Originally posted by BroInChrist:OK, this would seem to confirm my point that the claim of countless people being enlightened and attaining Nirvana up to the present time has no empirical/documentary support at all. I suppose It is just a claim made by followers who themselves do not actually know of anyone who has attained enlightenment and nirvana?
suppose that i'm a millionaire and own many properties, should i go around the world and shout about my wealth? for what? what good does it serve? if i want to serve, i use my wealth for the betterment of others. through kind actions not through boastfulness.
guru rinpoche, milarepa, shantideva, angulimala etc just to name a few. or this is not the exact answer you have in your mind? if you want to know who has attained nirvana etc, why don't you try and let us know?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I wonder where you get this missionary story from? Is it a true account? There are points in this story that suggest that this missionary lacks the theology required to be a missionary!
i wonder how the mayans and their wisdom perished. so did, other cultures too, unfortunately thanks to the 3G - glory, gold and gospel.
and i sympathise those people who died in salem after being accused of witchcraft etc.
Originally posted by reborn76:Anyway I understand the angle you are coming from, you hoping to share the gospel in order to save the Buddhist in the forum. Mind you I used to be of the same faith as you. When I open my heart, I start to realize the profundity of Buddhism. Today, I still respect Jesus as a bodhisattva who came to show the way to love one another.
Until one is able to ponder and reflect, one will always be a follower of the crowds.
The objective of Jesus and Buddha is very clear.Jesus said, “ I came u might have life and have it more abundantly.”
Buddha said, “ I came so that you will know the dharma, be enlightened like me.”
It boils down to seeking happiness from within.
i see a different in western religion from the eastern. like their mentality, they perfer to use reward and punishment. even when young, they use Santa Claus to lie to kids, so they can behave. when grow old already still use this kind of mentality. there's no Santa. ^
Originally posted by reborn76:“Anyway, the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death. Since the Bible teaches that life is in the blood (medical science knows this now), it therefore requires the shedding of blood (death) for the remission of sins. It is either your death, or someone else who can take your place.This sets the backdrop for the blood sacrifices. The Aztecs or Mayans form of religious and cultic human blood sacrifices are perversions of the Biblical notion of blood sacrifices.” Bro In Christ
This is what I meant the notion of MY SACRIFICE or MY CULTURE is much better than yours is primitive in nature.
In this globalization, we should open our heart to listen. In the narration, the lay person was not putting down on the missionary religion rather pointing out the very thing he hates about others people belief.
Hence try reading stuff written by this John Shelby Spong, you will be surprise that some of the fundamental views held by the churches are questionable in nature. http://johnshelbyspong.com/
Anyway I understand the angle you are coming from, you hoping to share the gospel in order to save the Buddhist in the forum. Mind you I used to be of the same faith as you. When I open my heart, I start to realize the profundity of Buddhism. Today, I still respect Jesus as a bodhisattva who came to show the way to love one another.
Until one is able to ponder and reflect, one will always be a follower of the crowds.
The objective of Jesus and Buddha is very clear.Jesus said, “ I came u might have life and have it more abundantly.”
Buddha said, “ I came so that you will know the dharma, be enlightened like me.”
It boils down to seeking happiness from within.
1. Incorrect. It is not about my sacrifice/culture better than yours, but that there is a corruption in the understanding of the blood sacrifices. But why do you raise this point when Buddhists would also think that their way of salvation is better than others, at least that's what Buddha taught when he decided to reject Hinduism, right?
2. Yes, we should listen to what others are saying, but that doesn't mean accepting what is being said as true. You haven't answered me about whether the narration was a true account or just a fiction. Anyway, like I said, if the missionary thinks that a blood sacrifice is demonic and thus doubts the Bible, I have my grave suspicion as to what kind of missionary he is. Doesn't he know anything about blood sacrifices in the OT and how God instituted it? Again he confuses the distortion with the genuine and threw out the baby with the bath water.
3. Actually I would rather question Spong's views! I can understand why you would recommend Spong because he completely undermines the Christian faith and to you and most nonbelievers such would be deemed as highly commendable and "objective". But that's like asking you to listen to some Buddhist monk whose teachings are at odds with the mainstream teachings.
4. Of course we should strive to exercise the mind and not be a blind follower. But one can be immature and be a crowd follower and still be in the right crowd, though he would find it difficult to defend his choice of following the crowd. Truth be told, there are blind and nominal followers in both Buddhism and Christianity.
5. Correction, Jesus did not come to bring happiness to people around Him. In fact He taught that people would be scandalised because of Him! Families would be divided on account of Him. Abundant life is not about being happy from within. See http://frontlineapologetics.com/2012/03/19/abundant-life-what-did-jesus-mean-in-john-1010/
Originally posted by zeus29:
“can be so interpreted that I am of such low mentality” -> jumping to conclusions, again?
Who, who who?
-> Milarepa, Angulimala, Shantideva.
"BTW, there is a claim made that when Buddha was borned he took 7 steps and said some words which I think you would believe is false? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha#Birth)."
-> whether it is true or not, it doesn’t matter. You follow?
“I thought I had answered your point about so-called Jesus lost years.” -> I don’t think you did.
“His going to the temple at 12 years old with a concluding statement that He went back with His earthly parents and were obedient to them. Then it goes to the beginning of His ministry about 30 years old” -> and did what?
“Using some logical inference, if He had been in India would this statement have made any sense?” – mormons believe he went to America.
1. Whether I jumped to conclusions about your engagement in ad hominem or not, your heart knows. I shall not press this further.
2. Why do you say it doesn't matter whether it is true if the Buddha walked those steps at birth and uttered those words? If truth does not matter, then does it matter if what Buddha taught was true or not?
3. The Bible does not record what Jesus did between 12 and 30, but there are clues which I have mentioned but again you overlooked. Jewish children take after the trade of their fathers. So Jesus was likely trained as a carpenter. He was also a regular face at the synagogue. The religious leaders also noted that Jesus was from Nazareth (not India). As to the Mormons, you must be very confused. Mormons do not believe that between 12-30 years of age Jesus went to America. Anyway what's your point? Jesus was a globetrotter?
Originally posted by zeus29:i think goenka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Goenka) does. so do many monks.
broinchrist, it's not like if one declares he or she is buddhist, past karma are gone. and it's not like only buddhist can create good karma.
if you contribute to your church, it's good karma.
if you help to build your church, it's good karma.
buddhism is not exclusive. karma is no exclusive and does not discriminate. it is also true for buddhas and boddhisattva's. in tibetan painting, the painting of skeletons does not mean demonic etc. it simply means buddhas or boddhisattva's look beyond one's beauty or ugliness. no discrimination at all.
1. So you are saying that Mr Goenka has already been enlightened and attained Nirvana? That does not seem to be communicated at all.
2. There is also no discrimination in Christianity. Anyone can become a Christian. But I think you may have confused the issue of what it means to be exclusive.
Originally posted by zeus29:suppose that i'm a millionaire and own many properties, should i go around the world and shout about my wealth? for what? what good does it serve? if i want to serve, i use my wealth for the betterment of others. through kind actions not through boastfulness.
guru rinpoche, milarepa, shantideva, angulimala etc just to name a few. or this is not the exact answer you have in your mind? if you want to know who has attained nirvana etc, why don't you try and let us know?
I believe Buddha went about and taught others that he was awakened, enlightened? Else how could he have claimed to know the way out?
My point about asking for people you know, is also that I can understand how such people are in real life. Do they have loved ones? Are they attached to anything? Do they have desires in life, like hungry for food or like to watch movies? Or are they just like any other normal good person?
Originally posted by zeus29:i wonder how the mayans and their wisdom perished. so did, other cultures too, unfortunately thanks to the 3G - glory, gold and gospel.
and i sympathise those people who died in salem after being accused of witchcraft etc.
Hmm...so you blamed the Gospel for killing off cultures around the world? Interesting. Some facts please?
As to witchcraft and salem. Pray tell what do you REALLY know about it? Or are you simply based on hearsay? See http://thetruthofthesalemwitchtrials.blogspot.sg/ in case you end up in being unfair and prejudiced towards Christianity.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Hmm...so you blamed the Gospel for killing off cultures around the world? Interesting. Some facts please?
As to witchcraft and salem. Pray tell what do you REALLY know about it? Or are you simply based on hearsay? See http://thetruthofthesalemwitchtrials.blogspot.sg/ in case you end up in being unfair and prejudiced towards Christianity.
not prejudiced. but they know my fwens know our then fwens and during gatehrigns alwasy psycho people join the chiurch. dont ask me ask anyone non-c on the street sthey will tell you the same. very irritating. like those cold call photo calls. very irritating, just like your posts here - very irritating very irritating
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I believe Buddha went about and taught others that he was awakened, enlightened? Else how could he have claimed to know the way out?
My point about asking for people you know, is also that I can understand how such people are in real life. Do they have loved ones? Are they attached to anything? Do they have desires in life, like hungry for food or like to watch movies? Or are they just like any other normal good person?
you know or you believe. you believe is your pasang dont anyhow write then.
as for paragraphy 2. of course they have. most of them make love to their wives and outisde lawful and unlawful galfwens. those that dont do it regualrly will get wet dreams.
your head of church also do the same. if not once in a while his pants durinf slp will also be wet. unless their machine malfunctiona already.
1. Incorrect. It is not about my sacrifice/culture better than yours, but that there is a corruption in the understanding of the blood sacrifices. But why do you raise this point when Buddhists would also think that their way of salvation is better than others, at least that's what Buddha taught when he decided to reject Hinduism, right?
“Buddhists would also think that their way of salvation is better than others, at least that's what Buddha taught when he decided to reject Hinduism, right?” -> from your conclusion? And no, we don’t think that our way of salvation is better than anyone’s. Do good morals, meditation, right speech, right action etc have labels? You are taught these things in Christianity too, right? Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist and neither was jesus a Christian.
1. Whether I jumped to conclusions about your engagement in ad hominem or not, your heart knows. I shall not press this further.
-> and my heart says no.
2. Why do you say it doesn't matter whether it is true if the Buddha walked those steps at birth and uttered those words? If truth does not matter, then does it matter if what Buddha taught was true or not?
“Why do you say it doesn't matter whether it is true if the Buddha walked those steps at birth and uttered those words? “-> I wasn’t there and I didn’t see. Also, in the lotus sutra, it said buddha’s tongue was as large as the universe. What do you think? Take it literally? Actually, in ancient India, having a large tongue means speaking the truth. So, it meant the Buddha’s was speaking a truth. You follow? Dude, did you read earlier posts about four reliances? Do I have to keep reminding you? Or you already have a fixed answer in your head and waiting for it to be shouted out loud?
“If truth does not matter, then does it matter if what Buddha taught was true or not?”
->
– Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
– Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
– Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
– Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
– Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.
– Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
– Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
– But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.
The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.
– Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.
3. The Bible does not record what Jesus did between 12 and 30, but there are clues which I have mentioned but again you overlooked. Jewish children take after the trade of their fathers. So Jesus was likely trained as a carpenter. He was also a regular face at the synagogue. The religious leaders also noted that Jesus was from Nazareth (not India). As to the Mormons, you must be very confused. Mormons do not believe that between 12-30 years of age Jesus went to America. Anyway what's your point? Jesus was a globetrotter?
“but there are clues which I have mentioned but again you overlooked. Jewish children take after the trade of their fathers. So Jesus was likely trained as a carpenter.” -> so, one is unsure and speculating, right? What led him to think he’s son of god? Or god himself? We know Buddha became Buddha through vipassana etc. Doesn’t sound like you when you are so adamant about origins and must know everything eg creator etc.
“The religious leaders also noted that Jesus was from Nazareth (not India)” -> who said he’s from India?
“As to the Mormons, you must be very confused. Mormons do not believe that between 12-30 years of age Jesus went to America. Anyway what's your point? Jesus was a globetrotter?” -> oh right. They believe that jesus went to America after he died. The point is to demonstrate different people have different theories and your views are right for you and may not for everyone else.
1. So you are saying that Mr Goenka has already been enlightened and attained Nirvana? That does not seem to be communicated at all.
-> broinchrist, did you read what I wrote? You said, “In other words, would you agree that since no one is born a Buddhist, and before one becomes a buddhist in life there would have been negative karma accumulated from young? Even then, after becoming a Buddhist it is unlikely that one will perfectly observe the 8 fold path. Naming the Buddha and his disciples are just 2500 years too far away. But if you know of someone who has perfectly observed it, out of countless many, I would be interested to know of such people currently living or in recent years.”
Since, we have established that there is no such thing as “100% from birth to death” which sounds absurd to me, I said, “i think goenka does. so do many monks” in regards to 8 fold path. Kindly refrain from jumping into conclusions too hastily.
“So you are saying that Mr Goenka has already been enlightened and attained Nirvana? That does not seem to be communicated at all.” -> even if they are or aren’t, so what? And how do you want them to communicate? Lit up fireworks? Advertise on billboards, tv commercial etc?
2. There is also no discrimination in Christianity. Anyone can become a Christian. But I think you may have confused the issue of what it means to be exclusive.
-> and? Oh right, only Christians go to heaven. I’d assume you know that one doesn’t need to have the Buddhist label to achieve enlightenment, right? Buddha was never a Buddhist. Unlike Christianity, we don’t worship the Buddha or Bodhisattva’s, we pay respect and homage and meditate on their qualities. When I see an image of Avalokitesvara Boddhisattva, the word compassion pops into my mind and the quality to help others. You follow?
“I believe Buddha went about and taught others that he was awakened, enlightened? Else how could he have claimed to know the way out?” -> and? What are you trying to refer to?
“My point about asking for people you know, is also that I can understand how such people are in real life. Do they have loved ones? Are they attached to anything? Do they have desires in life, like hungry for food or like to watch movies? Or are they just like any other normal good person?” -> and? What good does it serve you? For your mind satisfaction and mind orgasm? It's like as though I'm a fan of the British royal family and I want to know everything about them like what they eat, drink clothes etc. What good is it?
“Hmm...so you blamed the Gospel for killing off cultures around the world? Interesting. Some facts please?” -> are you for real again, broinchrist? Ok. Let me try another approach so that you may not feel too emotional and think it’s ad hominem.
What do you think? Is it the gold’s fault that people are killed? Is it the diamond’s fault that people are killed? What do you think, broinchrist? Does gospel advocate killing or fanatics thinking “thou shalt have no other gods” applies to everyone just because it is true to them? Also, please do your research on mayans and the burning of their books during Spanish inquisition, perish of paganism in Europe etc.
"As to witchcraft and salem. Pray tell what do you REALLY know about it? Or are you simply based on hearsay? See http://thetruthofthesalemwitchtrials.blogspot.sg/ in case you end up in being unfair and prejudiced towards Christianity."
-> oh right. That one resource which resembles a homework blog concludes everything? Are you for real again, broinchrist? How about you try googling “salem witch trials Christianity”
Here is one of many sites you can refer to. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/brief-salem.html
1. Incorrect. It is not about my sacrifice/culture better than yours, but that there is a corruption in the understanding of the blood sacrifices. But why do you raise this point when Buddhists would also think that their way of salvation is better than others, at least that's what Buddha taught when he decided to reject Hinduism, right?
My reply I remember a Buddhist story on becoming a follower Upali was one of the chief followers of the Jain master, Mahavira. Because of his intelligence, Upali often appeared in public debates on behalf of the Jains. There was one incident where Upali had a debate with the Buddha. At the end of the debate, Upali was so impressed with the Buddha's teachings that he asked to be the Enlightened One's follower. "Venerable Sir, please allow me to be your follower". To that, the Buddha answered, "Upali, you are at the height of your emotions. Go home and reconsider it carefully before you ask me again". Upali was extremely impressed, "If it was any other guru, he will parade a banner saying, 'Mahavira's chief lay-disciple has become my follower'. But you, Venerable Sir, you asked me to go home and reconsider. Now, I want to be your follower even more. I will not stand up until you accept me". Finally, the Buddha agreed to accept Upali, under one condition, "Upali, as a Jain, you have always given alms to Jain monks. When you become my follower, you will CONTINUE to give alms to Jain monks. This is my condition". Upali agreed to this condition. He later became one of the Buddha's chief disciples. Upali was known to be the one who compiled the Vinaya, the rules for monks. Bro in Christ said2. Yes, we should listen to what others are saying, but that doesn't mean accepting what is being said as true. You haven't answered me about whether the narration was a true account or just a fiction. Anyway, like I said, if the missionary thinks that a blood sacrifice is demonic and thus doubts the Bible, I have my grave suspicion as to what kind of missionary he is. Doesn't he know anything about blood sacrifices in the OT and how God instituted it? Again he confuses the distortion with the genuine and threw out the baby with the bath water.
My reply O it will be great that you REREAD the story. In the story, the lay man doubt about the origin of Christian origin, not the missionary. Hence is pointless to elaborate the rest, went out of context. LOL Bro in Christ said3. Actually I would rather question Spong's views! I can understand why you would recommend Spong because he completely undermines the Christian faith and to you and most nonbelievers such would be deemed as highly commendable and "objective". Butthat's like asking you to listen to some Buddhist monk whose teachings are at odds with the mainstream teachings.
My reply Do u know that Bishop Spong is a Theologian. A frequent university speaker with Yale, Harvard , Cambridge Theology department. Btw Episcopal Church is a MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN denomination in America. Please read more about Christian Church history prior to putting down a good theologian. Bro in Christ said4. Of course we should strive to exercise the mind and not be a blind follower. But one can be immature and be a crowd follower and still be in the right crowd, though he would find it difficult to defend his choice of following the crowd. Truth be told, there are blind and nominal followers in both Buddhism and Christianity.
My reply Are you? Frankly, a lot people in mega churches are just crowd follwer than thinker. They don't even digest and reflect what is share from puplit especially the prosperity gospel which is a waterdown gospel. Bro in Christ said5. Correction, Jesus did not come to bring happiness to people around Him. In fact He taught that people would be scandalised because of Him! Families would be divided on account of Him. Abundant life is not about being happy from within..
My reply If Jesus did not come to bring peace to mankind, then we should throw those Christmas hymm book away. I remember 3 month ago I was enjoying Hark! The herald angels sing, “Glory to the newborn King; Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled!� In the Catholic Christmas midnite mass. Here u r proclaiming Christ is NOT KEEN TO BRING happiness to mankind??? WEIRD mate.Originally posted by zeus29:1. Incorrect. It is not about my sacrifice/culture better than yours, but that there is a corruption in the understanding of the blood sacrifices. But why do you raise this point when Buddhists would also think that their way of salvation is better than others, at least that's what Buddha taught when he decided to reject Hinduism, right?
“Buddhists would also think that their way of salvation is better than others, at least that's what Buddha taught when he decided to reject Hinduism, right?” -> from your conclusion? And no, we don’t think that our way of salvation is better than anyone’s. Do good morals, meditation, right speech, right action etc have labels? You are taught these things in Christianity too, right? Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist and neither was jesus a Christian.
1. Whether I jumped to conclusions about your engagement in ad hominem or not, your heart knows. I shall not press this further.
-> and my heart says no.
2. Why do you say it doesn't matter whether it is true if the Buddha walked those steps at birth and uttered those words? If truth does not matter, then does it matter if what Buddha taught was true or not?
“Why do you say it doesn't matter whether it is true if the Buddha walked those steps at birth and uttered those words? “-> I wasn’t there and I didn’t see. Also, in the lotus sutra, it said buddha’s tongue was as large as the universe. What do you think? Take it literally? Actually, in ancient India, having a large tongue means speaking the truth. So, it meant the Buddha’s was speaking a truth. You follow? Dude, did you read earlier posts about four reliances? Do I have to keep reminding you? Or you already have a fixed answer in your head and waiting for it to be shouted out loud?
“If truth does not matter, then does it matter if what Buddha taught was true or not?”
->
– Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
– Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
– Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
– Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
– Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.
– Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
– Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
– But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.
The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.
– Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.
3. The Bible does not record what Jesus did between 12 and 30, but there are clues which I have mentioned but again you overlooked. Jewish children take after the trade of their fathers. So Jesus was likely trained as a carpenter. He was also a regular face at the synagogue. The religious leaders also noted that Jesus was from Nazareth (not India). As to the Mormons, you must be very confused. Mormons do not believe that between 12-30 years of age Jesus went to America. Anyway what's your point? Jesus was a globetrotter?
“but there are clues which I have mentioned but again you overlooked. Jewish children take after the trade of their fathers. So Jesus was likely trained as a carpenter.” -> so, one is unsure and speculating, right? What led him to think he’s son of god? Or god himself? We know Buddha became Buddha through vipassana etc. Doesn’t sound like you when you are so adamant about origins and must know everything eg creator etc.
“The religious leaders also noted that Jesus was from Nazareth (not India)” -> who said he’s from India?
“As to the Mormons, you must be very confused. Mormons do not believe that between 12-30 years of age Jesus went to America. Anyway what's your point? Jesus was a globetrotter?” -> oh right. They believe that jesus went to America after he died. The point is to demonstrate different people have different theories and your views are right for you and may not for everyone else.
1. So you are saying that Mr Goenka has already been enlightened and attained Nirvana? That does not seem to be communicated at all.
-> broinchrist, did you read what I wrote? You said, “In other words, would you agree that since no one is born a Buddhist, and before one becomes a buddhist in life there would have been negative karma accumulated from young? Even then, after becoming a Buddhist it is unlikely that one will perfectly observe the 8 fold path. Naming the Buddha and his disciples are just 2500 years too far away. But if you know of someone who has perfectly observed it, out of countless many, I would be interested to know of such people currently living or in recent years.”
Since, we have established that there is no such thing as “100% from birth to death” which sounds absurd to me, I said, “i think goenka does. so do many monks” in regards to 8 fold path. Kindly refrain from jumping into conclusions too hastily.
“So you are saying that Mr Goenka has already been enlightened and attained Nirvana? That does not seem to be communicated at all.” -> even if they are or aren’t, so what? And how do you want them to communicate? Lit up fireworks? Advertise on billboards, tv commercial etc?
2. There is also no discrimination in Christianity. Anyone can become a Christian. But I think you may have confused the issue of what it means to be exclusive.
-> and? Oh right, only Christians go to heaven. I’d assume you know that one doesn’t need to have the Buddhist label to achieve enlightenment, right? Buddha was never a Buddhist. Unlike Christianity, we don’t worship the Buddha or Bodhisattva’s, we pay respect and homage and meditate on their qualities. When I see an image of Avalokitesvara Boddhisattva, the word compassion pops into my mind and the quality to help others. You follow?
“I believe Buddha went about and taught others that he was awakened, enlightened? Else how could he have claimed to know the way out?” -> and? What are you trying to refer to?
“My point about asking for people you know, is also that I can understand how such people are in real life. Do they have loved ones? Are they attached to anything? Do they have desires in life, like hungry for food or like to watch movies? Or are they just like any other normal good person?” -> and? What good does it serve you? For your mind satisfaction and mind orgasm? It's like as though I'm a fan of the British royal family and I want to know everything about them like what they eat, drink clothes etc. What good is it?
“Hmm...so you blamed the Gospel for killing off cultures around the world? Interesting. Some facts please?” -> are you for real again, broinchrist? Ok. Let me try another approach so that you may not feel too emotional and think it’s ad hominem.
What do you think? Is it the gold’s fault that people are killed? Is it the diamond’s fault that people are killed? What do you think, broinchrist? Does gospel advocate killing or fanatics thinking “thou shalt have no other gods” applies to everyone just because it is true to them? Also, please do your research on mayans and the burning of their books during Spanish inquisition, perish of paganism in Europe etc.
"As to witchcraft and salem. Pray tell what do you REALLY know about it? Or are you simply based on hearsay? See http://thetruthofthesalemwitchtrials.blogspot.sg/ in case you end up in being unfair and prejudiced towards Christianity."
-> oh right. That one resource which resembles a homework blog concludes everything? Are you for real again, broinchrist? How about you try googling “salem witch trials Christianity”
Here is one of many sites you can refer to. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/brief-salem.html
1. You don't think your way of salvation is better than others? Now that's a very strange statement you made. And I wasn't even talking about labels. I am asking whether you believe Buddhism is exclusively true. Is the Middle Way the ONLY way?
2. Figures of speech and metaphors are understood. So are you saying that Buddha's baby steps and speaking those words were NOT literally true i.e. did not happen in fact? Your not witnessing it is irrelevant to whether it happened or not.
3. That entire "Do not believe anything...." text? I take issue with the part that says "But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it." It simply say the same thing in a different way! It say you should accept as true anything that agrees with your own reason and experience. Conducive to good and benefit of one and all? What is conducive? Again it has to agree with your reason and experience. Basically it means to accept as true what you accept as true. Why? Because the final arbiter of truth is no other than yourself! But our reasoning is not infallible.
4. There are better grounds to conclude that Jesus was in the land of Israel than the baseless speculation that He went to India or the Americas between 12-30 years of age. Jesus never doubted His own divinity. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was always aware of His own deity. It did not occur to Him that He was the Son of God. BTW, there's nothing wrong with being adamant about the issue of origins. You are just as adamant about it as me.
5. Re the point about Jesus going to America. Since you are wrong about the Mormons' beliefs, it proves that it is false to think that conflicting and contradictory views can be a matter of what's right for you is just for you.
6. Basically you are conceding that there is no good basis to think that Mr Goenka is enlightened or has attained Nirvana. We can leave it as that.
7. Perhaps you did not know that the earliest believers were only called Christians some years after Jesus went to heaven? That was in Antioch, Acts 11. So one need not be called a Christian to be a follower of Christ. That was so in the earliest years. But then again, there's nothing wrong with being called that now.
8. If a person who supposedly attained Nirvana is not any different from a person who has not i.e. he still have emotions and affections, he falls sick and can suffer and die, then how do you tell the diff?
9. Since the Gospel does not teach or advocate killing off cultures or peoples, there is no basis to fault the Gospel.
10. So the Smithsonian website concludes everything but not the website I linked? Genetic fallacy on your part here. Anyway the point is, what do you intend to prove with the Salem Witch Trials? That millions of innocent people died? Or perhaps only a number of people died? And that it had really nothing to do with the Bible at all but that some people acted on their fears and it was a trial gone wrong? Many people like to throw up things like Crusades or Inquisition or Salem as mere smoke screens and red herrings. These things, tragic as they are, do not reflect Christian teachings.
Originally posted by reborn76:Bro in Christ said
1. Incorrect. It is not about my sacrifice/culture better than yours, but that there is a corruption in the understanding of the blood sacrifices. But why do you raise this point when Buddhists would also think that their way of salvation is better than others, at least that's what Buddha taught when he decided to reject Hinduism, right?
My reply I remember a Buddhist story on becoming a follower Upali was one of the chief followers of the Jain master, Mahavira. Because of his intelligence, Upali often appeared in public debates on behalf of the Jains. There was one incident where Upali had a debate with the Buddha. At the end of the debate, Upali was so impressed with the Buddha's teachings that he asked to be the Enlightened One's follower. "Venerable Sir, please allow me to be your follower". To that, the Buddha answered, "Upali, you are at the height of your emotions. Go home and reconsider it carefully before you ask me again". Upali was extremely impressed, "If it was any other guru, he will parade a banner saying, 'Mahavira's chief lay-disciple has become my follower'. But you, Venerable Sir, you asked me to go home and reconsider. Now, I want to be your follower even more. I will not stand up until you accept me". Finally, the Buddha agreed to accept Upali, under one condition, "Upali, as a Jain, you have always given alms to Jain monks. When you become my follower, you will CONTINUE to give alms to Jain monks. This is my condition". Upali agreed to this condition. He later became one of the Buddha's chief disciples. Upali was known to be the one who compiled the Vinaya, the rules for monks. Bro in Christ said
2. Yes, we should listen to what others are saying, but that doesn't mean accepting what is being said as true. You haven't answered me about whether the narration was a true account or just a fiction. Anyway, like I said, if the missionary thinks that a blood sacrifice is demonic and thus doubts the Bible, I have my grave suspicion as to what kind of missionary he is. Doesn't he know anything about blood sacrifices in the OT and how God instituted it? Again he confuses the distortion with the genuine and threw out the baby with the bath water.
My reply O it will be great that you REREAD the story. In the story, the lay man doubt about the origin of Christian origin, not the missionary. Hence is pointless to elaborate the rest, went out of context. LOL Bro in Christ said
3. Actually I would rather question Spong's views! I can understand why you would recommend Spong because he completely undermines the Christian faith and to you and most nonbelievers such would be deemed as highly commendable and "objective". Butthat's like asking you to listen to some Buddhist monk whose teachings are at odds with the mainstream teachings.
My reply Do u know that Bishop Spong is a Theologian. A frequent university speaker with Yale, Harvard , Cambridge Theology department. Btw Episcopal Church is a MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN denomination in America. Please read more about Christian Church history prior to putting down a good theologian. Bro in Christ said
4. Of course we should strive to exercise the mind and not be a blind follower. But one can be immature and be a crowd follower and still be in the right crowd, though he would find it difficult to defend his choice of following the crowd. Truth be told, there are blind and nominal followers in both Buddhism and Christianity.
My reply Are you? Frankly, a lot people in mega churches are just crowd follwer than thinker. They don't even digest and reflect what is share from puplit especially the prosperity gospel which is a waterdown gospel. Bro in Christ said
5. Correction, Jesus did not come to bring happiness to people around Him. In fact He taught that people would be scandalised because of Him! Families would be divided on account of Him. Abundant life is not about being happy from within..
My reply If Jesus did not come to bring peace to mankind, then we should throw those Christmas hymm book away. I remember 3 month ago I was enjoying Hark! The herald angels sing, “Glory to the newborn King; Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled!” In the Catholic Christmas midnite mass. Here u r proclaiming Christ is NOT KEEN TO BRING happiness to mankind??? WEIRD mate.
1. That Buddha wanted Upali to continue to give alms to Jain monks would be similar to Christians continuing to support the Jews in Israel. This does not amount to denying that Jesus is still the only way to God.
2. Re the lay man, you are right. It was my mistake. But then again, the Missionary should have clarified the error in the thinking of the layman.
3. I know that Spong is a Liberal Theologian who has denied central doctrines of the Christian faith, I would even say he is NOT a true Christian. So what if he is in the mainstream denomination and wore clerical robes though retired now? The Bible warns about wolves in sheep clothing. People like Spong are a dangerous horde. He denies the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection, which attacks the Person and finished work of Christ. Please familiar yourself with what he promotes here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong
4. I do not belong to a mega-church nor am I a believer in the Prosperity Gospel. So I do not call myself a crowd follower in that sense.
5. You should read the Bible some time. Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but division. People will be divided because of Him. Yet He also came to bring peace. Your problem is that you failed to discern what kind of peace Jesus came to bring. So before you throw away any Christian hymn book you should check yourself to see if you have misunderstood anything. Always be fair and objective and not act out of bias and prejudice.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. You don't think your way of salvation is better than others? Now that's a very strange statement you made. And I wasn't even talking about labels. I am asking whether you believe Buddhism is exclusively true. Is the Middle Way the ONLY way?
2. Figures of speech and metaphors are understood. So are you saying that Buddha's baby steps and speaking those words were NOT literally true i.e. did not happen in fact? Your not witnessing it is irrelevant to whether it happened or not.
3. That entire "Do not believe anything...." text? I take issue with the part that says "But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it." It simply say the same thing in a different way! It say you should accept as true anything that agrees with your own reason and experience. Conducive to good and benefit of one and all? What is conducive? Again it has to agree with your reason and experience. Basically it means to accept as true what you accept as true. Why? Because the final arbiter of truth is no other than yourself! But our reasoning is not infallible.
4. There are better grounds to conclude that Jesus was in the land of Israel than the baseless speculation that He went to India or the Americas between 12-30 years of age. Jesus never doubted His own divinity. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was always aware of His own deity. It did not occur to Him that He was the Son of God. BTW, there's nothing wrong with being adamant about the issue of origins. You are just as adamant about it as me.
5. Re the point about Jesus going to America. Since you are wrong about the Mormons' beliefs, it proves that it is false to think that conflicting and contradictory views can be a matter of what's right for you is just for you.
6. Basically you are conceding that there is no good basis to think that Mr Goenka is enlightened or has attained Nirvana. We can leave it as that.
7. Perhaps you did not know that the earliest believers were only called Christians some years after Jesus went to heaven? That was in Antioch, Acts 11. So one need not be called a Christian to be a follower of Christ. That was so in the earliest years. But then again, there's nothing wrong with being called that now.
8. If a person who supposedly attained Nirvana is not any different from a person who has not i.e. he still have emotions and affections, he falls sick and can suffer and die, then how do you tell the diff?
9. Since the Gospel does not teach or advocate killing off cultures or peoples, there is no basis to fault the Gospel.
10. So the Smithsonian website concludes everything but not the website I linked? Genetic fallacy on your part here. Anyway the point is, what do you intend to prove with the Salem Witch Trials? That millions of innocent people died? Or perhaps only a number of people died? And that it had really nothing to do with the Bible at all but that some people acted on their fears and it was a trial gone wrong? Many people like to throw up things like Crusades or Inquisition or Salem as mere smoke screens and red herrings. These things, tragic as they are, do not reflect Christian teachings.
Originally posted by zeus29:
1. You don't think your way of salvation is better than others? Now that's a very strange statement you made. And I wasn't even talking about labels. I am asking whether you believe Buddhism is exclusively true. Is the Middle Way the ONLY way?>>>> strange? Why do you think it's strange?>>>> ' am asking whether you believe Buddhism is exclusively true' -> I think Buddhism is true. Exclusively? Haven't thought much about exclusive. Hmm.. We don't use some of the terminology that you use. Jesus said, 'love neighbor like yourself', from that people treat others good. The actions of treating others well and benefitting others well create good karma. Hmm I really don't know what to say to 'exclusive'2. Figures of speech and metaphors are understood. So are you saying that Buddha's baby steps and speaking those words were NOT literally true i.e. did not happen in fact? Your not witnessing it is irrelevant to whether it happened or not.>>>> LOL!!! Whether it happened or not, so, what?3. That entire "Do not believe anything...." text? I take issue with the part that says "But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it." It simply say the same thing in a different way! It say you should accept as true anything that agrees with your own reason and experience. Conducive to good and benefit of one and all? What is conducive? Again it has to agree with your reason and experience. Basically it means to accept as true what you accept as true. Why? Because the final arbiter of truth is no other than yourself! But our reasoning is not infallible.>>>> sure. It's your view and you're entitled to have your own view.4. There are better grounds to conclude that Jesus was in the land of Israel than the baseless speculation that He went to India or the Americas between 12-30 years of age. Jesus never doubted His own divinity. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was always aware of His own deity. It did not occur to Him that He was the Son of God. BTW, there's nothing wrong with being adamant about the issue of origins. You are just as adamant about it as me.>>>> me adamant about origins? LOL!!5. Re the point about Jesus going to America. Since you are wrong about the Mormons' beliefs, it proves that it is false to think that conflicting and contradictory views can be a matter of what's right for you is just for you.>>>> 'Since you are wrong about the Mormons' beliefs, it proves ..' LOL!!! another one of your "if this is true, it must be true for all"? LOL I beg to differ.6. Basically you are conceding that there is no good basis to think that Mr Goenka is enlightened or has attained Nirvana. We can leave it as that.>>>> you cut short a little. I concede that there is no good reason to think and no good reason NOT to think that mr goenka is enlightened or not. But he's definitely another great teacher just like ajahn chah7. Perhaps you did not know that the earliest believers were only called Christians some years after Jesus went to heaven? That was in Antioch, Acts 11. So one need not be called a Christian to be a follower of Christ. That was so in the earliest years. But then again, there's nothing wrong with being called that now.>>>> and there's nothing wrong not being believing in labels, too.8. If a person who supposedly attained Nirvana is not any different from a person who has not i.e. he still have emotions and affections, he falls sick and can suffer and die, then how do you tell the diff?>>>> Aiyo. Again ah? Human body subject to human wear and tear. You do you expect? Superman?9. Since the Gospel does not teach or advocate killing off cultures or peoples, there is no basis to fault the Gospel.>>>> yupe. But many bad things happened in its name. Sad!10. So the Smithsonian website concludes everything but not the website I linked? Genetic fallacy on your part here. Anyway the point is, what do you intend to prove with the Salem Witch Trials? That millions of innocent people died? Or perhaps only a number of people died? And that it had really nothing to do with the Bible at all but that some people acted on their fears and it was a trial gone wrong? Many people like to throw up things like Crusades or Inquisition or Salem as mere smoke screens and red herrings. These things, tragic as they are, do not reflect Christian teachings.>>>> Aiyo. Dude!!! Did you read? I said one of the many sites!!!>>>> again, people did bad things to others in its name! False sense of 'just because its true for me, it must be true for everyone'.>>>> it's like just because I like to drive to kl, it doesn't mean everyone must1) go to kl2) drive to kl
1. I gather that you haven't given much thought to the notion of truth. Truth by definition is exclusive. See http://ezinearticles.com/?Truth-is-Exclusive&id=3711389
2. If it did not happened, then the account is false. Simple as that. The onus would be on you to show that it was not meant to be taken as literally true.
3. Of course I am entitled to my own views. Question is, do you agree or disagree with my views?
4. You are adamant that the question of origins is not important.
5. You have been shown to be wrong about what the Mormons believe. So how can you say it is still a matter of true for me but not for you? I think some intellectual honesty is sorely in need!
6. Basically you have no idea concerning Mr Goenka's spiritual status. It was an evasive answer you gave, similar to the kind of answers Buddha gave.
7. Labels are just names we give to things for communication purposes. Even if you don't want the labels you still need something else to label it.
8. I would expect a person who has attained Nirvana to display a certain kind of other-worldly disposition. He should be so un-attached as to be almost inhuman, don't you think? If he cries for his loved ones, then he is still attached to them. That does not sound very enlightened to me at all.
9. So long as you agree that the Gospel does not teach certain things you accused the followers of doing, that is already a good distinction made. Just be careful in future how you word your accusation or reason for rejecting Christianity. It is not more valid than it is for me to say I reject Buddhism because you did not behave like a good Buddhist should.
10. Re the drive to KL point, that was irrelevant. The point was that the Salem Witch Trials does not lend support to any case against the Christian faith.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. I gather that you haven't given much thought to the notion of truth. Truth by definition is exclusive. See http://ezinearticles.com/?Truth-is-Exclusive&id=3711389
2. If it did not happened, then the account is false. Simple as that. The onus would be on you to show that it was not meant to be taken as literally true.
3. Of course I am entitled to my own views. Question is, do you agree or disagree with my views?
4. You are adamant that the question of origins is not important.
5. You have been shown to be wrong about what the Mormons believe. So how can you say it is still a matter of true for me but not for you? I think some intellectual honesty is sorely in need!
6. Basically you have no idea concerning Mr Goenka's spiritual status. It was an evasive answer you gave, similar to the kind of answers Buddha gave.
7. Labels are just names we give to things for communication purposes. Even if you don't want the labels you still need something else to label it.
8. I would expect a person who has attained Nirvana to display a certain kind of other-worldly disposition. He should be so un-attached as to be almost inhuman, don't you think? If he cries for his loved ones, then he is still attached to them. That does not sound very enlightened to me at all.
9. So long as you agree that the Gospel does not teach certain things you accused the followers of doing, that is already a good distinction made. Just be careful in future how you word your accusation or reason for rejecting Christianity. It is not more valid than it is for me to say I reject Buddhism because you did not behave like a good Buddhist should.
10. Re the drive to KL point, that was irrelevant. The point was that the Salem Witch Trials does not lend support to any case against the Christian faith.
1. I gather that you haven't given much thought to the notion of truth. Truth by definition is exclusive. See http://ezinearticles.com/?Truth-is-Exclusive&id=3711389
>>>> then you can put as much thought as you like. Doesn’t bother us at all.
2. If it did not happened, then the account is false. Simple as that. The onus would be on you to show that it was not meant to be taken as literally true.
>>>> aiyo. Did you not read the four reliance? I’m beginning to wonder if you just seek to be understood rather than to understand. To be heard rather than hear others.
3. Of course I am entitled to my own views. Question is, do you agree or disagree with my views?
>>>> and us agreeing or not agreeing matters to you? you can’t sleep/eat/drink?
4. You are adamant that the question of origins is not important.
>>> yeah, as we’ve mentioned this but kept repeating and going in circles.
>>>> it's like just because I like to drive to kl, it doesn't mean everyone must
1) go to kl
2) drive to kl
5. You have been shown to be wrong about what the Mormons believe. So how can you say it is still a matter of true for me but not for you? I think some intellectual honesty is sorely in need!
>>>> why not?
6. Basically you have no idea concerning Mr Goenka's spiritual status. It was an evasive answer you gave, similar to the kind of answers Buddha gave.
>>>> what did you want to hear?
7. Labels are just names we give to things for communication purposes. Even if you don't want the labels you still need something else to label it.
>>>> as per your view.
8. I would expect a person who has attained Nirvana to display a certain kind of other-worldly disposition. He should be so un-attached as to be almost inhuman, don't you think? If he cries for his loved ones, then he is still attached to them. That does not sound very enlightened to me at all.
>>>> I find this strange. You’re the one who had the expectations and when it doesn’t meet your expectations, it’s the other person’s fault?
>>>> “? If he cries for his loved ones, then he is still attached to them. That does not sound very enlightened to me at all.” -> you’re referring to goenka? You know he does that? You know him personally?
9. So long as you agree that the Gospel does not teach certain things you accused the followers of doing, that is already a good distinction made. Just be careful in future how you word your accusation or reason for rejecting Christianity. It is not more valid than it is for me to say I reject Buddhism because you did not behave like a good Buddhist should.
>>>> “Just be careful in future how you word your accusation or reason for rejecting Christianity.” -> don’t have to. Just let historical events speak. Don’t you think?
>>>> “It is not more valid than it is for me to say I reject Buddhism because you did not behave like a good Buddhist should.” -> LOL!!! How should a Buddhist behave? And should anyone conform to your expectations in the first place? LOL!!
You’re hilarious! Keep it up!! LOL
10. Re the drive to KL point, that was irrelevant. The point was that the Salem Witch Trials does not lend support to any case against the Christian faith.
>>>> LOL!!! Are you for real?
>>>> it’s a reference made to “people did bad things to others in its (Christianity) name! False sense of 'just because its true for me, it must be true for everyone'.”
>>>> are you seriously not getting it? Maybe I should try to explore a more basic level of communication. I thought it was basic enough. Oh well. Everyone is different.
Originally posted by zeus29:1. I gather that you haven't given much thought to the notion of truth. Truth by definition is exclusive. See http://ezinearticles.com/?Truth-is-Exclusive&id=3711389
>>>> then you can put as much thought as you like. Doesn’t bother us at all.
2. If it did not happened, then the account is false. Simple as that. The onus would be on you to show that it was not meant to be taken as literally true.
>>>> aiyo. Did you not read the four reliance? I’m beginning to wonder if you just seek to be understood rather than to understand. To be heard rather than hear others.
3. Of course I am entitled to my own views. Question is, do you agree or disagree with my views?
>>>> and us agreeing or not agreeing matters to you? you can’t sleep/eat/drink?
4. You are adamant that the question of origins is not important.
>>> yeah, as we’ve mentioned this but kept repeating and going in circles.
>>>> it's like just because I like to drive to kl, it doesn't mean everyone must
1) go to kl
2) drive to kl
5. You have been shown to be wrong about what the Mormons believe. So how can you say it is still a matter of true for me but not for you? I think some intellectual honesty is sorely in need!
>>>> why not?
6. Basically you have no idea concerning Mr Goenka's spiritual status. It was an evasive answer you gave, similar to the kind of answers Buddha gave.
>>>> what did you want to hear?
7. Labels are just names we give to things for communication purposes. Even if you don't want the labels you still need something else to label it.
>>>> as per your view.
8. I would expect a person who has attained Nirvana to display a certain kind of other-worldly disposition. He should be so un-attached as to be almost inhuman, don't you think? If he cries for his loved ones, then he is still attached to them. That does not sound very enlightened to me at all.
>>>> I find this strange. You’re the one who had the expectations and when it doesn’t meet your expectations, it’s the other person’s fault?
>>>> “? If he cries for his loved ones, then he is still attached to them. That does not sound very enlightened to me at all.” -> you’re referring to goenka? You know he does that? You know him personally?
9. So long as you agree that the Gospel does not teach certain things you accused the followers of doing, that is already a good distinction made. Just be careful in future how you word your accusation or reason for rejecting Christianity. It is not more valid than it is for me to say I reject Buddhism because you did not behave like a good Buddhist should.
>>>> “Just be careful in future how you word your accusation or reason for rejecting Christianity.” -> don’t have to. Just let historical events speak. Don’t you think?
>>>> “It is not more valid than it is for me to say I reject Buddhism because you did not behave like a good Buddhist should.” -> LOL!!! How should a Buddhist behave? And should anyone conform to your expectations in the first place? LOL!!
You’re hilarious! Keep it up!! LOL
10. Re the drive to KL point, that was irrelevant. The point was that the Salem Witch Trials does not lend support to any case against the Christian faith.
>>>> LOL!!! Are you for real?
>>>> it’s a reference made to “people did bad things to others in its (Christianity) name! False sense of 'just because its true for me, it must be true for everyone'.”
>>>> are you seriously not getting it? Maybe I should try to explore a more basic level of communication. I thought it was basic enough. Oh well. Everyone is different.
Since you are not taking my postings with any seriousness and see it as just a joke to you, I don't see any point in responding further. To do so would be the proverbial casting pearls before swine or playing harp to cows.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Since you are not taking my postings with any seriousness and see it as just a joke to you, I don't see any point in responding further. To do so would be the proverbial casting pearls before swine or playing harp to cows.
it was funny to me. how come it's not funny to you? if it's true for me, it should be true for you and everyone too, right? i trust you can read between the lines and finally understand that one man's meat another man's poison and not everything is true for everyone.
yes, 1+1=2
1+1=1 (hydrogen + oxygen = water)
1+1=3/4/54/6/7/8/9/10 (man + woman = man + woman + offsprings.
is there exclusivity here?
Originally posted by zeus29:it was funny to me. how come it's not funny to you? if it's true for me, it should be true for you and everyone too, right? i trust you can read between the lines and finally understand that one man's meat another man's poison and not everything is true for everyone.
yes, 1+1=2
1+1=1 (hydrogen + oxygen = water)
1+1=3/4/54/6/7/8/9/10 (man + woman = man + woman + offsprings.
is there exclusivity here?
It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here. If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone? It can actually be false, true or not? It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.
A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke, in the same way that a person with a warped sense of logic can see truth as relative. Yet such a person believe that "truth is relative" is absolutely true! If you still cannot see the self-refuting nature of relativism, then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me."
And your attempt at mathematical equivocation is very disingenuous!
1+1=2 is true for everyone every where, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false. This is called OBJECTIVE truth, if you do not know by now. It means that something is true, regardless of what you think or like or prefer or believe.
BTW, water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded to form 1 water molecule, so your equation is already wrong, even if you somehow think it is true. Thus it is 2+1=1 expressed not in absolute mathematical terms but in atomic terms.
As to 1+1=3/4/5/6, the sense in which it is used is different, it is talking about how from 2 people you can get more people in family.
BUT IN ALL THE ABOVE EXAMPLES
The numerical logic of 1+1=2 is never negated and it is true for everyone everywhere. It is exclusive.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here. If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone? It can actually be false, true or not? It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.
A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke, in the same way that a person with a warped sense of logic can see truth as relative. Yet such a person believe that "truth is relative" is absolutely true! If you still cannot see the self-refuting nature of relativism, then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me."
And your attempt at mathematical equivocation is very disingenuous!
1+1=2 is true for everyone every where, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false. This is called OBJECTIVE truth, if you do not know by now. It means that something is true, regardless of what you think or like or prefer or believe.
BTW, water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded to form 1 water molecule, so your equation is already wrong, even if you somehow think it is true. Thus it is 2+1=1 expressed not in absolute mathematical terms but in atomic terms.
As to 1+1=3/4/5/6, the sense in which it is used is different, it is talking about how from 2 people you can get more people in family.
BUT IN ALL THE ABOVE EXAMPLES
The numerical logic of 1+1=2 is never negated and it is true for everyone everywhere. It is exclusive.
It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here. If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone? It can actually be false, true or not? It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.
>>>> “It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here.” -> funny. I thought it was you. even after so many many many replies, you still don't get it. what's true for you is for you and may or may not be for others, too. you really don't get it or you're messing around?
>>>> “If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone?” -> dark grey is the best colour in the world. Is it true for you also?
>>>> “It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.” -> are you trying to crack me up again with your self-endorsed authority on what’s false, worst and flawed?
A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke, in the same way that a person with a warped sense of logic can see truth as relative. Yet such a person believe that "truth is relative" is absolutely true! If you still cannot see the self-refuting nature of relativism, then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me."
>>>> “A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke” -> "twisted sense of humour" such as? And what’s “the most serious thing”?
>>>> “then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me." -> you have unwholesome wish for another? This is terrible. This is the “twisted humour” you mentioned earlier? Quite twisted, indeed! I suggest you see a REAL specialist. Try to experience the real world. It’s not that “hellish place”.
>>>> “"well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me." -> aiyo. Are you for real or are you trying to crack me up? what do you think? Will the train knock one down or not?
And your attempt at mathematical equivocation is very disingenuous!
>>>> oh yeah. Sure!!
1+1=2 is true for everyone everywhere, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false. This is called OBJECTIVE truth, if you do not know by now. It means that something is true, regardless of what you think or like or prefer or believe.
>>>> “1+1=2 is true for everyone everywhere, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false” -> errm. Did you read? I said “yes, 1+1=2” I think my theory that you only read what you want is beginning to actualise.
BTW, water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded to form 1 water molecule, so your equation is already wrong, even if you somehow think it is true. Thus it is 2+1=1 expressed not in absolute mathematical terms but in atomic terms.
>>>> Err. You are referring to atoms. I was referring to elements. By now, after so many attempts, you should already know that there’s no right or wrong. Just different perspectives. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY NOT GETTING IT??? And just because you saw it in atomic terms and I was trying to illustrate elements, I have to change my view?
As to 1+1=3/4/5/6, the sense in which it is used is different, it is talking about how from 2 people you can get more people in family.
BUT IN ALL THE ABOVE EXAMPLES
The numerical logic of 1+1=2 is never negated and it is true for everyone everywhere. It is exclusive.
>>>> aiyo!! You’re still not getting it ah? 1+1 is not exclusive as mentioned in the earlier post. Is getting the number 2 exclusive? You mean you can only derive the number 2 by 1+1? What about 1.5+0.5? 3-1? 5-3? 4/2 ? 16/8?
Originally posted by zeus29:
It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here. If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone? It can actually be false, true or not? It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.
>>>> “It seems that you are deliberately playing daft here.” -> funny. I thought it was you. even after so many many many replies, you still don't get it. what's true for you is for you and may or may not be for others, too. you really don't get it or you're messing around?
>>>> “If not everything is true for everyone is itself a true statement, then on what objective basis do you say it is true that not everything is true for everyone?” -> dark grey is the best colour in the world. Is it true for you also?
>>>> “It's not that I cannot read between the lines, but that your notion of truth is false at worst and flawed at best.” -> are you trying to crack me up again with your self-endorsed authority on what’s false, worst and flawed?
A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke, in the same way that a person with a warped sense of logic can see truth as relative. Yet such a person believe that "truth is relative" is absolutely true! If you still cannot see the self-refuting nature of relativism, then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me."
>>>> “A person with a twisted sense of humour can find the most serious thing as a joke” -> "twisted sense of humour" such as? And what’s “the most serious thing”?
>>>> “then perhaps you may wish to stand on the MRT tracks during peak hours and say "well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me." -> you have unwholesome wish for another? This is terrible. This is the “twisted humour” you mentioned earlier? Quite twisted, indeed! I suggest you see a REAL specialist. Try to experience the real world. It’s not that “hellish place”.
>>>> “"well, the belief that the train will come and knock you down is true for you but not for me." -> aiyo. Are you for real or are you trying to crack me up? what do you think? Will the train knock one down or not?
And your attempt at mathematical equivocation is very disingenuous!
>>>> oh yeah. Sure!!
1+1=2 is true for everyone everywhere, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false. This is called OBJECTIVE truth, if you do not know by now. It means that something is true, regardless of what you think or like or prefer or believe.
>>>> “1+1=2 is true for everyone everywhere, even if you somehow think it is not true for you. In such an instance, your belief is false” -> errm. Did you read? I said “yes, 1+1=2” I think my theory that you only read what you want is beginning to actualise.
BTW, water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded to form 1 water molecule, so your equation is already wrong, even if you somehow think it is true. Thus it is 2+1=1 expressed not in absolute mathematical terms but in atomic terms.
>>>> Err. You are referring to atoms. I was referring to elements. By now, after so many attempts, you should already know that there’s no right or wrong. Just different perspectives. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY NOT GETTING IT??? And just because you saw it in atomic terms and I was trying to illustrate elements, I have to change my view?
As to 1+1=3/4/5/6, the sense in which it is used is different, it is talking about how from 2 people you can get more people in family.
BUT IN ALL THE ABOVE EXAMPLES
The numerical logic of 1+1=2 is never negated and it is true for everyone everywhere. It is exclusive.
>>>> aiyo!! You’re still not getting it ah? 1+1 is not exclusive as mentioned in the earlier post. Is getting the number 2 exclusive? You mean you can only derive the number 2 by 1+1? What about 1.5+0.5? 3-1? 5-3? 4/2 ? 16/8?
If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking.
Yes, there are many colours, but here you are confusing colours with the notion of truth. How can there be many truths? Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?
You said I should realise that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different perspectives. But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'
Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative. Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything. If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all. In fact, truth does not even exist. But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself. Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking.
Yes, there are many colours, but here you are confusing colours with the notion of truth. How can there be many truths? Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?
You said I should realise that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different perspectives. But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'
Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative. Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything. If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all. In fact, truth does not even exist. But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself. Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false.
If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking.
>>>> "If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet?" -> It's universally true for me. so, how?
>>>> "Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking." -> were you expecting something else? LOL! i find your way of thinking amusing.
Yes, there are many colours, but here you are confusing colours with the notion of truth. How can there be many truths? Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?
>>>> oh so, grey is not the greatest colour? but it is for me.
>>>> "Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?" -> are you still ignorant to our position? we said whether god exists or not, it doesn't matter to us. we neither accept nor reject. YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>> "Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?" -> he was in person just like jesus. so, what do you think?
You said I should realise that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different perspectives. But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'
>>>> "But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'" -> huh? i said you're wrong? where? look at your earlier posts. i think it's more like you telling us that "you're wrong", "it's a fallacy", "you're confused" etc. are you talking about yourself?
Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative. Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything. If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all. In fact, truth does not even exist. But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself. Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false.
>>>> "Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative" -> you seriously don't get it? we believe in many dharma doors. if you live as a good person as a christian, by all means. we as buddhists. just different approach.
>>>> "Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything" -> correcting you? nah.
>>>> " If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all." -> oh yeah. of course, there's no truth in buddhism at all. christianity has all the truth and is the only truth............FOR YOU.
>>>> " In fact, truth does not even exist" -> who said truth doesn't exist? oh wait. you equate truth to god? not in our dictionary. it's only in your mind.
>>>> "But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself." -> a monologue or asking a question?
>>>> "Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false." -> again, jumping to conclusions??
Originally posted by BroInChrist:If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking.
Yes, there are many colours, but here you are confusing colours with the notion of truth. How can there be many truths? Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?
You said I should realise that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different perspectives. But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'
Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative. Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything. If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all. In fact, truth does not even exist. But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself. Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false.
Originally posted by zeus29:If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking.
>>>> "If what's true for you is just true for you, then it will mean that what Buddha taught is not universally true. Are you willing to bite this bullet?" -> It's universally true for me. so, how?
>>>> "Are you willing to bite this bullet? Think properly before you shoot out your answer without thinking." -> were you expecting something else? LOL! i find your way of thinking amusing.
Yes, there are many colours, but here you are confusing colours with the notion of truth. How can there be many truths? Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?
>>>> oh so, grey is not the greatest colour? but it is for me.
>>>> "Can it be both equally true that there is a God and there is no God? Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?" -> are you still ignorant to our position? we said whether god exists or not, it doesn't matter to us. we neither accept nor reject. YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>> "Can it be equally true that Buddha existed and he never existed?" -> he was in person just like jesus. so, what do you think?
You said I should realise that there is no such thing as right or wrong, just different perspectives. But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'
>>>> "But obviously you think I am wrong to insist that there is right and wrong! See how you are oblivious to your own self-contradicting beliefs?'" -> huh? i said you're wrong? where? look at your earlier posts. i think it's more like you telling us that "you're wrong", "it's a fallacy", "you're confused" etc. are you talking about yourself?
Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative. Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything. If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all. In fact, truth does not even exist. But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself. Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false.
>>>> "Just because you can arrive at 2 via different numerical equations it does not therefore mean that truth is relative" -> you seriously don't get it? we believe in many dharma doors. if you live as a good person as a christian, by all means. we as buddhists. just different approach.
>>>> "Otherwise you should not even be correcting me on anything" -> correcting you? nah.
>>>> " If everything is a matter of different perspectives then there is no truth to Buddhism at all." -> oh yeah. of course, there's no truth in buddhism at all. christianity has all the truth and is the only truth............FOR YOU.
>>>> " In fact, truth does not even exist" -> who said truth doesn't exist? oh wait. you equate truth to god? not in our dictionary. it's only in your mind.
>>>> "But then again that is already a statement of truth, an absolute claim itself." -> a monologue or asking a question?
>>>> "Thus it shows that your relativism is absolutely false." -> again, jumping to conclusions??
Looking back at our exchanges It seems to me that you are unable to articulate any rational defense of Buddhism, except to vary your answers along the same self-refuting and self-defeating slogan of "what's true for you is true for you but not for me" which is intended to be conversation-stopper.
What's even worst is that you can't see how the slogan is nonsensical and self-defeating since you are expecting me to agree with you that the slogan is true for me as well as it is for you which renders the slogan false. If it is true then it is false! Or is that slogan just true for you??? Why should it apply to me?
You thus fail to see that statements like “That’s true for you, but not for me” are not only self-contradictory but guilty of the self-excepting fallacy. You cannot even be consistent on applying it to yourself.