Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website

troublemaker2005

24 Feb 13, 15:34

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

While the meaning of a word may change over time due to usage, it only means there are more than one meaning to the word depending on the context. Which is why a dictionary always have a few entries for each word. But the word universe cannot mean a multiverse, it's incoherent and contradictory. Really, you need to understand that this agenda to prove the existence of multiverses is to steer people away from the notion that this universe is uniquely designed for life. People do not want there to be purposeful design in the universe, so positing the existence of billions of multiverses would give people (mainly those who do not want there to be a God) the comfort that one of these billions must be suitable for life, and that is us. It's philosophy at work here, not science. It is purely hypothetical and mathematical with no empirical evidence. It is the arbitrary multiplying of probabilistic resources to make the impossible or improbable more probable. Nothing conclusive has been found, but people are still looking for it, I'd say it is wishful thinking.

See http://www.livescience.com/15530-multiverse-universe-eternal-inflation-test.html

what, dont pichar your own lobang leh!

BroInChrist

24 Feb 13, 23:23

Originally posted by troublemaker2005:

what, dont pichar your own lobang leh!

How so? Explain please.

troublemaker2005

24 Feb 13, 23:28

Originally posted by zeus29:

and your understanding is finite?

his long winded chain and loops of english words is reall infinte.

in the practical electronics and progamin terms. infinte senseless loop of instructions causes response failure.

that is why your computer - hangs.

troublemaker2005

24 Feb 13, 23:32

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

How so? Explain please.

[imdestinyz]

25 Feb 13, 09:46

Originally posted by sinweiy:

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

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

/\

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

Spnw07

28 Feb 13, 16:59

Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

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

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

[imdestinyz]

28 Feb 13, 21:16

Originally posted by Spnw07:

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

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

BroInChrist

4 Mar 13, 14:45

Originally posted by sinweiy:

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

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

/\

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

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

BroInChrist

4 Mar 13, 15:16

Originally posted by sinweiy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

/\

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

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

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

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

BroInChrist

4 Mar 13, 15:21

Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

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

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

BroInChrist

4 Mar 13, 15:25

Originally posted by Spnw07:

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

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

BroInChrist

4 Mar 13, 15:31

Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

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

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

[imdestinyz]

4 Mar 13, 17:14

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

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

and it is just as wrong, to impose god and the call for finding truths on the buddhism beliefs where they do not advocate finding the truth. It is also wrong to insist that only the christian god is the one and only true god to the buddhist(where to them even the prescence of god is questionable)

My take, you are pointing out in a biased manner. For objective's sake, point out whatever that could be wrong from both sides. Even though you might find nothing wrong with christianity, others have. Respecting others in a discussion involves broad mindedness especially in religious discussion. If we are not open to the ideas of the other religions, but we are only around to prove them wrong? whats the point of discussing.

My take and my question to you, honestly ask yourself, are you here to prove your religion a true religion or others false, or are you here really to learn.?

sinweiy

5 Mar 13, 08:35

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

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

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

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

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

actually, ultimately, Hitler and Mother Teresa has no different in Buddhism from the pov of Buddhanature. difference is in their habits/karma from past lifes. äººä¹‹åˆ�ï¼Œæ€§æœ¬å–„ã€‚æ€§ç›¸è¿‘ï¼Œä¹ ç›¸è¿œã€‚like i say we don't give life maximum sentence. we know if everything is dual, yes. if all is good, then too good also can become bad. to have some bad, teaches one to keep away from it. Hitler had actually "teach" people not to follow his foot step. that's a merit in itself.

Buddha attained Buddhahood 8000 times, as the body is not forever, it gets old and rot. u can see it as changing clothing, when the cloth is unwearable, change a new cloth and continue teaching sentient beings. Fyi, He is still in other world system doing teaching to sentient beings.

no new information or new knowledge can be gained by Buddha too. no, He do not suffer either. u do not suffer from changing cloth. like we said, deity also suffer death.

indeed the "nirvanic" bliss achieved by the arhats/hinayana are "boring" after a very long time. after which they re enter samsara to seek bodhisattvahood or Buddhahood, where they start to help others in samsara. since samsara is never ending, happily helping others in samsara is their nirvanic bliss forever! they are free from karma, yet can still help and be happy forever eternally. in such a changing enviro, no, they wouldn't be bored. that's the real Nirvana!

/\

BroInChrist

6 Mar 13, 12:12

Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

and it is just as wrong, to impose god and the call for finding truths on the buddhism beliefs where they do not advocate finding the truth. It is also wrong to insist that only the christian god is the one and only true god to the buddhist(where to them even the prescence of god is questionable)

My take, you are pointing out in a biased manner. For objective's sake, point out whatever that could be wrong from both sides. Even though you might find nothing wrong with christianity, others have. Respecting others in a discussion involves broad mindedness especially in religious discussion. If we are not open to the ideas of the other religions, but we are only around to prove them wrong? whats the point of discussing.

My take and my question to you, honestly ask yourself, are you here to prove your religion a true religion or others false, or are you here really to learn.?

1. Where do you get the idea that Buddhism does not advocate finding truth? Why else would Buddha then come up with the 4 Noble Truths? And why is it wrong to insist that there is only one true God, even if Buddhists do not believe it and insist that the Christian God does not exist at all?

2. Can Buddhists here point out what's wrong with Buddhism? Can you point out what's wrong with atheism if you are an atheist? I believe I have been very broadminded to engage in dialogue with some equally broadminded Buddhists here. We have interacted with ideas and beliefs on both sides. A discussion may be about winning one side over, or putting ideas on the table to examine.

3. Every honest Christian or honest Buddhist would believe their religion is true and others false. Can Buddhists honestly beleve that Christianity is true? They can't. So your pluralistic idea is just plain wrong. And honestly, whether you believe it or not, I have also learned some things from my Buddhists friends here.

BroInChrist

6 Mar 13, 12:18

Originally posted by sinweiy:

actually, ultimately, Hitler and Mother Teresa has no different in Buddhism from the pov of Buddhanature. difference is in their habits/karma from past lifes. äººä¹‹åˆ�ï¼Œæ€§æœ¬å–„ã€‚æ€§ç›¸è¿‘ï¼Œä¹ ç›¸è¿œã€‚like i say we don't give life maximum sentence. we know if everything is dual, yes. if all is good, then too good also can become bad. to have some bad, teaches one to keep away from it. Hitler had actually "teach" people not to follow his foot step. that's a merit in itself.

Buddha attained Buddhahood 8000 times, as the body is not forever, it gets old and rot. u can see it as changing clothing, when the cloth is unwearable, change a new cloth and continue teaching sentient beings. Fyi, He is still in other world system doing teaching to sentient beings.

no new information or new knowledge can be gained by Buddha too. no, He do not suffer either. u do not suffer from changing cloth. like we said, deity also suffer death.

indeed the "nirvanic" bliss achieved by the arhats/hinayana are "boring" after a very long time. after which they re enter samsara to seek bodhisattvahood or Buddhahood, where they start to help others in samsara. since samsara is never ending, happily helping others in samsara is their nirvanic bliss forever! they are free from karma, yet can still help and be happy forever eternally. in such a changing enviro, no, they wouldn't be bored. that's the real Nirvana!

/\

1. Hitler and Mother Teresa are certainly no different from the POV that they are humans. But that's not exactly what I am talking about. I am asking if Buddhists hold that the moral character of both these people are no different at all. The issue I also see is that of accumulating positive karma. Does that negate the negative karma? If Hitler killed 6 million Jews, does telling others not to do so negate the fact that he was a genocidal murderer?

2. Attaining Buddhahood 8000 times, I don't quite understand that, wouldn't one time be enough? If you have to come back as a human 8000 times, that would mean that Buddha never did escape Samsara on first try? And since there is no-self in "ultimate truth" sense, how could one still speak of a "he" concerning Buddha which implies he has a self?

3. Interesting, how can Nirvana be boring when there is no self to be bored with in the first place? Exactly "who" is being bored? Again it seems that the idea of "self" comes back up while it is being suppressed and denied.

Nyorai

6 Mar 13, 20:04

Chirstians themselves must commit trufully & wholeheartedly that God is themselves, means Christians can become God, and infact it is God before common ground can be forward looking.

sinweiy

6 Mar 13, 21:33

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

1. Hitler and Mother Teresa are certainly no different from the POV that they are humans. But that's not exactly what I am talking about. I am asking if Buddhists hold that the moral character of both these people are no different at all. The issue I also see is that of accumulating positive karma. Does that negate the negative karma? If Hitler killed 6 million Jews, does telling others not to do so negate the fact that he was a genocidal murderer?

2. Attaining Buddhahood 8000 times, I don't quite understand that, wouldn't one time be enough? If you have to come back as a human 8000 times, that would mean that Buddha never did escape Samsara on first try? And since there is no-self in "ultimate truth" sense, how could one still speak of a "he" concerning Buddha which implies he has a self?

3. Interesting, how can Nirvana be boring when there is no self to be bored with in the first place? Exactly "who" is being bored? Again it seems that the idea of "self" comes back up while it is being suppressed and denied.

simply put, if u take countless rebirth into consideration, it will be clearer. if u don't, no matter how u see it from a one life pov, it wouldn't make sense to u. that's the diff.

again, if u do not consider Nirvana/samsara to be a place, it will be clearer. pls re-read my post, the "nirvanic" bliss achieved by the hinayana is not the true nirvana. it's a false nirvana recorded in the Mahayana. Nirvana and samsara is on the same side of the coin, flip to one side, the other also flip together. but i think this is too profound for ur understanding, not even junior buddhists can understand this. junior buddhists will first learn that Nirvana and samsara is different. although light and darkness are opposite, but without the latter, the former also cannot exist! Buddhism is very chim!

one thing for sure, Nirvana equal no suffering, no karma.

again your no self understanding had become annihilationism. u keep stuck in annihilationism. Buddhanature IS Impermanence which is neither Eternalism non annihilationism.

å…ç¥–æ…§èƒ½æ›°ï¼š“æ— å¸¸è€…ï¼Œå�³ä½›æ€§ä¹Ÿï¼›æœ‰å¸¸è€…ï¼Œå�³ä¸€åˆ‡å–„æ�¶è¯¸æ³•åˆ†åˆ«å¿ƒä¹Ÿã€‚”

Dogen: Impermanence is Buddha-nature.

Now keep them in mind, when u use "no self" again.

/\

[imdestinyz]

7 Mar 13, 12:57

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

1. Where do you get the idea that Buddhism does not advocate finding truth? Why else would Buddha then come up with the 4 Noble Truths? And why is it wrong to insist that there is only one true God, even if Buddhists do not believe it and insist that the Christian God does not exist at all?

2. Can Buddhists here point out what's wrong with Buddhism? Can you point out what's wrong with atheism if you are an atheist? I believe I have been very broadminded to engage in dialogue with some equally broadminded Buddhists here. We have interacted with ideas and beliefs on both sides. A discussion may be about winning one side over, or putting ideas on the table to examine.

3. Every honest Christian or honest Buddhist would believe their religion is true and others false. Can Buddhists honestly beleve that Christianity is true? They can't. So your pluralistic idea is just plain wrong. And honestly, whether you believe it or not, I have also learned some things from my Buddhists friends here.

winning 1 side over is a debate/argument... putting things on table is called a discussion... and no buddhist did not insist that xtian god exist anot... it just doesnt matter to us. But you dont seem to catch it. To you, when we say it doesn't matter to us, it means evading the question of origins. To us, whether your god exist anot, doesn't matter to us. I believe Mr Zeus have pointed that out.

By pressing an answer for origins/creation onto buddhist whom may not find that it matters, how is that not forcing the idea onto others?

Oh to note, when i look at the teachings, when things dont seem right, i ponder... but when i speak to xtians(not you in particular) they apparently doesnt seem so... they just try to find a explaination that fits them aka their faith.

According to dictionary -

adjective

free from prejudice or bigotry; unbiased; liberal; tolerant.

Having a discussion here, doesn't equate to being broad minded isnt it?

Nyorai

7 Mar 13, 15:30

when some buddhism masters speaks Jesus/God from the perspective of buddhism scripture, and for world peace, it tweets the term God in a more approachable, most kind, lovely, awesomic, same as Buddha / buddhahood. The term God is explained by buddhism masters defining an omnipresenceness neither externally nor internally. When a christians speak God, there is this dualistic, psychological and philosophical flavour and totally succumb to God judgement similar to heaven dieties inferior to king of heaven. And these dieties akin to angels in Holy Bible from the xtians point of view. Doubtful from Jesus point of view and definitely not from God as the latter has no way to show it to any xtians besides through Jesus and buddhism masters.

BroInChrist

12 Mar 13, 10:43

Originally posted by Nyorai:

Chirstians themselves must commit trufully & wholeheartedly that God is themselves, means Christians can become God, and infact it is God before common ground can be forward looking.

Yet this notion is void of any Biblical basis, so why should any Christian commit to this?

Nyorai

12 Mar 13, 10:58

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

Yet this notion is void of any Biblical basis, so why should any Christian commit to this?

When there is void in biblical basis, Bible is a religion that is about EQ and IQ stuff, and it also deals with psychology and philosophy. It is not easy to achieve heaven, benevolence without boundary is the only way. In bible there is no tell tale signs of the realms the corpse or the dead is attaining. So, when buddhists are helping you religion to have faith in God, you are going back to yes/no basis of God, in which, in the name of God, may you be commanded to be faithful and learn from Buddhism :)

BroInChrist

12 Mar 13, 11:16

Originally posted by sinweiy:

simply put, if u take countless rebirth into consideration, it will be clearer. if u don't, no matter how u see it from a one life pov, it wouldn't make sense to u. that's the diff.

again, if u do not consider Nirvana/samsara to be a place, it will be clearer. pls re-read my post, the "nirvanic" bliss achieved by the hinayana is not the true nirvana. it's a false nirvana recorded in the Mahayana. Nirvana and samsara is on the same side of the coin, flip to one side, the other also flip together. but i think this is too profound for ur understanding, not even junior buddhists can understand this. junior buddhists will first learn that Nirvana and samsara is different. although light and darkness are opposite, but without the latter, the former also cannot exist! Buddhism is very chim!

one thing for sure, Nirvana equal no suffering, no karma.

again your no self understanding had become annihilationism. u keep stuck in annihilationism. Buddhanature IS Impermanence which is neither Eternalism non annihilationism.

Dogen: Impermanence is Buddha-nature.

Now keep them in mind, when u use "no self" again.

/\

1. As mentioned elsewhere, countless rebirth would mean infinity and thus practically if not absolutely impossible. Imagine someone telling you that it takes countless number of attempts to get a driving license. Does that make you anymore hopeful that you would get it this time, or the next? Wouldn't it be really just wishful thinking?

2. I used to think that Nirvana was a place, then I was corrected on it. And now I take the view that true Buddhism teaches Nirvana is a psychological state of mind. There is no material observable physical difference between one person who has attained nirvana and another person who has not.

3. Does Buddhism teach annihilism/nihilism? You keep saying that I fell for this extreme view. But I take the view that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. There are many ideas in Buddhism that easily lends to this conclusion. Extinguishing is one of them. No-self is another. Taking the Middle Way is trying to explain something that is neither here nor there. It can also result in Buddhists speaking in self-negating and self-refuting terms but somehow still accepted as logical and true.

Interesting also is the view of noted philosopher Frederick Nietzsche here http://thus-spoke-nietzsche.tumblr.com/post/19194412041/nietzsche-on-buddhism

4. I still think that to avoid the unnecessary confusion, Buddhists should use terms like contingent beings and necessary beings which are better easily understood among philosophy.

BroInChrist

12 Mar 13, 11:35

Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

winning 1 side over is a debate/argument... putting things on table is called a discussion... and no buddhist did not insist that xtian god exist anot... it just doesnt matter to us. But you dont seem to catch it. To you, when we say it doesn't matter to us, it means evading the question of origins. To us, whether your god exist anot, doesn't matter to us. I believe Mr Zeus have pointed that out.

By pressing an answer for origins/creation onto buddhist whom may not find that it matters, how is that not forcing the idea onto others?

Oh to note, when i look at the teachings, when things dont seem right, i ponder... but when i speak to xtians(not you in particular) they apparently doesnt seem so... they just try to find a explaination that fits them aka their faith.

According to dictionary -

broad-mind·ed

adjective
free from prejudice or bigotry; unbiased; liberal; tolerant.

Having a discussion here, doesn't equate to being broad minded isnt it?

Again you confused a truth issue with a posture issue. Either God exists or He does not, it is a truth issue. Your interest in this issue is a posture issue. Your apathy or "can't be bothered" attitude is a posture issue. It does not answer the question. Instead it throws up smoke by saying that the question is speculative, meaningless, asker not mature etc etc. Again silence can be a reflection of ignorance, or a disguise of ignorance.

The "Does God exist?" question is to be answered with "Yes, No, or I don't know". You only answer with "I don't care" if the question is "What do you personally think or feel about the question of whether God exist or not?" So I am only pressing you to answer the right question. To say I am forcing you is to exaggerate things. I will be happy with an "I don't know" answer from you. But take note that I will also ask, "Then don't you want to know?"

Every worldview has its "problems" so to speak. Even though I believe Christianity is true, my understanding of it is limited, thus it is inevitable that there will be questions posed by critics that I have difficulty answering. But we all are entitled to invoking a rescue device to maintain our worldview. The question is whether this rescue device is arbitrary and ad hoc with no good basis. Use it often enough and the cracks in the worldview will quickly show. Yes, we try to fit explanations to our worldview, EVERYONE does that. It is a paradigm thing. We will see with it until we realise that it cannot cope and we then change paradigm, or change lenses, or change worldview, or change religion.

Having a discussion would be consistent with being broadminded, though it does not necessarily means being broadminded. But then again, a narrow minded person would not want to discuss anything, would he? What's there to discuss anyway? It is disagreement that encourages dialogue and discussion. If everyone agrees, then there is no need to discuss.

BroInChrist

12 Mar 13, 11:40

Originally posted by Nyorai:

when some buddhism masters speaks Jesus/God from the perspective of buddhism scripture, and for world peace, it tweets the term God in a more approachable, most kind, lovely, awesomic, same as Buddha / buddhahood. The term God is explained by buddhism masters defining an omnipresenceness neither externally nor internally. When a christians speak God, there is this dualistic, psychological and philosophical flavour and totally succumb to God judgement similar to heaven dieties inferior to king of heaven. And these dieties akin to angels in Holy Bible from the xtians point of view. Doubtful from Jesus point of view and definitely not from God as the latter has no way to show it to any xtians besides through Jesus and buddhism masters.

Yes, Christians speak of God in a way that maintains a Creator-Creation distinction. The question is whether this distinction is true and that there are good reasons to believe it.