Creator God and the existence of alternative religions
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Since Genesis is OLDER than the Epic of Gilgamesh, the latter would be a distortion of the former. See http://creation.com/noahs-flood-and-the-gilgamesh-epic
Besides Wiki I suggest you also see http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/
You may also be interested in this http://creation.com/fall-and-other-religions
Interesting links, however. it's still unconvincing to me that genesis is older than epic of gilgamesh. where exactly the did genesis account came from and which is the first written account?
If it all falls back to base on story from words of mouth then everything is debatable.
The claim from the bible that it's a global catastrophe doesn't make the genesis as being the oldest and most accurate since everyone else has their own story about the flood. Even china has it's own flood story from the ancient times. Why can't china or the aboriginals be the original version? Cos they didn't come out with a book?
-
Originally posted by omph:
Interesting links, however. it's still unconvincing to me that genesis is older than epic of gilgamesh. where exactly the did genesis account came from and which is the first written account?
If it all falls back to base on story from words of mouth then everything is debatable.
The claim from the bible that it's a global catastrophe doesn't make the genesis as being the oldest and most accurate since everyone else has their own story about the flood. Even china has it's own flood story from the ancient times. Why can't china or the aboriginals be the original version? Cos they didn't come out with a book?
So what would it take to convince you?
The fact that every culture has its own global flood story at least would point to a common memory of a single event, does it not? Then we can slowly look at the similarities and rule out those that are outlandish or does not have that, for lack of a better term, feel of reality.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
So what would it take to convince you?
The fact that every culture has its own global flood story at least would point to a common memory of a single event, does it not? Then we can slowly look at the similarities and rule out those that are outlandish or does not have that, for lack of a better term, feel of reality.
That's where Shunyata prevails.
what is real and what is not?
-
Originally posted by omph:
That's where Shunyata prevails.
what is real and what is not?
It would then beg the question of whether sunyata itself is real or not.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I do not reject facts and proofs if you can show them. The question lies not with the facts and proofs, but with the INTERPRETATION of them. Contrary to what people like to say, facts DO NOT speak for themselves. If they do then we do not need lawyers! Evidence and facts must be interpreted within a framework or belief system. They must be put together to form a coherent and plausible story.
The issue is not what God can do. God can do anything. He can even zap the fruit out of Eve's hand before she ate it or blow the serpent up the moment it went up the tree. But such a God would be capricious, wouldn't it? The world that God created was perfect, but the endowment of free will would entail also that consequences (whether good or bad) must follow and be borne. With free will comes moral responsibility.
Naturalistic fallacy is part of Buddhism teaching of karma? How can an impersonal law of nature make moral judgements about good and bad? The law of gravity does no such thing. But once a moral law giver is factored in, it makes sense that there is such a thing as moral judgements.
There is nothing unfair about one not being equal to God. The Creator by definition is always greater than the creation. By definition there can only be ONE necessary being. If we are all equal to God then it means there are numerous beings called God. This is not monotheism. And logic will tell you that God cannot create His own equal. As to many being Buddhas, that is just like saying everyone has the chance to enter heaven so I have no issue with that at all.
Buddhism may be earlier than Christianity, but the history of the Bible well precedes Buddhism! On what basis do you conclude that Christians blindly believe the Bible while you do not blindly believe what the Buddha texts teach, bearing in mind that your Buddhist scriptures were written down 500 years after Buddha died? The events of the Tower of Babel is supported even in the field of linguistics. People cannot explain where the varieties of human languages come from. But most agree that the cradle of civilisation lies in the Middle East. And linguists have traced all languages to a few families of languages that seemingly just appeared and did not evolve from a proto-language.
People who have read a lot of myths and legends can read the Bible and note that it does not fit the label at all. CS Lewis was one such person.
written down mean He did existed before. actually First council was three mths after Buddha's death.
-
First Council
Also known as 500 Council, Theravada Council", The First Compilation, etc. The assembly of 500 leading Bhikhus gathered for 3 months after the Buddha's death to compile the Buddhist sutras. It was held at Cave of the Seven Leaves near Rajagaha.
In the assembly, Ananda recited the Sutta-pitaka, Upali recited the Rules of Disciplines of the Order, i.e., Vinaya-pitaka, and Kassapa recited the Abhidhamma. Thus, the Tripitaka was adopted as a unity of doctrines and opinions within the religious order, and also an orthodox teaching for the Buddhists to follow.
---
History of Buddhism
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/318493
Naturalistic does not concern good or bad btw. it's the personal minds that discriminate the good and bad. like money, is a neutral thing. its human charity and greed that makes it good or bad. like water, water is again neutral. it can support life mean it's good. it can destroy life mean it's bad. same thing goes with the ultimate source and the karmic law. there's no good or bad. it's neutral, it does not need to think in order to work. hence it's impersonal.
erm history of buddhism as recorded is past lifes after past lifes, eons after eons, previous Buddhas after previous Buddhas. much much more earlier than this mere earth lifespan BTW, let alone the age of tower of B.
/\
-
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
written down mean He did existed before. actually First council was three mths after Buddha's death.
Naturalistic does not concern good or bad btw. it's the personal minds that discriminate the good and bad. like money, is a neutral thing. its human charity and greed that makes it good or bad. like water, water is again neutral. it can support life mean it's good. it can destroy life mean it's bad. same thing goes with the ultimate source and the karmic law. there's no good or bad. it's neutral, it does not need to think in order to work. hence it's impersonal.
erm history of buddhism as recorded is past lifes after past lifes, eons after eons, previous Buddhas after previous Buddhas. much much more earlier than this mere earth lifespan BTW, let alone the age of tower of B.
/\
Note that it was a grand gathering of recitation. It was not written down until centuries later.
It is precisely the naturalistic fallacy I am pointing out, that you get what ought from what is.
It is really a moot point to assert that history of Buddhism went into the eons past before there was any earth when the writings and teachings of Buddhism only came about 2500 years ago. http://buddhism.about.com/od/thetripitaka/a/tripitakahistor.htm
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Note that it was a grand gathering of recitation. It was not written down until centuries later.
It is precisely the naturalistic fallacy I am pointing out, that you get what ought from what is.
It is really a moot point to assert that history of Buddhism went into the eons past before there was any earth when the writings and teachings of Buddhism only came about 2500 years ago. http://buddhism.about.com/od/thetripitaka/a/tripitakahistor.htm
u hearsay. not centuries, if not 3 months, then a year later.The First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's Parinibbana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Buddhist_Council
if refering to earth's life span, Buddha mentioned that He is the fourth Buddha, there are three others.
Who was the first Buddha?
According to Buddhism, there were countless Buddhas before Gautama Buddha and there will be many Buddhas after him. In short, he is not the first, nor will he be the last.
However, counting from the present kalpa (the beginning of our present universe) Buddha Gautama is considered the fourth Buddha. The first is Kakusandho Buddha, second Konakamano Buddha and the third Kassapo Buddha. The last Buddha of this kalpa will be Maitreya Buddha. Then the universe will renew itself and from then begins a new kalpa. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Who_was_the_first_Buddha.3F
and not to mentioned the jakata stories of Buddha's past lifes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
u hearsay. not centuries, if not 3 months, then a year later.if refering to earth's life span, Buddha mentioned that He is the fourth Buddha, there are three others.
and not to mentioned the jakata stories of Buddha's past lifes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales
/\
According to Wiki it is centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon
Whether Buddha claimed to be the 4th Buddha or not, the fact remains that Buddhism is only based on Buddha, not anything prior to him. There is no Buddhism or practice of it before Buddha existed.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
According to Wiki it is centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon
Whether Buddha claimed to be the 4th Buddha or not, the fact remains that Buddhism is only based on Buddha, not anything prior to him. There is no Buddhism or practice of it before Buddha existed.
hello, u are looking at Fourth Buddhist Council.
if u are into Buddha and his teaching, u do have to based on Buddha and his teaching. same as u to yours.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
hello, u are looking at Fourth Buddhist Council.
if u are into Buddha and his teaching, u do have to based on Buddha and his teaching. same as u to yours.
/\
The point is that it was preserved orally and written down only centuries later. You can only take it by faith that what was recorded centuries later was what was uttered by Buddha himself.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Problem with the above scenario is that the priest is wrong. But I suppose the above is just a caricature to take a jab at Christianity or Roman Catholicism.
Anyway, a Christian who knows the Bible well enough will know that the Bible is not silent on this. In the book of Romans the Apostle Paul said that people DO KNOW about God and sin. He said that the evidence for God is seen in the creation and thus people are without excuse. It is not that people do not know, but that people suppress the knowledge of God. As to sin, if you ask everyone, they can tell you that they are not morally perfect. We all know in our hearts that we have done wrong. We have lied, we have stolen, we have coveted etc etc. God has given us His law aka the conscience which functions as a moral compass albeit marred by sin such that people can have their conscience hardened or seared by repeated wrongdoing. Even if we do not know or heard of the 10 commandments, our conscience can still judge us.
Christians around me told me that babies who passed away without the knowledge of God will not go to hell and people who did not have the chance to know God will not go to hell. How come there are differences in understanding among Christians?
-
SN 22.2: Devadaha Sutta — At Devadaha {S iii 5; CDB i 856} [Thanissaro].
Ven. Sariputta explains the best way to introduce the Buddha's teachings to inquisitive, intelligent people.I should say, buddhists are generally more independent, rational, critical thinkers
They don't need to rely on external source for spiritual assurance. They help themselves, whether there is a god or not.
So there is really no point to argue about god to buddhists
If anyone read the sutta, he/she will understand buddhists look "inwards", not "outwards" for salvation -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The point is that it was preserved orally and written down only centuries later. You can only take it by faith that what was recorded centuries later was what was uttered by Buddha himself.
yes paper was not invented until 105 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper
i had no issue with preserved orally. good enough for those enlightened followers( who are at least a third stage Arhat, not to mentioned lay bodhisattvas) in that time.
though actually Pali is not the actual language spoken by Buddha. And Pali canon is only a potion of Buddhism. Mahayana also have almost that much potions of scriptures, but a little bit lesser.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The point is that it was preserved orally and written down only centuries later. You can only take it by faith that what was recorded centuries later was what was uttered by Buddha himself.
Loppon Namdrol:
"Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.
And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years." -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
yes paper was not invented until 105 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper
i had no issue with preserved orally. good enough for those enlightened followers( who are at least a third stage Arhat, not to mentioned lay bodhisattvas) in that time.
though actually Pali is not the actual language spoken by Buddha. And Pali canon is only a potion of Buddhism. Mahayana also have almost that much potions of scriptures, but a little bit lesser.
/\
It was written in wood or leaf scrolls before that.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
According to Wiki it is centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon
Whether Buddha claimed to be the 4th Buddha or not, the fact remains that Buddhism is only based on Buddha, not anything prior to him. There is no Buddhism or practice of it before Buddha existed.
Can I use the same logic with regards to the bible?
-
sorry to put this here again.
saw this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJTNpVrEXzE
not that i agree totally to either side. at least we know what their stand are.