation" passages which you used to compare with the Bible's account in Genesis 1.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Still that doesn't tell me much about how you went about comparing the creation narratives to arrive at the conclusion that it is "pretty obvious" that Buddhism is more plausible and Bible is fictional and myth. It is still an assertion you make for your own beliefs.
BTW, that is a long document so it would be extremely helpful if you can be so kind as to identity the "creation" passages which you used to compare with the Bible's account in Genesis 1.
7 days creation i read is
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.
Day 2: Heaven
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.
Day 6: Land animals and people.
Day 7: God "rested".
to common looking eyes, it's pretty obvious it is more toward fictional/mythical and un-scientific. at least we said that earth was form very slowly between a period of millions of years, where there's no life form yet, later when the earth settle down and cool down then have life form, which is accordance with science.
later then i see how to extract. but extract a few no use, u need a few lot.
btw
Steveyboy posted
It is not out of ignorance. If you had watched the videos I posted, you will see that authentic bible scholars agree that much of the bible is fiction.
The Big Question: Is the Bible still relevant today? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfDJbi5gfC0&playnext=1&list=PL22EC954EB904C8DF&feature=results_main
Dr francesca stavrakopoulou in the video above is a biblical scholar and historian. She tells us that according to archaelogy and scriptural research (meaning they look into the difference between the original Hebrew text and compare it with the modern Christian bible) concludes that much of the bible is fiction. However, majority of scholars still believe that Jesus did exist.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
7 days creation i read is
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.
Day 2: Heaven
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.
Day 6: Land animals and people.
Day 7: God "rested".
to common looking eyes, it's pretty obvious it is more toward fictional/mythical and un-scientific. at least we said that earth was form very slowly between a period of millions of years, where there's no life form yet, later when the earth settle down and cool down then have life form, which is accordance with science.
later then i see how to extract. but extract a few no use, u need a few lot.
btw
Steveyboy posted
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
7 days creation i read is
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.
Day 2: Heaven
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.
Day 6: Land animals and people.
Day 7: God "rested".
to common looking eyes, it's pretty obvious it is more toward fictional/mythical and un-scientific. at least we said that earth was form very slowly between a period of millions of years, where there's no life form yet, later when the earth settle down and cool down then have life form, which is accordance with science.
later then i see how to extract. but extract a few no use, u need a few lot.
btw
Steveyboy posted
So, you think a six day creation week by an almight God is fictional, mythical, and un-scientific but that your BELIEF that first there was nothing, then something come out of nothing, then over millions of years some of that something become living, and then over millions of years that living something become more complex until it becomes human, is true, fact, and scientific?
In short, you think that God making the universe is myth but that the universe made itself is fact. I think you have not gone through the thinking process enough to know what that implies.
BTW, the Biblical account is not un-scientific, but it is certainly written in a non-scientific way. Do you know the difference?