A Critique of the Bible

Originally posted by Regret
Dogmatic crap can still have good advice. Only a fool ignores good advice because of where it came from.

The point is its a dogmatic statement about how to avoid dogmatism. Its fishy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A smart rat can steal the cheese right out of the trap without setting it off.

Originally posted by Alliance
I didn';t ignore it, certainly not because of where it came from. I said it was good advice.

The point is its a dogmatic statement about how to avoid dogmatism. Its fishy.

I like this rebuttal better. But its still a trap, no matter how succesful one rat may be... (mice actually, rats eat raw human flesh...especially new york rats 😖)...most mice will still get caught.

Life is a trap.

No. Its a tarp 😛

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Its a tarp 😛

Well, is it like a pit trap with a tarp over it? I will understand if you don't ask this question. 😆

See?

Originally posted by Alliance
A fine piece of advice...but why should we believe it? 🙂 Is this not just another dogmatic shortcut?

No, it is not. The Buddha also says "My teaching is not to come and believe, but to come, see and practise." It encourages people to study the teachings fully and so allow them to use their own judgement to decide as to whether they should accept the teachings or otherwise. No one is asked to come and embrace or to take faith of this religion without first having an understanding(or proof) of its teachings.

Man should be free to choose his own religion according to his liking and intellectual capacity. To follow a religion blindly without any understanding would deprive the religion of its spiritual value and the follower his human dignity. Human beings have intelligence and common sense to differentiate between what is right and wrong. They can adapt themselves according to circumstances. They should therefore choose a religion that is suitable to them and one that meets with their human intelligence. They must be properly guided and then given a chance to decide freely without any coercion.

Then why do not teach what Buddha says instead of trying to undermine other religions? Teaching is fine. Attacking is not.

When u teach, u subdue the wrongdoings or a distorted beleifs of others. Given this forum situation, we are teaching one another...

No, you attempt to undermine the Bible in this thread. That is not teaching. Teaching occurs in the Practical Buddhism thread. Do not mistake teaching for something it is not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, you attempt to undermine the Bible in this thread. That is not teaching. Teaching occurs in the Practical Buddhism thread. Do not mistake teaching for something it is not.

I am sorry...but i have started my thread to clear this up that this is an intellectual discussion...not a religious discussion....

Originally posted by mahasattva
In the spirit of Buddhist Dialogue, a forum like this needs open discussion with an open heart and mind. It is not winning or convincing the truth over what is right and other is wrong but its a matter of expounding the Law or teaching embodied therein ..." to teach the Law, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Law to refute false teachings(or distorted beleifs) that have arisen..." It is true that we need loving-kindness in times the Law was not obscured and distorted but there are times that we shoud associate compassion to others. It is then our practice to use our wisdom when to stand up this oppression and teach the Law to others.

If we as Buddhists set the humble and unconditional kindness example, others would naturally be attracted to our belief system.

You should know by know that you will not be able to convince other people of other religions of any other truth and that you will only attract negative attention, as you are getting currently from other posters on the forum. If I can give you advice, learn from the Dalai Lama's example of practising Buddhism and wisdom. We don't need Buddhists who think they are right and others wrong - that is arrogance and meaningless practice.

Originally posted by mahasattva
I am sorry...but i have started my thread to clear this up that this is an intellectual discussion...not a religious discussion....

Originally posted by Wonderer
Buddha said that we should only teach and expound the Law to those who WANT to hear it. It is not to be taught to others who have not asked for it.
Moreover, we should even give others the freedom to 'distort' the law or even to cut of our limbs as Buddha once said, without feeling negativity towards them.
Also, we should not be attached even to the truth. So, if others teach 'false' things it is not our duty to be obsessed with our own truth and to defend it.
I still maintain that you will achieve nothing positive if you attempt to teach Buddhism to those who didn't ask for it, or to criticise the religions of others. Remember Buddha said in the Pali canon that we should also support even those religions that we think are false.

If we as Buddhists set the humble and unconditional kindness example, others would naturally be attracted to our belief system.

You should know by know that you will not be able to convince other people of other religions of any other truth and that you will only attract negative attention, as you are getting currently from other posters on the forum. If I can give you advice, learn from the Dalai Lama's example of practising Buddhism and wisdom. We don't need Buddhists who think they are right and others wrong - that is arrogance and meaningless practice.

I do not mean that as human being i could no longer scrutinize other beliefs. As Buddhism has nothing to do with me to take closer examination and recognizing their beleifs to what they hold upon. Again, i must say i hold an intellectual discussion and debate over such matter not between two people of faith but a matter of learning one's religion. I must say that i should not learn only Buddhism but i must also learn others like Christianity. Therefore, buddhist name-identity is irrelevant to me. You have said that we should not call us Buddhist. How do we call ourselves?

Dalai lama never engage in a forum such as this. He has his own path of of teaching. We also had different path as well.

Originally posted by Wonderer
See what I mean, mahasattva? I warned you that you will only get negative reaction if you criticise other religions. I think you are setting a very bad example as a Buddhist. 🙁 I will chant for you.

You have said we should never called ourselves Buddhist.... What suppose to be our identity here?

This thread has shown me one thing:

Buddhists can have the exact same stance as Christian fundamentalists do.

Originally posted by mahasattva
My dear friend. If it appears that I have been hard on Christianity, I hope this will not be interpreted as being motivated by malice to criticise for its own sake.

No, that is not my intention. Some Buddhists may object to a thing like this, believing that such a gentle and tolerant religion as Buddhism should refrain from criticizing other religions. This is certainly not what the Buddha himself taught. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta he said that his disciples should be able to "Teach the Dhamma(law), declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen. " Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood. Criticism of another religion only becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. I hope I have avoided doing this.

A Christian could respond similarly in a thread started by him critiquing another religion. The following would be an accurate Christian statement:

No, that is not my intention. Some Christians may object to a thing like this, believing that such a gentle and tolerant religion as Christianity should refrain from criticizing other religions. This is certainly not what Christ himself taught. In the Bible he said that his disciples should be able to teach the scripture, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Spirit to refute false teachings that have arisen. Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood. Criticism of another religion only becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. I hope I have avoided doing this.

Originally posted by Regret
This thread has shown me one thing:

Buddhists can have the exact same stance as Christian fundamentalists do.

A Christian could respond similarly in a thread started by him critiquing another religion. The following would be an accurate Christian statement:

No, that is not my intention. Some Christians may object to a thing like this, believing that such a gentle and tolerant religion as Christianity should refrain from criticizing other religions. This is certainly not what Christ himself taught. In the Bible he said that his disciples should be able to teach the scripture, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Spirit to refute false teachings that have arisen. Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood. Criticism of another religion only becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. I hope I have avoided doing this.

All you have learned is that people are people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you have learned is that people are people.

Thank you for stating it more succinctly. This is what I meant. No matter the claims of the text, man tends to want to prove he is right in his stance.

I didn't mean offense toward Buddhism.

Originally posted by Regret
Thank you for stating it more succinctly. This is what I meant. No matter the claims of the text, man tends to want to prove he is right in his stance.

I didn't mean offense toward Buddhism.

Buddha would have agreed with you. It is the ego that attaches its self to a meaningless value. A Bodhisattva of the Earth would not care about teachings, but would do what was needed to bring people to enlightenment.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddha would have agreed with you. It is the ego that attaches its self to a meaningless value. A Bodhisattva of the Earth would not care about teachings, but would do what was needed to bring people to enlightenment.

Yes, I would agree entirely with that. I think that typically Buddhists understand this better than Christians do, this is why there are more Christians that behave in that manner. Christ himself stated that to love your neighbor was one of the most important things in life, preceded only by love of God. All the laws, commandments and beliefs are secondary to these.

Originally posted by Regret
Thank you for stating it more succinctly. This is what I meant. No matter the claims of the text, man tends to want to prove he is right in his stance.

I didn't mean offense toward Buddhism.

I'm a Buddhist, but I would never state that I have the one and only truth, or that other religions are wrong. I believe that everyone is right.