(1) An inherently existing entity exists in splendid isolation without the need to reference any other entity. It is completely defined by its own nature.
(2) An inherently existing entity is uncaused.
(3) It is indestructible.
(4) It is eternal.
(5) It is unchanging when viewed externally.
(6) It cannot undergo any internal changes of state.
(7) It either has no constituent parts, or if it has parts those parts are inseparable.
(8) Consequently, nothing can be ejected or removed from it.
(9) Nothing can be added to it (this would change its definition).
(10) No change in external conditions (up to and including the destruction of the entire universe) can affect it.
(from sources)
What is God? What is Buddha?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The seriousness of an action depends on whom you have offended, do you agree with this?
u are shunting. i know u all obey ur "master" like a slave. but as i mentioned, even the so call "judge" or "boss" or "master" have to obey the universal law of karma, if he's a being(including the "divine" being) with a mind. no one can get away from this law except Buddhas, the supreme being. this karmic law existed because there are endless beings in samsara so that no one can do what ever they like and get away with it. just like in our society. because we need to think of others, before we commit an action. whether such an act will harm others. karma will get you no matter how powerful you are.
that's why the idea of all powerful is a fraud. given other posters had already argued. if really got a being with such power, he would had make things right all at once.
FYI being All powerful yet cannot even admit being a loser, nullify the meaning of omnipotent. One who can defeat oneself is truly Omnipotence. Or the greatest enemy is not others but Oneself.
Knowing this that there's no two sides in everything, including omniscienism itself, non is it differ from ignorance, transcend even omnipotenism, is True knowing of Buddha's Omniscience.
hence omniscienism negates omnipotenism and that
Omniscience IS Omnipotence. Omniscience IS ceasing both Omnipotence and non-Omnipotence all together.
/\
-
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.
your idea of "divine" is still samsaric in the eyes of Buddhahood. the ultimate truth as we already said, is no beginning or ending, Dependent Origination, period. it's all just creation, formation, existence, and destruction, creation, formation, existence, and destruction, creation, formation, existence, and destruction, on and on.....
going into the true nature of mind or everything came from the mind is another thing.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
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.
no u didn't agree..! In fact, you have totally changed it to your belief and sound like you are agreeing with me
that's very slippery u know..?
So.... from your 2nd paragraph- you mean you derive meaningful dialogue if you talk to win us over...? That's very aggressive way of communication you know
I guess that's why u are still persistent to change people's views here
I already told u before- apples and oranges cannot be compared together. Have we got a meaningful conclusion between Buddhism and Christianity so far...?
oh yes... Buddha didn't force people to accept his teachings. That's the big difference from you christians... Please remember ah
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
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?
woah... you sound very personal here
. Sorry please don't feel hurt. U are entitled to have your views. All i'm looking for is to reach a stage of consenus where we can respect each other... So you understand where I'm coming from...? Apple is apple, orange is orange... Got it? I hope you can answer my question and don't sidetrack:
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?
so you mean you don't agree with what I said...? Are you still going to talk and win us over?
Why can't you accept the differences, move on and aspire to do good for the greater mankind...?
-
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.
by 2009novice:
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
yea BIC mistaken the word " inherent ".
Buddhism on the other hand talk about Dependent Origination and totally opposite. like a number system, always a number before it, always dependent on the previous number to exist./\ -
The Bible is actually a book of one mind. All the developments contains in it is actually a compassionate drama stage so that you can clearly identify yourself. After realizing yourself as a true christians, this world and all beings either Christians or not Christians is to be reas as god, big God or small god depending in the eyes of beholder. From understanding this truth, you ought to love not only living beings but non living beings as well unconditionally. Look at Einstein, how many christians truly like him, a god in human form. Isn't is Jesus also a god in human form then!
"Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921 -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Buddha is not classified as mere human, but an Arya (awakened being) with omniscience and the ten powers.
Which in effect amounts to deifying the Buddha, isn't it? I mean, wouldn't he possess the powers that God does?
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
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?
1. The cup could just as well be full with you, isn't it? I mean, those allegations about me not listening or not could just as well be applied back to you. In short, I think we should refrain from such dismissive remarks as it seeks to put the person saying this on a moral high ground.
2. Perhaps irrelevant is not the right word, but that the Ludwig quote is wrong to begin with.
3. Huh? Why would you conclude that all is going to heaven? The Bible does not teach that at all. That would be the heresy of universalism. As mentioned, salvation has been made available to all, but not all avail themselves to it. The gift has to be received by faith.
4. Re the Mexicans celebration of death, the context clearly states that this is their way of coping with death. It is the fusion of the Catholic Church's remembrance of those who died for their faith. Nothing in this article talks about the Mexicans enjoying dying and death! Yes, God's creation can be messed up by free-willed beings no less. You can also mess up the PM's work. Why not, the only thing is that you face the consequences of doing so, just like Adam and Eve faced their consequences. And the Bible teaches that God will throw death into the lack of fire. It's a personfication of death here, but it means death will be no more. Anyway, since death is instituted by God as punishment from sin, and God has the power over death, it is false to conclude that death is more powerful than God.
5. I do not see much hope in the teaching that all beings have gone through countless rebirths. The idea of countless means infinity. What hope do you really entertain when you have been through countless rebirths, really? Logically speaking if you had infinity time to attain Buddhahood you would already have attainted it an infinity time ago.
6. Prior to Jesus coming to earth, those who died before Christ who were believers in God were saved. But it would be wrong to think that since then one can also be saved apart from Christ. It is written in Acts 17, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
7. I find the way you jump to conclusion most absurd. Just because God has a timing for things means that He is being entertained by suffering and disaster? Again such a notion has no basis in Scripture, but perhaps you are just mocking?
8. If Buddhism is not interested in winning converts, then why did Buddha bothered to teach anyone about anything? And people can refuse help because they think they can make their own way out. We often hear about people in disasters who refused help but wanted to stay on and grab their things or think they can make it out themselves. Irrational indeed but such things do happen.
9. You have to work to get money to buy ticket. Different but related. Yes, human bodies wear away. Jesus died too. But you forgot about the resurrection. He had a glorified resurrected body. There is no tomb of Jesus where His bones are found nor relics of Him. Anyway, the notion of "true for you but not for me" is patently false. Anyway, when used it is always a sure indication that you have conceded the point and cannot offer a rebuttal.
10. On what basis then do you deny that silence is not a cover up for ignorance? You mean it is impossible to be so? And until you can travel back in time, let's just stick to reality. Since Buddha is supposed to be omniscient, it cannot be sheer speculation to him, right? We speculate because we don't know everything, but Buddha is supposed to know. Speculation is quelled by knowledge. Has Buddha's silence improved things? No, people are still asking the questions, even scientists. You can of course believe that the Buddha is all-knowing, but I don't think he thought of himself that way.
11. I know you don't care about the Bible. A lot of people don't care about the truth either. But apathy proves nothing. When God is angry and jealous for His people, it is not because the idols and gods have objective reality, but because the affections of His people have been diverted away to false things, non-existent things. You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The cup could just as well be full with you, isn't it? I mean, those allegations about me not listening or not could just as well be applied back to you. In short, I think we should refrain from such dismissive remarks as it seeks to put the person saying this on a moral high ground.
2. Perhaps irrelevant is not the right word, but that the Ludwig quote is wrong to begin with.
3. Huh? Why would you conclude that all is going to heaven? The Bible does not teach that at all. That would be the heresy of universalism. As mentioned, salvation has been made available to all, but not all avail themselves to it. The gift has to be received by faith.
4. Re the Mexicans celebration of death, the context clearly states that this is their way of coping with death. It is the fusion of the Catholic Church's remembrance of those who died for their faith. Nothing in this article talks about the Mexicans enjoying dying and death! Yes, God's creation can be messed up by free-willed beings no less. You can also mess up the PM's work. Why not, the only thing is that you face the consequences of doing so, just like Adam and Eve faced their consequences. And the Bible teaches that God will throw death into the lack of fire. It's a personfication of death here, but it means death will be no more. Anyway, since death is instituted by God as punishment from sin, and God has the power over death, it is false to conclude that death is more powerful than God.
5. I do not see much hope in the teaching that all beings have gone through countless rebirths. The idea of countless means infinity. What hope do you really entertain when you have been through countless rebirths, really? Logically speaking if you had infinity time to attain Buddhahood you would already have attainted it an infinity time ago.
6. Prior to Jesus coming to earth, those who died before Christ who were believers in God were saved. But it would be wrong to think that since then one can also be saved apart from Christ. It is written in Acts 17, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
7. I find the way you jump to conclusion most absurd. Just because God has a timing for things means that He is being entertained by suffering and disaster? Again such a notion has no basis in Scripture, but perhaps you are just mocking?
8. If Buddhism is not interested in winning converts, then why did Buddha bothered to teach anyone about anything? And people can refuse help because they think they can make their own way out. We often hear about people in disasters who refused help but wanted to stay on and grab their things or think they can make it out themselves. Irrational indeed but such things do happen.
9. You have to work to get money to buy ticket. Different but related. Yes, human bodies wear away. Jesus died too. But you forgot about the resurrection. He had a glorified resurrected body. There is no tomb of Jesus where His bones are found nor relics of Him. Anyway, the notion of "true for you but not for me" is patently false. Anyway, when used it is always a sure indication that you have conceded the point and cannot offer a rebuttal.
10. On what basis then do you deny that silence is not a cover up for ignorance? You mean it is impossible to be so? And until you can travel back in time, let's just stick to reality. Since Buddha is supposed to be omniscient, it cannot be sheer speculation to him, right? We speculate because we don't know everything, but Buddha is supposed to know. Speculation is quelled by knowledge. Has Buddha's silence improved things? No, people are still asking the questions, even scientists. You can of course believe that the Buddha is all-knowing, but I don't think he thought of himself that way.
11. I know you don't care about the Bible. A lot of people don't care about the truth either. But apathy proves nothing. When God is angry and jealous for His people, it is not because the idols and gods have objective reality, but because the affections of His people have been diverted away to false things, non-existent things. You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.
1. The cup could just as well be full with you, isn't it? I mean, those allegations about me not listening or not could just as well be applied back to you. In short, I think we should refrain from such dismissive remarks as it seeks to put the person saying this on a moral high ground.
-> since we’re seeing through different lenses. what’s the point?
2. Perhaps irrelevant is not the right word, but that the Ludwig quote is wrong to begin with.
-> it’s neither wrong nor irrelevant to me. So, how?
3. Huh? Why would you conclude that all is going to heaven? The Bible does not teach that at all. That would be the heresy of universalism. As mentioned, salvation has been made available to all, but not all avail themselves to it. The gift has to be received by faith.
-> aiyo. Repeat again ah? Just reread what i wrote earlier. I'm too lazy to keep requoting. By the way, followers of most faith believe they are going to heaven by keeping their faith too. So, how? What's wrong universalism? Are they destroying other lives?
4. Re the Mexicans celebration of death, the context clearly states that this is their way of coping with death. It is the fusion of the Catholic Church's remembrance of those who died for their faith. Nothing in this article talks about the Mexicans enjoying dying and death! Yes, God's creation can be messed up by free-willed beings no less. You can also mess up the PM's work. Why not, the only thing is that you face the consequences of doing so, just like Adam and Eve faced their consequences. And the Bible teaches that God will throw death into the lack of fire. It's a personfication of death here, but it means death will be no more. Anyway, since death is instituted by God as punishment from sin, and God has the power over death, it is false to conclude that death is more powerful than God.
-> enjoying death? You mean celebration of death? It’s part of life. I can mess up pms work like stopping imigration? How? anyway, back to topic. I’m still not convinced that god is powerful at all, given that even god’s plan can be screwed and it’s beyond god’s control - be it preventing or solving it.
5. I do not see much hope in the teaching that all beings have gone through countless rebirths. The idea of countless means infinity. What hope do you really entertain when you have been through countless rebirths, really? Logically speaking if you had infinity time to attain Buddhahood you would already have attainted it an infinity time ago.
-> just because you don’t see doesn’t mean we don’t see. Also, by “logically”, you’re referring to your logic. Santa claus sounded very “logical” to me when I was small too. Also, every life time, a brand new opportunity to be better. I think it’s very hopeful.
6. Prior to Jesus coming to earth, those who died before Christ who were believers in God were saved. But it would be wrong to think that since then one can also be saved apart from Christ. It is written in Acts 17, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
-> I think people do good receive good returns be it going to heaven etc rather than having a such and such label. Actions speak lounder than words. So, how?
“God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him” -> you mean he can’t make himself appear?
“For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” -> true for you, debatable to us.
7. I find the way you jump to conclusion most absurd. Just because God has a timing for things means that He is being entertained by suffering and disaster? Again such a notion has no basis in Scripture, but perhaps you are just mocking?
-> doesn’t sound absurd to me. So, how?
8. If Buddhism is not interested in winning converts, then why did Buddha bothered to teach anyone about anything? And people can refuse help because they think they can make their own way out. We often hear about people in disasters who refused help but wanted to stay on and grab their things or think they can make it out themselves. Irrational indeed but such things do happen.
-> Buddhism wants to win coverts? Are you basing this just because Christianity does?
9. You have to work to get money to buy ticket. Different but related. Yes, human bodies wear away. Jesus died too. But you forgot about the resurrection. He had a glorified resurrected body. There is no tomb of Jesus where His bones are found nor relics of Him. Anyway, the notion of "true for you but not for me" is patently false. Anyway, when used it is always a sure indication that you have conceded the point and cannot offer a rebuttal.
“But you forgot about the resurrection. He had a glorified resurrected body. There is no tomb of Jesus where His bones are found nor relics of Him.” -> still debatable to us. So, how?
"the notion of "true for you but not for me" is patently false." -> false to you only, not to me. So how?
'when used it is always a sure indication that you have conceded the point and cannot offer a rebuttal. ' -> jumping into conclusions again? Sorry to hurt the ego but it's not true at all. I have not conceded the point. It is simply true for you not to me or to us. And our views are true to us and may not be true for you.
10. On what basis then do you deny that silence is not a cover up for ignorance? You mean it is impossible to be so? And until you can travel back in time, let's just stick to reality. Since Buddha is supposed to be omniscient, it cannot be sheer speculation to him, right? We speculate because we don't know everything, but Buddha is supposed to know. Speculation is quelled by knowledge. Has Buddha's silence improved things? No, people are still asking the questions, even scientists. You can of course believe that the Buddha is all-knowing, but I don't think he thought of himself that way.
“On what basis then do you deny that silence is not a cover up for ignorance?” -> on what basis, it does? why should it?
“Has Buddha's silence improved things? No, people are still asking the questions, even scientists.” -> has knowing that there is a creator improved things?
“You can of course believe that the Buddha is all-knowing, but I don't think he thought of himself that way.” -> that’s what you think and it's true for you but not to us.
11. I know you don't care about the Bible. A lot of people don't care about the truth either. But apathy proves nothing. When God is angry and jealous for His people, it is not because the idols and gods have objective reality, but because the affections of His people have been diverted away to false things, non-existent things. You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.
-> opps.. Sorry to hurt the ego, again. “bible is truth” is true for you only. So how?
“When God is angry and jealous for His people, it is not because the idols and gods have objective reality, but because the affections of His people have been diverted away to false things, non-existent things. You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.” -> hence, an asura to me.
“You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.” -> really? For eternal hell? Hmm.. lacking compassion. An asura to me.
-
Well! God is great and Christ is awesome. Resurrection is indeed amazing, Bodhidhamma is resurrected after his death as well, needless to mention Buddha himself. Please spare God some kind thought, it is absurd to state that God is angry. Buddha indeed never interested in winning converts as the door for buddhism is open without restriction. Anyone can come and go as they like it. It is not in the interest of Buddhism to win any converts, it is based on ripen condition. And in view of the amazing of reincarnation, this life cannot attain buddha or no opportunity to treasure it, try next life and subsequent lives. Buddha is the most patient one. Even in India, when Buddha was physically present then, unlike Rome where everyone was God son & daughters, so awesome, the people who personally met Buddha was actually about one third, the other one third only heard his present, another third did not even know Buddha. Don't you feel sympathy, pathetic and empathy that such a great chance to become Buddha then for all people in India but it did not turn out to be. i personally feel extreme sad and find it ridiculous. A true buddha cannot save all people in India then, what was He doing - the fact, the most patient one. with metta!
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
u are shunting. i know u all obey ur "master" like a slave. but as i mentioned, even the so call "judge" or "boss" or "master" have to obey the universal law of karma, if he's a being(including the "divine" being) with a mind. no one can get away from this law except Buddhas, the supreme being. this karmic law existed because there are endless beings in samsara so that no one can do what ever they like and get away with it. just like in our society. because we need to think of others, before we commit an action. whether such an act will harm others. karma will get you no matter how powerful you are.
that's why the idea of all powerful is a fraud. given other posters had already argued. if really got a being with such power, he would had make things right all at once.
FYI being All powerful yet cannot even admit being a loser, nullify the meaning of omnipotent. One who can defeat oneself is truly Omnipotence. Or the greatest enemy is not others but Oneself.
Knowing this that there's no two sides in everything, including omniscienism itself, non is it differ from ignorance, transcend even omnipotenism, is True knowing of Buddha's Omniscience.
hence omniscienism negates omnipotenism and that
Omniscience IS Omnipotence. Omniscience IS ceasing both Omnipotence and non-Omnipotence all together.
/\
1. Why do you accuse me of shunting? Shunting of what?
2. Yes, a slave obeys his master. In the same way, the creation must obey the Creator. There is nothing wrong with this at all. The notion that God must also obey some higher law (of karma) is incoherent. By definition God is supreme and thus independent of any other thing and not subject to any other thing. This is also conceded by you when you regard Buddha as supreme and not subject to the law of karma.
3. In the Biblical worldview, one reaps what one sows not because of some impersonal law of karma at work, but because there is a morally perfect God who judges all the actions of man. An impersonal law cannot make any kind of moral judgement, only a moral being can. You also failed to show why the notion of such a supreme being is fraud, yet you somehow give an exception for Buddha?
4. You have also confused ability with timing. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean He must stop evil and make all things right at once. God WILL eradicate evil and make all things right in keeping with His eternal purpose and plan for His creation. This is clearly taught in the Bible.
5. I find your notion of omnipotence incoherent and irrational. Defeating oneself is truly omnipotence? Why should God admit He is a loser when the Bible presents the end as God being completely victorious over the devil and his evil minions? And omniscience is omnipotence? The last few statements you made were completely intelligible and incoherent, or perhaps you were not expressing yourself properly. Can you clarify and expound please?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
your idea of "divine" is still samsaric in the eyes of Buddhahood. the ultimate truth as we already said, is no beginning or ending, Dependent Origination, period. it's all just creation, formation, existence, and destruction, creation, formation, existence, and destruction, creation, formation, existence, and destruction, on and on.....
going into the true nature of mind or everything came from the mind is another thing.
/\
We are in agreement on some things here. The ultimate truth would be God Himself, who has no beginning or ending, eternal. That which is created is temporal and has no permanent existence or inherent existence apart from God. God is separate and distinct from His creation. The law of entropy will not allow there to be endless creation and destruction etc like a perpetual motion machine.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The law of entropy will not allow there to be endless creation and destruction etc like a perpetual motion machine.
hmm, don't know entropy. what's it got to do with it? -
Originally posted by 2009novice:
no u didn't agree..! In fact, you have totally changed it to your belief and sound like you are agreeing with me
that's very slippery u know..?
So.... from your 2nd paragraph- you mean you derive meaningful dialogue if you talk to win us over...? That's very aggressive way of communication you know
I guess that's why u are still persistent to change people's views here
I already told u before- apples and oranges cannot be compared together. Have we got a meaningful conclusion between Buddhism and Christianity so far...?
oh yes... Buddha didn't force people to accept his teachings. That's the big difference from you christians... Please remember ah
1. Agreement means just that, agreement. It's is just stating that fact. Don't read too much into it than is warranted.
2. All I am saying is that people dialogue with many purposes in mind. One purpose of dialogue is to win the other person over. There is nothing inherently or necessarily aggressive in this at all. I can win you over by superior or better arguments, or refuting your arguments or negating your objections. Again, what's so aggressive about this? Buddha also changed people's views, didn't he? And aren't you also trying to change my views here?
3. The idea of comparison is to show the similarities and note the differences. Even if it is between apples and oranges. Sometimes we compare similar things, sometimes we compare different things. There is no law to say that one can only compare apples with apples. It really depends on what is the purpose. If the purpose is to buy a car, then you do not compare a car with a bus.
4. Neither did Jesus force anyone to accept His teachings. And neither can it be legitimate to accuse me of forcing anyone to accept Christianity because of my postings here. Where's the use of force? What do you mean by force anyway? Or are you referring to the force of the arguments that are valid and sound? I don't think you were suggesting the use of force when typing on my keyboard and making a lot of noise?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
hmm, don't know entropy. what's it got to do with it?It basically means that the energy available to do useful work is running down. Where does the energy come from to sustain creation and destruction again and again?
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
woah... you sound very personal here
. Sorry please don't feel hurt. U are entitled to have your views. All i'm looking for is to reach a stage of consenus where we can respect each other... So you understand where I'm coming from...? Apple is apple, orange is orange... Got it? I hope you can answer my question and don't sidetrack:
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?
so you mean you don't agree with what I said...? Are you still going to talk and win us over?
Why can't you accept the differences, move on and aspire to do good for the greater mankind...?
No worries, I am not hurt or offended. I'm just stating that if my views are not welcome in this forum then I would take my leave. But then it seems that this is not the case.
The world will certainly be a better place if believers walk the talk and live up to the moral codes of their religious beliefs. But if that was the case, then Buddha should let Hinduism be Hinduism and not reject anything in it. Surely the issue cannot be just about doing good. The issue is one of religious truth claims, not just living a good life.
-
Originally posted by Nyorai:
The Bible is actually a book of one mind. All the developments contains in it is actually a compassionate drama stage so that you can clearly identify yourself. After realizing yourself as a true christians, this world and all beings either Christians or not Christians is to be reas as god, big God or small god depending in the eyes of beholder. From understanding this truth, you ought to love not only living beings but non living beings as well unconditionally. Look at Einstein, how many christians truly like him, a god in human form. Isn't is Jesus also a god in human form then!
"Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921The conclusion is fallacious. Just because Jesus is God in human form does not mean that we all are.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Why do you accuse me of shunting? Shunting of what?
2. Yes, a slave obeys his master. In the same way, the creation must obey the Creator. There is nothing wrong with this at all. The notion that God must also obey some higher law (of karma) is incoherent. By definition God is supreme and thus independent of any other thing and not subject to any other thing. This is also conceded by you when you regard Buddha as supreme and not subject to the law of karma.
3. In the Biblical worldview, one reaps what one sows not because of some impersonal law of karma at work, but because there is a morally perfect God who judges all the actions of man. An impersonal law cannot make any kind of moral judgement, only a moral being can. You also failed to show why the notion of such a supreme being is fraud, yet you somehow give an exception for Buddha?
4. You have also confused ability with timing. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean He must stop evil and make all things right at once. God WILL eradicate evil and make all things right in keeping with His eternal purpose and plan for His creation. This is clearly taught in the Bible.
5. I find your notion of omnipotence incoherent and irrational. Defeating oneself is truly omnipotence? Why should God admit He is a loser when the Bible presents the end as God being completely victorious over the devil and his evil minions? And omniscience is omnipotence? The last few statements you made were completely intelligible and incoherent, or perhaps you were not expressing yourself properly. Can you clarify and expound please?
shunting from unfairness if i recap.it depend on whether, u regard the "god" as some one with a mind and is egocentric. for us the True nature is not egocentric, non need to judge, non need to do anything. it's at peace. everything just work itself out. god still need to "do" something, or needed a "plan", is just like u and me with a self, working in an office. there's work to be done, to me, it is not perfect. hence to say u need to follow the plan to prove that omnipotence is correct is incoherent and irrational.
however, the "plan" concept, or one just let fate go it's course does has it's application in buddhism. and u do not need Buddha to do it, just "beseech" bodhisattvas will do. be it good or bad that comes, the bodhisattvas will help u learn toward Enlightenment.
the law of karma is there, just a bit like our current law, yet someone can sort of "manipulate" the law and not be effected by the law. similarly, Buddha can "work" with the law, selflessly and avoid the consequences. there's no contradiction. the law of karma "feed" on one who had the view of a "selfhood".
btw i only read that u all just follow what the book says and confirm that its "rational", i don't see rationality, i don't see any wisdom in it, i just see magic.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It basically means that the energy available to do useful work is running down. Where does the energy come from to sustain creation and destruction again and again?
the true nature is "all powerful" already, energy had no beginning nor ending, so wouldn't run out of energy wan. its also known as recycling./\
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
1. The cup could just as well be full with you, isn't it? I mean, those allegations about me not listening or not could just as well be applied back to you. In short, I think we should refrain from such dismissive remarks as it seeks to put the person saying this on a moral high ground.
-> since we’re seeing through different lenses. what’s the point?
2. Perhaps irrelevant is not the right word, but that the Ludwig quote is wrong to begin with.
-> it’s neither wrong nor irrelevant to me. So, how?
3. Huh? Why would you conclude that all is going to heaven? The Bible does not teach that at all. That would be the heresy of universalism. As mentioned, salvation has been made available to all, but not all avail themselves to it. The gift has to be received by faith.
-> aiyo. Repeat again ah? Just reread what i wrote earlier. I'm too lazy to keep requoting. By the way, followers of most faith believe they are going to heaven by keeping their faith too. So, how? What's wrong universalism? Are they destroying other lives?
4. Re the Mexicans celebration of death, the context clearly states that this is their way of coping with death. It is the fusion of the Catholic Church's remembrance of those who died for their faith. Nothing in this article talks about the Mexicans enjoying dying and death! Yes, God's creation can be messed up by free-willed beings no less. You can also mess up the PM's work. Why not, the only thing is that you face the consequences of doing so, just like Adam and Eve faced their consequences. And the Bible teaches that God will throw death into the lack of fire. It's a personfication of death here, but it means death will be no more. Anyway, since death is instituted by God as punishment from sin, and God has the power over death, it is false to conclude that death is more powerful than God.
-> enjoying death? You mean celebration of death? It’s part of life. I can mess up pms work like stopping imigration? How? anyway, back to topic. I’m still not convinced that god is powerful at all, given that even god’s plan can be screwed and it’s beyond god’s control - be it preventing or solving it.
5. I do not see much hope in the teaching that all beings have gone through countless rebirths. The idea of countless means infinity. What hope do you really entertain when you have been through countless rebirths, really? Logically speaking if you had infinity time to attain Buddhahood you would already have attainted it an infinity time ago.
-> just because you don’t see doesn’t mean we don’t see. Also, by “logically”, you’re referring to your logic. Santa claus sounded very “logical” to me when I was small too. Also, every life time, a brand new opportunity to be better. I think it’s very hopeful.
6. Prior to Jesus coming to earth, those who died before Christ who were believers in God were saved. But it would be wrong to think that since then one can also be saved apart from Christ. It is written in Acts 17, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
-> I think people do good receive good returns be it going to heaven etc rather than having a such and such label. Actions speak lounder than words. So, how?
“God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him” -> you mean he can’t make himself appear?
“For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” -> true for you, debatable to us.
7. I find the way you jump to conclusion most absurd. Just because God has a timing for things means that He is being entertained by suffering and disaster? Again such a notion has no basis in Scripture, but perhaps you are just mocking?
-> doesn’t sound absurd to me. So, how?
8. If Buddhism is not interested in winning converts, then why did Buddha bothered to teach anyone about anything? And people can refuse help because they think they can make their own way out. We often hear about people in disasters who refused help but wanted to stay on and grab their things or think they can make it out themselves. Irrational indeed but such things do happen.
-> Buddhism wants to win coverts? Are you basing this just because Christianity does?
9. You have to work to get money to buy ticket. Different but related. Yes, human bodies wear away. Jesus died too. But you forgot about the resurrection. He had a glorified resurrected body. There is no tomb of Jesus where His bones are found nor relics of Him. Anyway, the notion of "true for you but not for me" is patently false. Anyway, when used it is always a sure indication that you have conceded the point and cannot offer a rebuttal.
“But you forgot about the resurrection. He had a glorified resurrected body. There is no tomb of Jesus where His bones are found nor relics of Him.” -> still debatable to us. So, how?
"the notion of "true for you but not for me" is patently false." -> false to you only, not to me. So how?
'when used it is always a sure indication that you have conceded the point and cannot offer a rebuttal. ' -> jumping into conclusions again? Sorry to hurt the ego but it's not true at all. I have not conceded the point. It is simply true for you not to me or to us. And our views are true to us and may not be true for you.
10. On what basis then do you deny that silence is not a cover up for ignorance? You mean it is impossible to be so? And until you can travel back in time, let's just stick to reality. Since Buddha is supposed to be omniscient, it cannot be sheer speculation to him, right? We speculate because we don't know everything, but Buddha is supposed to know. Speculation is quelled by knowledge. Has Buddha's silence improved things? No, people are still asking the questions, even scientists. You can of course believe that the Buddha is all-knowing, but I don't think he thought of himself that way.
“On what basis then do you deny that silence is not a cover up for ignorance?” -> on what basis, it does? why should it?
“Has Buddha's silence improved things? No, people are still asking the questions, even scientists.” -> has knowing that there is a creator improved things?
“You can of course believe that the Buddha is all-knowing, but I don't think he thought of himself that way.” -> that’s what you think and it's true for you but not to us.
11. I know you don't care about the Bible. A lot of people don't care about the truth either. But apathy proves nothing. When God is angry and jealous for His people, it is not because the idols and gods have objective reality, but because the affections of His people have been diverted away to false things, non-existent things. You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.
-> opps.. Sorry to hurt the ego, again. “bible is truth” is true for you only. So how?
“When God is angry and jealous for His people, it is not because the idols and gods have objective reality, but because the affections of His people have been diverted away to false things, non-existent things. You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.” -> hence, an asura to me.
“You would be angry too if people you care for devote their lives to something you know is worth nothing, yet they persists stubbornly.” -> really? For eternal hell? Hmm.. lacking compassion. An asura to me.
1. I am glad that you finally see the point that Buddhism and Christianity are worldviews, seeing the world through different lenses. Question is, which worldview is true and offers the right view of the world in totality?
2. Then you have to explain why you do not think that quote was wrong or irrelevant.
3. As mentioned already, universalism is false and refuted by what the Bible teaches. Does it harm people? Well, maybe not in this life, but in the afterlife when one discovers too late that universalism is false.
4. Death is an accepted part of life now, but you missed the point that people do not like death (think of people who have died in disasters or loved ones who died from sicknesses) and that the Bible teaches that death was not part of God's perfect creation. God's perfect creation was ruined, but you still missed the part that God would be the one restoring it back. So how does that support your allegation that it was beyond God's control?
5. You have sidetracked. Christianity does not believe in Santa Claus. Please stay on track and address the point that if you had an infinity time to attain Nirvana then why haven't you already attained it? Of course you can continue to hope and wish that this life or the next would be the one that you attain it, but do you honestly believe that? Or you banking on the future countless rebirths?
6. Do good means going to heaven? On what basis do you conclude so? A matter of personal opinion? BTW, God did appear before man. Jesus is the incarnation of God, and He has not left us without witnesses. And God has also shown Himself through the created order of things. As to the resurrection of Christ, there are many good reasons to conclude that it did happen.
7. You did not reason from premises to conclusion that God is entertained by suffering. In fact, all the Biblical teachings point to the opposite.
8. That Buddhism is also a missionary religion cannot be denied. Of course you can still choose to deny, but do so in spite of the evidence and in ignorance of what Buddhism teaches. See http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd31.htm
9. What do you want to debate about the fact that there is no tomb or relic of Jesus? And is the statement "true for you but not for me" only true for you but not for me? It is amusing that you do not find this statement self-refuting and irrational. If something is true, then it is true for all. The earth is round is true. Can it be true for me but not for you? Think over it please. This slogan is so easily paraded but it is easily refuted as well.
10. Well, if Buddha was indeed all-knowing then he would not refuse to tell even the most serious asker whether there is a God or not. And Buddha thought of himself not as God but as man. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt10.htm Knowledge is sought for to provide coherence and completeness to one's worldview. The knowledge that there is a Creator God has spearheaded the advancement of science, in case you don't know.
11. I suppose it won't be wrong then to call you also an asura?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. I am glad that you finally see the point that Buddhism and Christianity are worldviews, seeing the world through different lenses. Question is, which worldview is true and offers the right view of the world in totality?
2. Then you have to explain why you do not think that quote was wrong or irrelevant.
3. As mentioned already, universalism is false and refuted by what the Bible teaches. Does it harm people? Well, maybe not in this life, but in the afterlife when one discovers too late that universalism is false.
4. Death is an accepted part of life now, but you missed the point that people do not like death (think of people who have died in disasters or loved ones who died from sicknesses) and that the Bible teaches that death was not part of God's perfect creation. God's perfect creation was ruined, but you still missed the part that God would be the one restoring it back. So how does that support your allegation that it was beyond God's control?
5. You have sidetracked. Christianity does not believe in Santa Claus. Please stay on track and address the point that if you had an infinity time to attain Nirvana then why haven't you already attained it? Of course you can continue to hope and wish that this life or the next would be the one that you attain it, but do you honestly believe that? Or you banking on the future countless rebirths?
6. Do good means going to heaven? On what basis do you conclude so? A matter of personal opinion? BTW, God did appear before man. Jesus is the incarnation of God, and He has not left us without witnesses. And God has also shown Himself through the created order of things. As to the resurrection of Christ, there are many good reasons to conclude that it did happen.
7. You did not reason from premises to conclusion that God is entertained by suffering. In fact, all the Biblical teachings point to the opposite.
8. That Buddhism is also a missionary religion cannot be denied. Of course you can still choose to deny, but do so in spite of the evidence and in ignorance of what Buddhism teaches. See http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd31.htm
9. What do you want to debate about the fact that there is no tomb or relic of Jesus? And is the statement "true for you but not for me" only true for you but not for me? It is amusing that you do not find this statement self-refuting and irrational. If something is true, then it is true for all. The earth is round is true. Can it be true for me but not for you? Think over it please. This slogan is so easily paraded but it is easily refuted as well.
10. Well, if Buddha was indeed all-knowing then he would not refuse to tell even the most serious asker whether there is a God or not. And Buddha thought of himself not as God but as man. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt10.htm Knowledge is sought for to provide coherence and completeness to one's worldview. The knowledge that there is a Creator God has spearheaded the advancement of science, in case you don't know.
11. I suppose it won't be wrong then to call you also an asura?
1. I am glad that you finally see the point that Buddhism and Christianity are worldviews, seeing the world through different lenses. Question is, which worldview is true and offers the right view of the world in totality?
>>>> I think we’ve seen that point long time ago. Hence, we've been telling you that your views are true for you and ours for us. You mean you just got it?
2. Then you have to explain why you do not think that quote was wrong or irrelevant.
>>>> What for? And I don’t “have to” ☺
3. As mentioned already, universalism is false and refuted by what the Bible teaches. Does it harm people? Well, maybe not in this life, but in the afterlife when one discovers too late that universalism is false.
>>>> “universalism is false” only to you. Kindly speak for yourself.
>>>> “refuted by what the Bible teaches” to you since you believe the bible. We don’t.
>>>> “Does it harm people? Well, maybe not in this life, but in the afterlife when one discovers too late that universalism is false.” Again to you. Have you been to the afterlife? Ancient Egyptians believed in the afterlife too. So do Taoists. So, how?
4. Death is an accepted part of life now, but you missed the point that people do not like death (think of people who have died in disasters or loved ones who died from sicknesses) and that the Bible teaches that death was not part of God's perfect creation. God's perfect creation was ruined, but you still missed the part that God would be the one restoring it back. So how does that support your allegation that it was beyond God's control?
>>>> missing the point? Isn’t the point - death is part of life? I said we don’t think death is a punishment etc. Kindly get that straight. How about those “called home to the lord” through disasters, accidents, etc? Can’t people “called home to the lord” peacefully at sleep etc?
>>>> “God's perfect creation was ruined, but you still missed the part that God would be the one restoring it back.” -> oh right, restoring back. Based on your faith that you will be restored back. We don’t have that in our faith. So how?
>>>> “So how does that support your allegation that it was beyond God's control?” -> Its perfect plan couldn’t be prevented from intrusion. Ends up being messed up. And then solution is when we die and of course, none can tell whether it is solved or not since we’re dead.
>>>> a perfect secured network being hacked is not as perfect as thought, after all.
5. You have sidetracked. Christianity does not believe in Santa Claus. Please stay on track and address the point that if you had an infinity time to attain Nirvana then why haven't you already attained it? Of course you can continue to hope and wish that this life or the next would be the one that you attain it, but do you honestly believe that? Or you banking on the future countless rebirths?
>>>> “You have sidetracked. Christianity does not believe in Santa Claus.” -> LOL!! Are you for real? Who said Christianity believes in santa claus? Kindly backtrack. You said, “Logically speaking if you had infinity time to attain Buddhahood you would already have attainted it an infinity time ago.” I said, “by “logically”, you’re referring to your logic. Santa claus sounded very “logical” to me when I was small too. Also, every life time, a brand new opportunity to be better. I think it’s very hopeful.”
>>>> “why haven't you already attained it?” -> because I haven’t perfected my 10 paramitas. Remember the 10 paramitas? I wonder how come those believe in “eternal life” aren’t living eternally.
>>>> “Or you banking on the future countless rebirths?” -> as mentioned, every human rebirth is an opportunity to cultivate Buddhahood. So much hope! No damnation. I guess, you’re used to harsh punishment ie “do this or eternal hell”. Come back to hope, broinchrist. There is always hope. Don't bank on damnation, bank on hope.
6. Do good means going to heaven? On what basis do you conclude so? A matter of personal opinion? BTW, God did appear before man. Jesus is the incarnation of God, and He has not left us without witnesses. And God has also shown Himself through the created order of things. As to the resurrection of Christ, there are many good reasons to conclude that it did happen.
>>>> “Do good means going to heaven? On what basis do you conclude so?” -> Did you read? I said, “I think people do good receive good returns be it going to heaven etc rather than having a such and such label. Actions speak louder than words.” If one does good, good returns whether good karma or heaven. You mean to say god send people who do good deeds to hell?
>>>> “BTW, God did appear before man.” -> LOL “BTW” word!! Anyway “God did appear before man” is only true to you and those who believe. You do get this, right?
>>>> “Jesus is the incarnation of God, and He has not left us without witnesses. And God has also shown Himself through the created order of things. As to the resurrection of Christ, there are many good reasons to conclude that it did happen.“ -> You do know that it applies to you only, right? It’s a fact only to you and that’s all it will ever be - it’s as good as to you ONLY. Correct me if I’m wrong. I think you were asking about those who attained nirvana, proof etc. Well, I’m asking you, have you seen god? And I don’t mean statue of jesus. On a side note, funny that sometimes, I hear allegations that Buddhists pray to statues whereas it’s perfectly fine for statue of jesus in churches. Hmmm..
7. You did not reason from premises to conclusion that God is entertained by suffering. In fact, all the Biblical teachings point to the opposite.
>>>> “You did not reason from premises to conclusion that God is entertained by suffering.” -> oh, so our suffering is for what since the all-powerful is mightily powerful and has all the power to stop suffering – people dying, famine, war etc. I think I care for my dogs more than this creator god cares for his children.
>>>> “In fact, all the Biblical teachings point to the opposite.” -> And yet the “fact” of “eternal hell” point to the opposite too, doesn’t it?
8. That Buddhism is also a missionary religion cannot be denied. Of course you can still choose to deny, but do so in spite of the evidence and in ignorance of what Buddhism teaches. See http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd31.htm
>>>> For you, missionary means winning converts? We beg to differ. As mentioned, we're concerned about welfare of others. There are no special brownie points by having another person carrying a buddhist label. You do know that buddhists are very action oriented, right? Cause and effects result from actions not labels. Citation from buddhanet is supposed to carry more weight? LOL.
'Go forth, O Bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, benefit, and happiness of gods andmen.' (TheBuddha)
When we turn the pages of the history of Buddhism, we learn that Buddhist missionaries gave the noble message of the Buddha in a peaceful and respectable way. Such a peaceful mission should put to shame those who have practised violent methods in propagating their religions.
Buddhist missionaries do not compete with other religionists in converting people in the market place. No Buddhist missionary or monk would ever think of preaching ill-will against the so-called 'unbelievers'. Religious, cultural and national intolerance are unbuddhistic in attitude, to people who are imbued with the real Buddhist spirit. Aggression never finds approval in the teachings of the Buddha. The world has bled and suffered enough from the disease of dogmatism, religious fanaticism and intolerance. Whether in religion or politics, people make conscious efforts to bring humanity to accept their own way of life. In doing so, they sometimes show their hostility towards the followers of other religions.
Buddhism had no quarrel with the national traditions and customs, art and culture of the people who accepted it as a way of life but allowed them to exist with refinement. The Buddha's message of love and compassion opened the hearts of men and they willingly accepted the Teachings, thereby helping Buddhism to become a world religion. Buddhist missionaries were invited by the independent countries which welcomed them with due respect. Buddhism was never introduced to any country through the influence of colonial or any other political power.
Buddhism was the first spiritual force known to us in history which drew closely together large numbers of races which were separated by the most difficult barriers of distance, language, culture and morals. Its motive was not the acquisition of international commerce, empire-building or migratory impulse to occupy fresh territory. Its aim was to show how people could gain more peace and happiness through the practice of Dhamma.
A sparkling example of the qualities and approach of a Buddhist missionary was Emperor Asoka. It was during Emperor Asoka's time that Buddhism spread to many Asian and western countries. Emperor Asoka sent Buddhist missionaries to many parts of the world to introduce the Buddha's message of peace. Asoka respected and supported every religion at that time. His tolerance towards other religions was remarkable. One of his scripts engraved in stone on Asoka Pillars, and still standing today in India, says:
'One should not honour only one's own religion and condemn the religion of others, but one should honor others' religions for this or that reason. In so doing, one helps one's own religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others too. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's own religion and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honors his own religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking, 'I will glorify my own religion.' But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely, so concord is good. Let all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others.'
In 268 B.C., he made the doctrines of the Buddha a living force in India. Hospitals, social service institutions, universities for men and women, public wells and recreation centers sprang up with this new movement, and the people thereby realized the cruelty of senseless wars.
The golden era in the history of India and the other countries of Asia--the period when art, culture, education and civilization reached their zenith--occurred at the time when Buddhist influence was strongest in these countries. Holy wars, crusades, inquisitions and religious discrimination do not mar the annals of Buddhist countries. This is a noble history mankind can rightly be proud of. The Great Nalanda University of India which flourished from the second to the ninth century was a product of Buddhism. It was the first university that we know of and which was opened to international students.
In the past, Buddhism was able to make itself felt in many parts of the East, although communication and transport were difficult and people had to cross hills and deserts. Despite these difficult barriers Buddhism spread far and wide. Today, this peace message is spreading in the West. Westerners are attracted to Buddhism and believe that Buddhism is the only religion that is in harmony with modern science.
Buddhist missionaries have no need or desire to convert those who already have a proper religion to practise. If people are satisfied with their own religion, then, there is no need for Buddhist missionaries to convert them. They give their full support to missionaries of other faiths if their idea is to convert the wicked, evil, and uncultured people to a religious way of life. Buddhists are happy to see the progress of other religions so long as they truly help people to lead a religious way of life according to their faith and enjoy peace, harmony and understanding. On the other hand, Buddhist missionaries deplore the attitude of certain missionaries who disturb the followers of other religions, since there is no reason for them to create an unhealthy atmosphere of competition for converts if their aim is only to teach people to lead a religious way of life.
In introducing Dhamma to others, Buddhist missionaries have never tried to use imaginary exaggerations depicting a heavenly life in order to attract human desire and arouse their craving. Instead, they have tried to explain the real nature of human and heavenly life as taught by the Buddha.
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/281.htm
9. What do you want to debate about the fact that there is no tomb or relic of Jesus? And is the statement "true for you but not for me" only true for you but not for me? It is amusing that you do not find this statement self-refuting and irrational. If something is true, then it is true for all. The earth is round is true. Can it be true for me but not for you? Think over it please. This slogan is so easily paraded but it is easily refuted as well.
>>>> “What do you want to debate about the fact that there is no tomb or relic of Jesus?” Exactly. What is there to debate? We weren’t there. Were you? It's debatable to us as in it's questionable. You follow?
>>>> “And is the statement "true for you but not for me" only true for you but not for me? It is amusing that you do not find this statement self-refuting and irrational.” I’m lost in your train of thoughts. What are you trying to convey?
>>>> “If something is true, then it is true for all.” ->
LOL!!! Are you serious? LOL
It's true that one plus one is two but is one plus one always two? One man one woman, plenty of offspring. So, how?
It's true that pigs are mammal and humans are mammal, but are pigs humans?
LOL!!!!!!!!!
>>>> “The earth is round is true. Can it be true for me but not for you? Think over it please.” -> LOL!!!!! Science can prove that earth is spherical. Are you serious about that question? LOL!!
10. Well, if Buddha was indeed all-knowing then he would not refuse to tell even the most serious asker whether there is a God or not. And Buddha thought of himself not as God but as man. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt10.htm Knowledge is sought for to provide coherence and completeness to one's worldview. The knowledge that there is a Creator God has spearheaded the advancement of science, in case you don't know.
>>>> “The knowledge that there is a Creator God has spearheaded the advancement of science, in case you don't know.” -> You mean the theory and hypothesis that there is creator god? can science prove creator god? Even if there is or isn’t, so what?? We still focus on cultivating our Buddhahood and perfecting the 10 paramitas. While in the progress of perfecting the 10 paramitas, one become mindful of one's actions and practise boddhicitta etc. All good morals and actions. You mean god send people who do good deeds to hell, too?
11. I suppose it won't be wrong then to call you also an asura?
>>>> LOL!! Well, for the time being, physically, I’m human although sometimes, my mind can fall into the asura state where anger takes over. The answer is no, I’m not an asura unless I get gamma rays and transform into something like fantastic four or spiderman. LOL!!
This is by far the most hilarious and entertaining post from you. Keep it up, broinchrist!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
And Buddha thought of himself not as God but as man. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt10.htm
u miss this in the link:
"Sir, will you be a human being, a manussa?"
"No, brahmin." --Buddhabrahmin was a 'creator' god, btw.
i think the view that Buddha is a man, is stubborned on ur brain, even though we had already explained that he's beyond god and man and all beings.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It basically means that the energy available to do useful work is running down. Where does the energy come from to sustain creation and destruction again and again?
the true nature is "all powerful" already, so wouldn't run out of energy wan. its also known as recycling. hence no such thing.impermanence IS the all time truth.
/\
-
没法度 leh
i thought the dust is settled already...
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Agreement means just that, agreement. It's is just stating that fact. Don't read too much into it than is warranted.
2. All I am saying is that people dialogue with many purposes in mind. One purpose of dialogue is to win the other person over. There is nothing inherently or necessarily aggressive in this at all. I can win you over by superior or better arguments, or refuting your arguments or negating your objections. Again, what's so aggressive about this? Buddha also changed people's views, didn't he? And aren't you also trying to change my views here?
3. The idea of comparison is to show the similarities and note the differences. Even if it is between apples and oranges. Sometimes we compare similar things, sometimes we compare different things. There is no law to say that one can only compare apples with apples. It really depends on what is the purpose. If the purpose is to buy a car, then you do not compare a car with a bus.
4. Neither did Jesus force anyone to accept His teachings. And neither can it be legitimate to accuse me of forcing anyone to accept Christianity because of my postings here. Where's the use of force? What do you mean by force anyway? Or are you referring to the force of the arguments that are valid and sound? I don't think you were suggesting the use of force when typing on my keyboard and making a lot of noise?
1- your agreement is based on your views... that's it.
2-u don't understand, you are trying to win me with your christian values... that's a different story which i do not accept at all... It's totally different frequency. why even bother to try in the first place?
3-it's like point 2... totally wrong channel leh.... no point comparing mah...
4-oh yes that's true! Thanks! But on the contrary you are doing it right now! Isn't that weird...??
No point to bring out your bible knowledge to question the validity of buddhist values... It's like point 2 and 3 -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No worries, I am not hurt or offended. I'm just stating that if my views are not welcome in this forum then I would take my leave. But then it seems that this is not the case.
The world will certainly be a better place if believers walk the talk and live up to the moral codes of their religious beliefs. But if that was the case, then Buddha should let Hinduism be Hinduism and not reject anything in it. Surely the issue cannot be just about doing good. The issue is one of religious truth claims, not just living a good life.
oh no.... jialat...
Buddha rejected Hinduism doesn't mean Buddha was once Hindu and reformed it to become Buddhism... totally wrong! That's 2 different issues here. Don't mix them up!
I thought religions can put aside their difference and do common good for people.
But in this case, you are more interested to say yours is the only truth...
But that is not going to improve anything... you see? It will only boost your ego -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The knowledge that there is a Creator God has spearheaded the advancement of science, in case you don't know.i only know there are different group of scientists. most of them, their finding are influence by their own religion/faith. hence the above saying is made-up. other religion can also pull science on their side. the last time i heard, xtian states that "we" begin around few or ten thousands years ago, around Babylon time? they rejected dinosaur period and Science's finding that the universe started billions of yrs ago. now u all change the saying?
fyi:-
Buddhism and Science article
http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Lamp.pdf
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/179467
/\