What is God? What is Buddha?
-
i hope that the christians to do good to be with God, while the buddhists to follow Buddha's footprints to Liberation and dedicate merits to all sentient beings
Isn't that a better idea? The world will be a better place
-
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.“given that god is the creator of time.” -> true for you but debatable to us.“the time to make a decision for God is." but not bound/constrained by time, i don't understand.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.-> and this cinema is fixed and the movie cannot start without closing door. So the way how "he" works and all his mysterious powers are fixed and defined in a book which was authored by people millennia ago? I wonder how many times, I’ve been unconventional and unpredictable. But if the “supreme being” can be predicted and defined by you, I guess maybe you’re even more powerful.Also, "why keep gates open" -> why not? for the love of his children? won't you for your kids?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.-> "Why would God be precluded from setting a time for us just because He created time?" why not since he has power over time, right? why the continued suffering?"confused eradicating sin with the atonement for sins" -> pray explain.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.-> we think death is just part of life. natural phenomenon. nothing to do with result/consequences/wages of sin at all.“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.” -> I’m having a little challenge understanding or imagining this. You mean like zombie?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."What makes you think he wants to?" -> and what makes you think that I think he wants or doesn’t want to? I said “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?”but yeah you're right. the bible says so and it's fixed and finite. there's no room for any changes. i wonder how many times i've made changes in my life or changed my mind on something.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.-> “really stretch the analogy too far” and yet you could for cinema and movie analogy earlier? Also, was there a limit? set by?“you think the free gift of salvation is like any other free commodity offered out there in the market.” And yet, you compared that gift to free-all-movie ticket? i find inconsistency in your argument.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.“because of your sins.”-> which was already been “atoned” for by jesus? Eg; you’ve paid off your credit card debt but the bank still charges you for the debt that you’ve paid?“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” ->“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.”-> exactly the cause and effect that we’ve been taught.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?-> so, you do mean the effects of sin and not power of sin? And I’ve asked you Since free from effects of sin which include the sin of betraying god and eating the forbidden fruit, why not back in Eden? 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“God said so in the Bible. Not everyone will be saved.” -> the statement is only true for you and not anyone else. we respectfully disagree. So, there’s no “duhh” which is an expression used derisively to indicate that something just stated is all too obvious or self-evident. And it’s not too obvious or self-evident to us. Hold your “duh” ☺“This truth should not elude you since you also believe that attaining Nirvana is conditional upon many things.” -> such as?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.“The Bible simply teaches that your ticket out of hell is free, why would that be a gift held at ransom? “ -> let’s backtrack a little. You said “"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?” and then “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.”So, pray tell. 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. again, i find inconsistency in your argument.“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.” -> yes, we believe sentient beings are caught in the samsara, but there’s no mention of getting thrown into “Lake of Fire which is reserved for those who rebel against and refuse” and get out. The person continues to be in samsara and rebirth after rebirth after rebirth. EG: you’re stuck in a jam to work everyday. I show you a shortcut but you don’t want to take the shortcut, so you just continue to get stuck in the jam everyday. It’s not like I show you a shortcut and if you don’t follow, I throw you into the river. I think there is a difference. Also, just to let you know, I don’t think we use the word “rebel”. Not following does not mean rebel.“you believe you can buy your way out.” -> how so? I want to learn how to buy my way out. as i asked earlier. "didn't you study hard to get into uni? or the letter of offer just came"“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.” -> ego or pride thing? Somehow, I can’t see that it points to that. How is it that one is egoistic and proud for not taking something for free? A new meaning to the word? Gosh, I must be very egoistic and proud not to take the free credit cards and free samples offered.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.“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 “ and it overrides all else?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.“It isn't just my perspective that you cannot earn salvation. It's what the Bible teaches.” Again, true for you but debatable to us.“it's just my perspective you can ignore it.” -> even it is or it isn’t, it doesn’t matter to us. I’ve told you many times that we work on our own liberation.“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.” -> we disagree.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.Again, true for you but debatable to us.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?“If you dismiss my beliefs as mere hypothesis” -> easy there, tiger. Don’t jump to conclusions so quick. Let’s backtrack. You said, “Why would it cause offence to acknowledge that the Creator is above His creation? It is a fact to be acknowledged, not rebelled against." and I said, “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.”“The point is, can you fault the logic that a creation is not above its creator?” -> Again, true for you but debatable to us. I’ve told you countless times that whether there is a creator or not, it doesn’t matter to us.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?“Why would you think that the word "undermine" carries a militaristic connotation? Who said anything about Buddhism going to war with other religions?” -> exactly who said? I asked,” where did you get that? do you mean buddhists? 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.“ to emphasise how apathic buddhists are towards what others choose to believe. You follow?Also, in the past people went to learn rather than people went knocking on people's door nmd preach. You follow?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.-> there's only one school of thought in christianity? i don't think so. catholics, mormons, seven day adventists etc...........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!"“But why don't tell?” -> because he said it was irrelevant. Focus on our liberation first just like the earlier analogy about getting shot in the leg by an arrow. Heal the wound first. It's foolish to teach a level further Maths to P1 schoolers. Don't you think?“I would say "heaps!" -> Again, true for you only...“If there is only one God, then why pray to others?” -> if there is one god, then there is no others. If no others, why does god have anything against someone who prays to nothing?“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.” -> interesting that you describe human emotions to define a “supreme being”. To me this god being sounds like an asura. But sorry, I'm only comparing it to Buddha's qualities where such emotions do not exist.
-
haha... zeus i love your replies. Respectful and non offensive :)
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
haha... zeus i love your replies. Respectful and non offensive :)
_/|\_
-
Originally posted by wl_t:
If he created time, then from his point of view, there is a before creation and after creation, which implies that time already existed. So there is a contradiction, and therefore it is not possible for time to be created by him.
Yes, there is a before creation, and before time began. But that does not mean that time already existed before it was created. This would indeed be a contradiction, but also a strawman argument. The Christian does not argue that time existed before it was created. We use the word "before" to denote logical priority besides just linear chronology. The word "before" does not necessary include a time element. If I am standing before you, it does not mean I am older than you! 1 comes before 2, but there is no time element involved, at least not necessarily so. It may be hard to wrap our head around time and eternity, but I think it is also the time (pun intended) where we recognise our own finite limitations!
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
maybe zeus29 didn't put it correctly. Buddha will answer what you don't know like "an old wise man" as i posted in another thread. unless the questions will effect one's path/ upbringing, or when He see that the person is not ready, He would not say until they are ready. just imagine a parent teaching their children, not everything the parent can answer, the kid can understand at certain age. eg birds and bees. eg the use of santa claus to children. if u behave, santa will reward, if u not behave, u will be punished! this is useful when the person is not matured. then when one become matured, there's really no santa claus!
got oneday, Buddha took up a handful of leaves and point to the forest and say to disciples, what i know is equivalent to the leaves in the forests, but what u need to know for liberation is just this handful.
'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'(Bertrand Russell)
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/297.htm
Buddha was just not interested in discussion about retrospect but introspect is more important.
/\
I understand that there will be times when we are not ready for some information. But somehow Buddhism seems to be saying that NO ONE is ready for this piece of information at all. Is this true?
Re Bertrand Russell's words, it has to be the poverty of his understanding that the world does not have a beginning. Science has already proven this to be a fact. Anyway, Russell is dead, he knows the truth now. In fact, there are good reasons to think that the universe has a beginning! So good that people are even now trying to circumvent it by saying that universes are popping into and out of existence all the time!
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
immatured to me. we do not condemn one who can change to the better/good even when one had wronged due to ignorance. learned from mistake is a good thing! just like we don't condemn a child who had not matured.
this part of the bible, is we people find the most unacceptable.
/\
Just because you find something unacceptable it does not invalidate its truth.
Why would it be immature for God to judge and condemn sinners? Do you consider it immature for a judge to pass judgement on a criminal? You are basing your allegation that people can change for the better. But you are forgetting one thing, you are not omniscient, God is. His judgement is based on His omniscience. You can't tell the future, but God knows the future. In short, it is not that God is immature, but your understanding of God is.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
@wl_t
agreed with you
If time has inherent existence, there will be no past, present, future. Each moment is dependent on another moment of time.
To say time has inherent existence is definitely flawed
I would certainly agree with you. The Bible teaches that time has a beginning. It is a contingent "thing", so to speak.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:1. 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.“given that god is the creator of time.” -> true for you but debatable to us.“the time to make a decision for God is." but not bound/constrained by time, i don't understand.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.-> and this cinema is fixed and the movie cannot start without closing door. So the way how "he" works and all his mysterious powers are fixed and defined in a book which was authored by people millennia ago? I wonder how many times, I’ve been unconventional and unpredictable. But if the “supreme being” can be predicted and defined by you, I guess maybe you’re even more powerful.Also, "why keep gates open" -> why not? for the love of his children? won't you for your kids?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.-> "Why would God be precluded from setting a time for us just because He created time?" why not since he has power over time, right? why the continued suffering?"confused eradicating sin with the atonement for sins" -> pray explain.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.-> we think death is just part of life. natural phenomenon. nothing to do with result/consequences/wages of sin at all.“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.” -> I’m having a little challenge understanding or imagining this. You mean like zombie?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."What makes you think he wants to?" -> and what makes you think that I think he wants or doesn’t want to? I said “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?”but yeah you're right. the bible says so and it's fixed and finite. there's no room for any changes. i wonder how many times i've made changes in my life or changed my mind on something.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.-> “really stretch the analogy too far” and yet you could for cinema and movie analogy earlier? Also, was there a limit? set by?“you think the free gift of salvation is like any other free commodity offered out there in the market.” And yet, you compared that gift to free-all-movie ticket? i find inconsistency in your argument.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.“because of your sins.”-> which was already been “atoned” for by jesus? Eg; you’ve paid off your credit card debt but the bank still charges you for the debt that you’ve paid?“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” ->“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.”-> exactly the cause and effect that we’ve been taught.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?-> so, you do mean the effects of sin and not power of sin? And I’ve asked you Since free from effects of sin which include the sin of betraying god and eating the forbidden fruit, why not back in Eden? 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“God said so in the Bible. Not everyone will be saved.” -> the statement is only true for you and not anyone else. we respectfully disagree. So, there’s no “duhh” which is an expression used derisively to indicate that something just stated is all too obvious or self-evident. And it’s not too obvious or self-evident to us. Hold your “duh” ☺“This truth should not elude you since you also believe that attaining Nirvana is conditional upon many things.” -> such as?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.“The Bible simply teaches that your ticket out of hell is free, why would that be a gift held at ransom? “ -> let’s backtrack a little. You said “"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?” and then “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.”So, pray tell. 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. again, i find inconsistency in your argument.“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.” -> yes, we believe sentient beings are caught in the samsara, but there’s no mention of getting thrown into “Lake of Fire which is reserved for those who rebel against and refuse” and get out. The person continues to be in samsara and rebirth after rebirth after rebirth. EG: you’re stuck in a jam to work everyday. I show you a shortcut but you don’t want to take the shortcut, so you just continue to get stuck in the jam everyday. It’s not like I show you a shortcut and if you don’t follow, I throw you into the river. I think there is a difference. Also, just to let you know, I don’t think we use the word “rebel”. Not following does not mean rebel.“you believe you can buy your way out.” -> how so? I want to learn how to buy my way out. as i asked earlier. "didn't you study hard to get into uni? or the letter of offer just came"“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.” -> ego or pride thing? Somehow, I can’t see that it points to that. How is it that one is egoistic and proud for not taking something for free? A new meaning to the word? Gosh, I must be very egoistic and proud not to take the free credit cards and free samples offered.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.“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 “ and it overrides all else?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.“It isn't just my perspective that you cannot earn salvation. It's what the Bible teaches.” Again, true for you but debatable to us.“it's just my perspective you can ignore it.” -> even it is or it isn’t, it doesn’t matter to us. I’ve told you many times that we work on our own liberation.“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.” -> we disagree.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.Again, true for you but debatable to us.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?“If you dismiss my beliefs as mere hypothesis” -> easy there, tiger. Don’t jump to conclusions so quick. Let’s backtrack. You said, “Why would it cause offence to acknowledge that the Creator is above His creation? It is a fact to be acknowledged, not rebelled against." and I said, “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.”“The point is, can you fault the logic that a creation is not above its creator?” -> Again, true for you but debatable to us. I’ve told you countless times that whether there is a creator or not, it doesn’t matter to us.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?“Why would you think that the word "undermine" carries a militaristic connotation? Who said anything about Buddhism going to war with other religions?” -> exactly who said? I asked,” where did you get that? do you mean buddhists? 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.“ to emphasise how apathic buddhists are towards what others choose to believe. You follow?Also, in the past people went to learn rather than people went knocking on people's door nmd preach. You follow?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.-> there's only one school of thought in christianity? i don't think so. catholics, mormons, seven day adventists etc...........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!"“But why don't tell?” -> because he said it was irrelevant. Focus on our liberation first just like the earlier analogy about getting shot in the leg by an arrow. Heal the wound first. It's foolish to teach a level further Maths to P1 schoolers. Don't you think?“I would say "heaps!" -> Again, true for you only...“If there is only one God, then why pray to others?” -> if there is one god, then there is no others. If no others, why does god have anything against someone who prays to nothing?“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.” -> interesting that you describe human emotions to define a “supreme being”. To me this god being sounds like an asura. But sorry, I'm only comparing it to Buddha's qualities where such emotions do not exist.
1. The phrase "true for you but debatable to us" would apply to many of your beliefs as well so it doesn't really convey much information at all.
2. The Bible tells us a lot about God, so I don't see what you mean by me defining and predicting what God does.
3. Death on the cross = atonement for sin. Eradicating sin = Judgement Day. Analogy would be paying the ransom at T1 and you being released from your captors at T2.
4. You said death is just normal. That would be confusing what is with what ought to be. Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome. And only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed. Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.
5. Yes, you have made changes to your life, that's normal. But that's also because you lack an attribute that God has, omniscience. Which is why God can tell us in advance that the devil will be thrown into the lake of fire, completely unrepentant and still the devil.
6. The bank cannot charge you for a debt that is paid off. Similarly no Christian would be thrown into the Lake of Fire after his name is in the Book of Life.
7. It will be "back to Eden" but in God's sequence and timing. You are simplying harping on the point that it is not instant. You forget or failed to register that a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.
8. You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved? If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent. We all know that it is logically possible (and that it does happen) for people not to accept a free gift. And you failed to note that the context is not that of a consumer good. Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?
9. Yes, you believe that man is caught in samsara (no way out and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism) just like Bible says man is condemned to begin with and need Christ.
10. Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this. You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket. You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.
11. Yes, there are Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please". Yes, we do not teach advance maths to P1 students, but on what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?
12. Jealousy is an emotion, just like anger. It's what makes us human. We have feelings. You dehumanise yourself if you deny such emotions. God also has feelings because God is a Person. We have feelings because we are created in God's image.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
haha... zeus i love your replies. Respectful and non offensive :)
Hmm....it seems that you are trying to insinuate something...
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Just because you find something unacceptable it does not invalidate its truth.
Why would it be immature for God to judge and condemn sinners? Do you consider it immature for a judge to pass judgement on a criminal? You are basing your allegation that people can change for the better. But you are forgetting one thing, you are not omniscient, God is. His judgement is based on His omniscience. You can't tell the future, but God knows the future. In short, it is not that God is immature, but your understanding of God is.
God knows the future? Does it mean God knew before hand that Eve would definitely be tricked by the serpent into eating the forbidden fruit. God should kill the serpent to prevent it from happening. So many people were suffering (especially the poor Africans) and are suffering because of the incident. God knew it would happen and didn't do anything about it. I would rather believe that God is a loving God who didn't know about the future and didn't know about the grave consequence of Eve's disobedience.
-
1. The phrase "true for you but debatable to us" would apply to many of your beliefs as well so it doesn't really convey much information at all.
-> yupe. So no point discussing about whether there is creator god or not. THE ANSWER REALLY MEANS NOTHING TO US.
2. The Bible tells us a lot about God, so I don't see what you mean by me defining and predicting what God does.
-> yupe. god’s past, current and future thoughts, action and power are confined to a book written by men millennia ago. i guess the quote "It's not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image,” by Ludwig Feuerbach does hold some water.
3. Death on the cross = atonement for sin. Eradicating sin = Judgement Day. Analogy would be paying the ransom at T1 and you being released from your captors at T2.
-> pretty confusing. I thought my English is bad. So, I’ve checked several dictionaries. Atonement means compensation for wrong. Again, my question, “you’ve paid off your credit card debt but the bank still charges you for the debt that you’ve paid?”
4. You said death is just normal. That would be confusing what is with what ought to be. Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome. And only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed. Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.
“Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome.” -> you’re comparing to your own beliefs and upbringing. Not every culture shares the same view. eg Mexicans even celebrate death.
“only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed.” -> as mentioned, it’s only part of life to us. It’s not an enemy etc to us.
“Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.” -> so god’s creation is not perfect? Or that death is too powerful?
5. Yes, you have made changes to your life, that's normal. But that's also because you lack an attribute that God has, omniscience. Which is why God can tell us in advance that the devil will be thrown into the lake of fire, completely unrepentant and still the devil.
-> same as before. I much prefer our buddhist compassion.
6. The bank cannot charge you for a debt that is paid off. Similarly no Christian would be thrown into the Lake of Fire after his name is in the Book of Life.
-> so only Christians go to heaven? What about those who aren’t Christians but done a lot of good to humanity? What about kids who died? Unborn babies? Etc?
So, pray tell. 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.
7. It will be "back to Eden" but in God's sequence and timing. You are simplying harping on the point that it is not instant. You forget or failed to register that a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.
“a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.” -> and god already knows what every man will choose, right? Does he know or not? If he does, then why wait? god needs a response which he already know does not make sense.
8. You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved? If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent. We all know that it is logically possible (and that it does happen) for people not to accept a free gift. And you failed to note that the context is not that of a consumer good. Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?
“You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved?” -> yes we disagree completely that “no one can be saved” whether it is from your bible or your thoughts.
“If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent.” -> eerrrmm… kindly refer to my earlier post. I’m tired of repeating.
"Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?" -> i'm confused now. what are you trying to say?
9. Yes, you believe that man is caught in samsara (no way out and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism) just like Bible says man is condemned to begin with and need Christ.
“man is caught in samsara” -> mind you, not just man.
“no way out” -> there is a way out.
“and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism” -> need?
10. Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this. You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket. You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.
“Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this.” -> yes.
“You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket.” -> Good karma creates merits and virtues. Donation and charitable work are good and will create good karma and accumulate merits and it constitutes dana, part of the 10 paramitas (perfection).
“You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.” -> yeah, and?
11. Yes, there are Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please". Yes, we do not teach advance maths to P1 students, but on what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?
“Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please" -> and all preach the same? I wonder how renaissance and reformation in Europe started.
“what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?” ->
I read it somewhere many years ago. need time to find.
The Buddha's Silence
When the questioner himself was not in a position to understand the real significance of the answer to his question and when the questions posed to Him were wrong, the Buddha remained silent.
The scriptures mention a few occasions when the Buddha remained silent to questions posed to Him. Some scholars, owing to their misunderstanding of the Buddha's silence, came to the hasty conclusion that the Buddha was unable to answer to these questions. While it is true that on several occasions the Buddha did not respond to these metaphysical and speculative questions, there are reasons why the Buddha kept noble silence.
When the Buddha knew that the questioner was not in a position to understand the answer to the question because of its profundity, of if the questions themselves were wrongly put in the first place, the Blessed One remained silent. Some of the questions to which the Buddha remained silent are as following:
Is the universe eternal?
Is it not eternal?
Is the universe finite?
Is it infinite?
Is soul the same as the body?
Is the soul one thing and the body another?
Does the Tathagata exist after death?
Does He not exist after death?
Does He both (at the same time) exist and not exist after death?
Does He both (at the same time) neither exist nor not exist?
The Buddha who had truly realized the nature of these issues observed noble silence. An ordinary person who is still unenlightened might have a lot to say, but all of it would be sheer conjecture based on his imagination.
The Buddha's silence regarding these questions is more meaningful than attempting to deliver thousands of discourses on them. The paucity of our human vocabulary which is built upon relative experiences cannot hope to convey the depth and dimensions of Reality which a person has not himself experienced through Insight. On several occasions, the Buddha had very patiently explained that human language was too limited and could not describe the Ultimate Truth. If the Ultimate Truth is absolute, then it does not have any point of reference for worldlings with only mundane experiences and relative understanding to fully comprehend it. When they try to do so with their limited mental conception, they misunderstand the Truth like the seven blind men and the elephant. The listener who had not realized the Truth could not fathom the explanation given, just like a man who was blind since birth will have no way of truly understanding the color of the sky.
The Buddha did not attempt to give answers to all the questions put to Him. He was under no obligation to respond to meaningless questions which reflected gross misunderstanding on the part of spiritual development. He was a practical Teacher, full of compassion and wisdom. He always spoke to people fully understanding their temperament, capability and capacity to comprehend. When a person asked questions not with the intention to learn how to lead a religious life but simply to create an opportunity for splitting hairs, the Blessed One did not answer these questions. Questions were answered to help a person towards self-realization, not as a way of showing His towering wisdom.
According to the Buddha, there are several ways of answering various types of questions. The first type of question is one that requires a definite answer, such as a 'yes' or 'no'. For example, the question, 'Are all conditioned things impermanent?' is answered with a 'Yes'. The second type of question is one requiring an analytical answer. Suppose someone says that Angulimala was a murderer before he became an "Arahant". So is it possible for all murderers to become Arahants? This question should be analyzed before you can say 'Yes' or 'No'. Otherwise, it will not be answered correctly and comprehensively. You need to analyse what conditions make it possible for a murderer to become a saint within one lifetime.
The third type of question is one where it is necessary to ask a counter question to help the questioner to think through. If you ask, "Why is it wrong to kill other living beings?' the counter question is, 'How does it feel when others try to kill you?' The fourth kind of question is one that should be dropped. It means that you should not answer it. These are the questions which are speculative in nature, and any answer to such questions will only create ore confusion. An example of such a question is, 'Does the universe have a beginning or not?' People can discuss such questions for years without coming to a conclusion. They can only answer such questions based on their imagination, not on real understanding.
Some answers which the Buddha gave have close parallels to the kind responses which are given in nuclear science. According to Robert Oppenheimer, 'If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no'. The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of a man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers in accordance with the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth century science.'
It is important to note however that the Buddha did give answers to some of these questions to His most intellectually developed disciples after the questioner had left. And in many cases, His explanations are contained in other discourses which show us, who live in an age of greater scientific knowledge, why these questions were not answered by the Buddha just to satisfy the inquisitive minds of the questioners.”
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."
— Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya" (MN 63), Majjhima Nikaya
“The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.
— Nhat Hanh, Thich”
12. Jealousy is an emotion, just like anger. It's what makes us human. We have feelings. You dehumanise yourself if you deny such emotions. God also has feelings because God is a Person. We have feelings because we are created in God's image.
“God also has feelings because God is a Person.” -> and jealousy is not virtuous. It’s one unwholesome roots that will lead to others like anger in speech, action, thoughts, etc. hence, I think this being sounds like an asura.
again my question, “if there is one god, then there are no others. If no others, why does god have anything against someone who prays to nothing?” why the jealousy and anger for nothing? If possible, I urge this being to learn about Buddhism and cultivate its own Buddhahood.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
God knows the future? Does it mean God knew before hand that Eve would definitely be tricked by the serpent into eating the forbidden fruit. God should kill the serpent to prevent it from happening. So many people were suffering (especially the poor Africans) and are suffering because of the incident. God knew it would happen and didn't do anything about it. I would rather believe that God is a loving God who didn't know about the future and didn't know about the grave consequence of Eve's disobedience.
and following the cretion theory, i wonder who created the serpent?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I would certainly agree with you. The Bible teaches that time has a beginning. It is a contingent "thing", so to speak.
@wl_t
agreed with you
If time has inherent existence, there will be no past, present, future. Each moment is dependent on another moment of time.
To say time has inherent existence is definitely flawed
Hi BIC... wait a min....
I agreed with wl_t but please don't change my agreement to wl_t into your belief ok?
No matter how much you tried to convince, proselytize, debate (whatever), you can't change my views
all i can say is, you talking to the wrong target audience
-
BIC,
i hope that the christians to do good to be with God, while the buddhists to follow Buddha's footprints to Liberation and dedicate merits to all sentient beings
The world will be a better place right? Don't you agree?
is there really a need to continue debating about your God to us? I think it doesn't make Christianity look good you see... very unchristian-like...
the answers you provided doesn't seem to satisfy the forummers here. Why not you change your target audience to other forums?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Just because you find something unacceptable it does not invalidate its truth.
Why would it be immature for God to judge and condemn sinners? Do you consider it immature for a judge to pass judgement on a criminal? You are basing your allegation that people can change for the better. But you are forgetting one thing, you are not omniscient, God is. His judgement is based on His omniscience. You can't tell the future, but God knows the future. In short, it is not that God is immature, but your understanding of God is.
that kind of truth is unfair and subjective without investigation. so don't make it into something all must accept. unfair is as there's no medium or light sentence, all given life maximum sentence! and the sin here is simply don't believe him. very ego god. we are also like play thing, create already then if not obey, throw into fire and burn. scary. sorry this is not the truth. truth is fairness. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I understand that there will be times when we are not ready for some information. But somehow Buddhism seems to be saying that NO ONE is ready for this piece of information at all. Is this true?
Re Bertrand Russell's words, it has to be the poverty of his understanding that the world does not have a beginning. Science has already proven this to be a fact. Anyway, Russell is dead, he knows the truth now. In fact, there are good reasons to think that the universe has a beginning! So good that people are even now trying to circumvent it by saying that universes are popping into and out of existence all the time!
if Buddha with His All knowinging, see that u are only kindergarten or primary standard, then He will teach kindergarten or primary standard, as teach too high, you also don't understand. if Buddha with His All knowinging, see that u are degree or master standard, then He will teach degree or master standard. with the understanding that life is continous, and learning is a lifetime. sure will matured one day.
Fyi, Buddha also got teach about how one can be reborn into heavenly realms.Cause of rebirth
· Ten wholesome actions (MN 41)
just that heavenly realm is not forever, neither is hell.no, science/ or esp physic got say about new beginning; expansion and also contraction of universe. but like i said, science still has not reached Buddha's All knowing. even great scientist, Albert einstein, look into Buddhism. his e=mc^2 is energy/mind over matter.
/\
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
1. The phrase "true for you but debatable to us" would apply to many of your beliefs as well so it doesn't really convey much information at all.
-> yupe. So no point discussing about whether there is creator god or not. THE ANSWER REALLY MEANS NOTHING TO US.
2. The Bible tells us a lot about God, so I don't see what you mean by me defining and predicting what God does.
-> yupe. god’s past, current and future thoughts, action and power are confined to a book written by men millennia ago. i guess the quote "It's not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image,” by Ludwig Feuerbach does hold some water.
3. Death on the cross = atonement for sin. Eradicating sin = Judgement Day. Analogy would be paying the ransom at T1 and you being released from your captors at T2.
-> pretty confusing. I thought my English is bad. So, I’ve checked several dictionaries. Atonement means compensation for wrong. Again, my question, “you’ve paid off your credit card debt but the bank still charges you for the debt that you’ve paid?”
4. You said death is just normal. That would be confusing what is with what ought to be. Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome. And only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed. Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.
“Yet our human experience has been to see of death as something undesirable and unwelcome.” -> you’re comparing to your own beliefs and upbringing. Not every culture shares the same view. eg Mexicans even celebrate death.
“only in Christianity is this view clearly taught, that death is an intrusion to God's perfect world, an enemy to be destroyed.” -> as mentioned, it’s only part of life to us. It’s not an enemy etc to us.
“Death may well be the norm now in this fallen world, but it was never part of God's original creation.” -> so god’s creation is not perfect? Or that death is too powerful?
5. Yes, you have made changes to your life, that's normal. But that's also because you lack an attribute that God has, omniscience. Which is why God can tell us in advance that the devil will be thrown into the lake of fire, completely unrepentant and still the devil.
-> same as before. I much prefer our buddhist compassion.
6. The bank cannot charge you for a debt that is paid off. Similarly no Christian would be thrown into the Lake of Fire after his name is in the Book of Life.
-> so only Christians go to heaven? What about those who aren’t Christians but done a lot of good to humanity? What about kids who died? Unborn babies? Etc?
So, pray tell. 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.
7. It will be "back to Eden" but in God's sequence and timing. You are simplying harping on the point that it is not instant. You forget or failed to register that a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.
“a response is required. God is giving man time to respond to salvation.” -> and god already knows what every man will choose, right? Does he know or not? If he does, then why wait? god needs a response which he already know does not make sense.
8. You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved? If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent. We all know that it is logically possible (and that it does happen) for people not to accept a free gift. And you failed to note that the context is not that of a consumer good. Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?
“You disagree with me that the Bible teaches that not all will be saved. Are you saying that the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved?” -> yes we disagree completely that “no one can be saved” whether it is from your bible or your thoughts.
“If so, please show. And you did not show how I have been inconsistent.” -> eerrrmm… kindly refer to my earlier post. I’m tired of repeating.
"Your house is on fire, the fireman comes to save you, for free! If you refuse to go with the fireman because you love your house too much, is that a problem with the fireman and his work?" -> i'm confused now. what are you trying to say?
9. Yes, you believe that man is caught in samsara (no way out and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism) just like Bible says man is condemned to begin with and need Christ.
“man is caught in samsara” -> mind you, not just man.
“no way out” -> there is a way out.
“and need Buddha helping hand in Pure Land Buddhism” -> need?
10. Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this. You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket. You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.
“Buddhism basically teaches that you can work your way out of samsara, correct me if I am wrong on this.” -> yes.
“You accumulate good karma to get out of the wheel. That's what I meant by buying your own ticket.” -> Good karma creates merits and virtues. Donation and charitable work are good and will create good karma and accumulate merits and it constitutes dana, part of the 10 paramitas (perfection).
“You even conceded that you work out your own liberation.” -> yeah, and?
11. Yes, there are Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please". Yes, we do not teach advance maths to P1 students, but on what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?
“Mormons and Catholics etc, but this has nothing to do with whether the Christian faith is about "just-believe-no-questions-please" -> and all preach the same? I wonder how renaissance and reformation in Europe started.
“what basis do you equate this with Buddha telling us about the issue of origins and whether there is a Creator God?” ->
I read it somewhere many years ago. need time to find.
The Buddha's Silence
When the questioner himself was not in a position to understand the real significance of the answer to his question and when the questions posed to Him were wrong, the Buddha remained silent.
The scriptures mention a few occasions when the Buddha remained silent to questions posed to Him. Some scholars, owing to their misunderstanding of the Buddha's silence, came to the hasty conclusion that the Buddha was unable to answer to these questions. While it is true that on several occasions the Buddha did not respond to these metaphysical and speculative questions, there are reasons why the Buddha kept noble silence.
When the Buddha knew that the questioner was not in a position to understand the answer to the question because of its profundity, of if the questions themselves were wrongly put in the first place, the Blessed One remained silent. Some of the questions to which the Buddha remained silent are as following:
Is the universe eternal?
Is it not eternal?
Is the universe finite?
Is it infinite?
Is soul the same as the body?
Is the soul one thing and the body another?
Does the Tathagata exist after death?
Does He not exist after death?
Does He both (at the same time) exist and not exist after death?
Does He both (at the same time) neither exist nor not exist?
The Buddha who had truly realized the nature of these issues observed noble silence. An ordinary person who is still unenlightened might have a lot to say, but all of it would be sheer conjecture based on his imagination.
The Buddha's silence regarding these questions is more meaningful than attempting to deliver thousands of discourses on them. The paucity of our human vocabulary which is built upon relative experiences cannot hope to convey the depth and dimensions of Reality which a person has not himself experienced through Insight. On several occasions, the Buddha had very patiently explained that human language was too limited and could not describe the Ultimate Truth. If the Ultimate Truth is absolute, then it does not have any point of reference for worldlings with only mundane experiences and relative understanding to fully comprehend it. When they try to do so with their limited mental conception, they misunderstand the Truth like the seven blind men and the elephant. The listener who had not realized the Truth could not fathom the explanation given, just like a man who was blind since birth will have no way of truly understanding the color of the sky.
The Buddha did not attempt to give answers to all the questions put to Him. He was under no obligation to respond to meaningless questions which reflected gross misunderstanding on the part of spiritual development. He was a practical Teacher, full of compassion and wisdom. He always spoke to people fully understanding their temperament, capability and capacity to comprehend. When a person asked questions not with the intention to learn how to lead a religious life but simply to create an opportunity for splitting hairs, the Blessed One did not answer these questions. Questions were answered to help a person towards self-realization, not as a way of showing His towering wisdom.
According to the Buddha, there are several ways of answering various types of questions. The first type of question is one that requires a definite answer, such as a 'yes' or 'no'. For example, the question, 'Are all conditioned things impermanent?' is answered with a 'Yes'. The second type of question is one requiring an analytical answer. Suppose someone says that Angulimala was a murderer before he became an "Arahant". So is it possible for all murderers to become Arahants? This question should be analyzed before you can say 'Yes' or 'No'. Otherwise, it will not be answered correctly and comprehensively. You need to analyse what conditions make it possible for a murderer to become a saint within one lifetime.
The third type of question is one where it is necessary to ask a counter question to help the questioner to think through. If you ask, "Why is it wrong to kill other living beings?' the counter question is, 'How does it feel when others try to kill you?' The fourth kind of question is one that should be dropped. It means that you should not answer it. These are the questions which are speculative in nature, and any answer to such questions will only create ore confusion. An example of such a question is, 'Does the universe have a beginning or not?' People can discuss such questions for years without coming to a conclusion. They can only answer such questions based on their imagination, not on real understanding.
Some answers which the Buddha gave have close parallels to the kind responses which are given in nuclear science. According to Robert Oppenheimer, 'If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no'. The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of a man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers in accordance with the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth century science.'
It is important to note however that the Buddha did give answers to some of these questions to His most intellectually developed disciples after the questioner had left. And in many cases, His explanations are contained in other discourses which show us, who live in an age of greater scientific knowledge, why these questions were not answered by the Buddha just to satisfy the inquisitive minds of the questioners.”
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."
— Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya" (MN 63), Majjhima Nikaya
“The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.
— Nhat Hanh, Thich”
12. Jealousy is an emotion, just like anger. It's what makes us human. We have feelings. You dehumanise yourself if you deny such emotions. God also has feelings because God is a Person. We have feelings because we are created in God's image.
“God also has feelings because God is a Person.” -> and jealousy is not virtuous. It’s one unwholesome roots that will lead to others like anger in speech, action, thoughts, etc. hence, I think this being sounds like an asura.
again my question, “if there is one god, then there are no others. If no others, why does god have anything against someone who prays to nothing?” why the jealousy and anger for nothing? If possible, I urge this being to learn about Buddhism and cultivate its own Buddhahood.
1. If we are going to hurl the "true for you but not for me" retort, then NOTHING would be worth discussing, not just the issue of God's existence.
2. Your Ludwig quote is irrelevant. The Bible is not the words of mere man, but God using mere man to communicate truths to us. The allegation that the teachings of God are confined to the Bible is not any more different than that the teachings of Buddhism are confined to your own sacred books.
3. Already answered your question. The bank does not charge you interest for debt paid, in the same way a believer does not get condemned to hell for his sins which have been atoned for.
4. Mexicans celebrate death? Please elaborate. God's creation is perfect, in the sense that it was as He has intended. Everything in its place and nothing is out of its order and place. Perfect does not means being incapable of being ruined. I can make a perfect car but you can come along and then wreck it. And how can it be that death is more powerful when God is the Giver of Life? Life comes first, not death. And death could not hold Jesus in the tomb. He is risen.
5. You may prefer that the devil be in heaven, but that's just your preference that is noted. It's not an argument for anything.
6. The Bible says that only those in Christ are saved. The Bible also says that many of the OT saints who never heard of Christ are also saved. What saved them? Their faith in God that was credited to them as righteousness. God is just, so you do not have to worry about babies dying etc. On the day of judgement God will give to each person as he deserved. Why not leave that problem to God? You and I need not burden ourselves with this.
7. Just because God knows the outcome does not mean He has to act now. There is a time and place for everything. Just because you know that in a basketball match Team A will win does not mean you just stop the match and award the game to Team A. You still let the game play itself out.
8. Your disagreement over what the Bible teaches about who will be saved is noted, but mere disagreement proves nothing about the truth of your own beliefs. As for your confusion about the fireman analogy, I shall clarify further. The Bible teaches that all men are already dead and condemned in Adam. Our default position is condemnation, i.e. we are in a burning house. And if we refuse to accept the fireman's free offer of help, our death is on our own heads.
9. Since you understand that buying your own ticket means that you work out your own salvation, I have no further questions. In the fireman analogy it simply means that you decide to find your way out of the burning house. Unfortunately the person that you look for guidance to get out of the burning house is also found burnt and charred and dead.
10. You keep going off-topic. I am saying that there are Mormons and JWs does not have anything to do with the allegation that Christianity is about not asking questions.
11. You can't deny the possibility that ignorance is also consistent with keeping silent. You can say that Buddha chose to remain silent when so-and-so ask him this question. But it seems that he chose to remain completely silent. You mean no one that Buddha ever met can ever understand the answer? A good case can just as well be made that he does not know the answer at all. If there is a Creator God, what's so difficult in saying so? If the universe was created, what is so difficult in saying so? Language may be limited, but that's what we have got. If the Buddha could use words and language and teach till 85 years, what's the problem with using words and language to inform people about origins?
12. Yes, there are indeed many types of questions. But if Buddha knows the answer to the question of origins, then how can it be also speculative in nature? UNLESS Buddha himself does not know the answer? Yet how does this square with the claim that Buddha is all-knowing?
13. Just because God has emotions does not mean He is an asura. That would be to impose Buddhist ideas onto the Bible. There is godly anger and jealousy. You should be angry at child-rapers and jealous for your wife. Otherwise your moral compass is faulty.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
@wl_t
agreed with you
If time has inherent existence, there will be no past, present, future. Each moment is dependent on another moment of time.
To say time has inherent existence is definitely flawed
Hi BIC... wait a min....
I agreed with wl_t but please don't change my agreement to wl_t into your belief ok?
No matter how much you tried to convince, proselytize, debate (whatever), you can't change my views
all i can say is, you talking to the wrong target audience
Why so fearful of agreeing with me? I only said that I agree with you, I did not say you are a Christian.
Meaningful dialogue takes place because there is disagreement and different views and people talk to win the other side over. Otherwise, why would Buddha even want to preach to anyone? And if there is full agreement, there is no need for any dialogue at all. Whether you change your views or not is besides the point of any debate or dialogue.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
BIC,
i hope that the christians to do good to be with God, while the buddhists to follow Buddha's footprints to Liberation and dedicate merits to all sentient beings
The world will be a better place right? Don't you agree?
is there really a need to continue debating about your God to us? I think it doesn't make Christianity look good you see... very unchristian-like...
the answers you provided doesn't seem to satisfy the forummers here. Why not you change your target audience to other forums?
I suppose it seems that you do not wish that I post my comments here in this forum anymore?
If the Mods here think that a Christian voice is not welcome here, or that Buddhist-Christian dialogue is a sheer waste of time, then I would be happy to take my leave from this forum. But if this is just your preference, then perhaps we should not respond further to each other in this forum?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
that kind of truth is unfair and subjective without investigation. so don't make it into something all must accept. unfair is as there's no medium or light sentence, all given life maximum sentence! and the sin here is simply don't believe him. very ego god. we are also like play thing, create already then if not obey, throw into fire and burn. scary. sorry this is not the truth. truth is fairness.
The seriousness of an action depends on whom you have offended, do you agree with this?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
if Buddha with His All knowinging, see that u are only kindergarten or primary standard, then He will teach kindergarten or primary standard, as teach too high, you also don't understand. if Buddha with His All knowinging, see that u are degree or master standard, then He will teach degree or master standard. with the understanding that life is continous, and learning is a lifetime. sure will matured one day.
Fyi, Buddha also got teach about how one can be reborn into heavenly realms.no, science/ or esp physic got say about new beginning; expansion and also contraction of universe. but like i said, science still has not reached Buddha's All knowing. even great scientist, Albert einstein, look into Buddhism. his e=mc^2 is energy/mind over matter.
/\
Would it correct to say that NO ONE in the universe is worthy of an answer from Buddha concerning the question of origins?
Since Buddha never claimed to be divine, I don't see how it is correct to call him all knowing.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Would it correct to say that NO ONE in the universe is worthy of an answer from Buddha concerning the question of origins?
Since Buddha never claimed to be divine, I don't see how it is correct to call him all knowing.
nice attempt :) -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Would it correct to say that NO ONE in the universe is worthy of an answer from Buddha concerning the question of origins?
Since Buddha never claimed to be divine, I don't see how it is correct to call him all knowing.
Buddha is not classified as mere human, but an Arya (awakened being) with omniscience and the ten powers.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. If we are going to hurl the "true for you but not for me" retort, then NOTHING would be worth discussing, not just the issue of God's existence.
2. Your Ludwig quote is irrelevant. The Bible is not the words of mere man, but God using mere man to communicate truths to us. The allegation that the teachings of God are confined to the Bible is not any more different than that the teachings of Buddhism are confined to your own sacred books.
3. Already answered your question. The bank does not charge you interest for debt paid, in the same way a believer does not get condemned to hell for his sins which have been atoned for.
4. Mexicans celebrate death? Please elaborate. God's creation is perfect, in the sense that it was as He has intended. Everything in its place and nothing is out of its order and place. Perfect does not means being incapable of being ruined. I can make a perfect car but you can come along and then wreck it. And how can it be that death is more powerful when God is the Giver of Life? Life comes first, not death. And death could not hold Jesus in the tomb. He is risen.
5. You may prefer that the devil be in heaven, but that's just your preference that is noted. It's not an argument for anything.
6. The Bible says that only those in Christ are saved. The Bible also says that many of the OT saints who never heard of Christ are also saved. What saved them? Their faith in God that was credited to them as righteousness. God is just, so you do not have to worry about babies dying etc. On the day of judgement God will give to each person as he deserved. Why not leave that problem to God? You and I need not burden ourselves with this.
7. Just because God knows the outcome does not mean He has to act now. There is a time and place for everything. Just because you know that in a basketball match Team A will win does not mean you just stop the match and award the game to Team A. You still let the game play itself out.
8. Your disagreement over what the Bible teaches about who will be saved is noted, but mere disagreement proves nothing about the truth of your own beliefs. As for your confusion about the fireman analogy, I shall clarify further. The Bible teaches that all men are already dead and condemned in Adam. Our default position is condemnation, i.e. we are in a burning house. And if we refuse to accept the fireman's free offer of help, our death is on our own heads.
9. Since you understand that buying your own ticket means that you work out your own salvation, I have no further questions. In the fireman analogy it simply means that you decide to find your way out of the burning house. Unfortunately the person that you look for guidance to get out of the burning house is also found burnt and charred and dead.
10. You keep going off-topic. I am saying that there are Mormons and JWs does not have anything to do with the allegation that Christianity is about not asking questions.
11. You can't deny the possibility that ignorance is also consistent with keeping silent. You can say that Buddha chose to remain silent when so-and-so ask him this question. But it seems that he chose to remain completely silent. You mean no one that Buddha ever met can ever understand the answer? A good case can just as well be made that he does not know the answer at all. If there is a Creator God, what's so difficult in saying so? If the universe was created, what is so difficult in saying so? Language may be limited, but that's what we have got. If the Buddha could use words and language and teach till 85 years, what's the problem with using words and language to inform people about origins?
12. Yes, there are indeed many types of questions. But if Buddha knows the answer to the question of origins, then how can it be also speculative in nature? UNLESS Buddha himself does not know the answer? Yet how does this square with the claim that Buddha is all-knowing?
13. Just because God has emotions does not mean He is an asura. That would be to impose Buddhist ideas onto the Bible. There is godly anger and jealousy. You should be angry at child-rapers and jealous for your wife. Otherwise your moral compass is faulty.
1. If we are going to hurl the "true for you but not for me" retort, then NOTHING would be worth discussing, not just the issue of God's existence.
-> exactly. So what’s the point? The glass is already full and incapable to contain any more water. We have been telling you our views but all that result is “no, bible said so and it must be this or that.” What’s the point of all this? This is getting dull. Running in circles. Perhaps, you are not hearing the answers that you had already made up in your mind.
2. Your Ludwig quote is irrelevant. The Bible is not the words of mere man, but God using mere man to communicate truths to us. The allegation that the teachings of God are confined to the Bible is not any more different than that the teachings of Buddhism are confined to your own sacred books.
-> It’s irrelevant to you but not to me. For Buddhism, I’m sure you have already read the four reliances. Kindly read previous posts.
3. Already answered your question. The bank does not charge you interest for debt paid, in the same way a believer does not get condemned to hell for his sins which have been atoned for.
-> so we’re all going to heaven. Period.
4. Mexicans celebrate death? Please elaborate. God's creation is perfect, in the sense that it was as He has intended. Everything in its place and nothing is out of its order and place. Perfect does not means being incapable of being ruined. I can make a perfect car but you can come along and then wreck it. And how can it be that death is more powerful when God is the Giver of Life? Life comes first, not death. And death could not hold Jesus in the tomb. He is risen.
-> for the Mexicans, “Aztecs' belief in death as merely one part in the wider cycle of existence” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/02/mexican-celebrate-day-of-dead Kindly google yourself next time.
“Perfect does not means being incapable of being ruined” -> so god’s perfect work can be messed up. that’s interesting. Try messing up prime minister’s work if it’s possible. also, civil law punishes drug pushers rather than drug users. Shouldn’t god punish death instead?
“how can it be that death is more powerful when God is the Giver of Life?” -> by injecting or hacking himself into the perfect plan made by a perfect being. i'd like to inject/hack myself to heaven and hell and see
“death could not hold Jesus in the tomb. He is risen.” -> true for you, debatable to us.
5. You may prefer that the devil be in heaven, but that's just your preference that is noted. It's not an argument for anything.
“You may prefer that the devil be in heaven” -> it’s not a matter of my preference or anyone else’s. there were many Tibetan demons who had changed their ways and took refuge in the Buddha and the dharma. Buddhism offers hope, compassion and liberation for all not damnation.
6. The Bible says that only those in Christ are saved. The Bible also says that many of the OT saints who never heard of Christ are also saved. What saved them? Their faith in God that was credited to them as righteousness. God is just, so you do not have to worry about babies dying etc. On the day of judgement God will give to each person as he deserved. Why not leave that problem to God? You and I need not burden ourselves with this.
“Their faith in God that was credited to them as righteousness.” -> so people can go to heaven without jesus, too? That’s good. Morality is important. Since, Buddhists are encourage to do good. We’re going to heaven, too. There’s no point to argue whose belief is correct. NEITHER DO WE CARE. We are taught to work on our own liberation. See you in heaven.
“Why not leave that problem to God? “ -> so his decisions are not defined by the bible?
7. Just because God knows the outcome does not mean He has to act now. There is a time and place for everything. Just because you know that in a basketball match Team A will win does not mean you just stop the match and award the game to Team A. You still let the game play itself out.
“Just because God knows the outcome does not mean He has to act now. There is a time and place for everything.” -> So our suffering, natural disaster etc are for his entertainment.
8. Your disagreement over what the Bible teaches about who will be saved is noted, but mere disagreement proves nothing about the truth of your own beliefs. As for your confusion about the fireman analogy, I shall clarify further. The Bible teaches that all men are already dead and condemned in Adam. Our default position is condemnation, i.e. we are in a burning house. And if we refuse to accept the fireman's free offer of help, our death is on our own heads.
“disagreement proves nothing about the truth of your own beliefs” -> prove to who? We’re not interested in winning converts etc. we don’t care about winning converts. there are no brownie points or something. We care about how another person can benefit from dharma.
“The Bible teaches that all men are already dead and condemned in Adam.” -> true for you but debatable to us.
“we are in a burning house. And if we refuse to accept the fireman's free offer of help, our death is on our own heads.” -> why refuse?
9. Since you understand that buying your own ticket means that you work out your own salvation, I have no further questions. In the fireman analogy it simply means that you decide to find your way out of the burning house. Unfortunately the person that you look for guidance to get out of the burning house is also found burnt and charred and dead.
“you understand that buying your own ticket means that you work out your own salvation” -> make no mistake. Buying ticket and working for it are 2 different things.
“Unfortunately the person that you look for guidance to get out of the burning house is also found burnt and charred and dead.” -> again, we’ve told you many times. Human vessel subject to human wear and tear. So did jesus, your ancestors, my acestors etc. anyway, it’s true for you but not true for us. Happy?
10. You keep going off-topic. I am saying that there are Mormons and JWs does not have anything to do with the allegation that Christianity is about not asking questions.
-> true for you but not to me.
11. You can't deny the possibility that ignorance is also consistent with keeping silent. You can say that Buddha chose to remain silent when so-and-so ask him this question. But it seems that he chose to remain completely silent. You mean no one that Buddha ever met can ever understand the answer? A good case can just as well be made that he does not know the answer at all. If there is a Creator God, what's so difficult in saying so? If the universe was created, what is so difficult in saying so? Language may be limited, but that's what we have got. If the Buddha could use words and language and teach till 85 years, what's the problem with using words and language to inform people about origins?
“You can't deny the possibility that ignorance is also consistent with keeping silent.” -> yes, I can deny. Why not? You speaking on my behalf?
“You mean no one that Buddha ever met can ever understand the answer?” -> and you’re referring to people 500BC. I wonder what they’d say if I could travel back time and tell them that yes, man landed on the moon and we can connect with another person miles away with a touch of a button.. Oh by the way, guru rinpoche said something about “iron bird flying” in future which, of course, we know he meant airplanes.
“If there is a Creator God, what's so difficult in saying so? If the universe was created, what is so difficult in saying so? Language may be limited, but that's what we have got. If the Buddha could use words and language and teach till 85 years, what's the problem with using words and language to inform people about origins?” -> aiyo!! Again and again. Ok. This is my final answer. The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same.
12. Yes, there are indeed many types of questions. But if Buddha knows the answer to the question of origins, then how can it be also speculative in nature? UNLESS Buddha himself does not know the answer? Yet how does this square with the claim that Buddha is all-knowing?
-> The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same.
And I still think that Buddha is all-knowing. And?
13. Just because God has emotions does not mean He is an asura. That would be to impose Buddhist ideas onto the Bible. There is godly anger and jealousy. You should be angry at child-rapers and jealous for your wife. Otherwise your moral compass is faulty.
“That would be to impose Buddhist ideas onto the Bible.” -> seriously, dude. Did you read i wrote “I think this being sounds like an asura.”. I don’t care about your bible at all.
“There is godly anger and jealousy.” -> hence, he sounds like an asura to me. Not fully enlightened. it just doesn't make sense to be jealous and angry foe nothing if he is THE ONLY ONE. are there others? do you get angry for the things people didn't say or do?
“Otherwise your moral compass is faulty.” -> oh really? You set the moral now?