Buddha and The Rich Young Ruler Parable of the Bible

Originally posted by Alliance
Wow. You really fail. People answered this question in the 1600's.

You're a fool. Why?

Because only the wise man understands that he is a foolish, and only the foolish man believes himself wise.

Originally posted by Alliance
Because you believe whatever you want, disbelieve whatever you don't and never take the time to actually examine if what you are doing is in fact correct. You are a bild dog that does whatever he is told. Romantic huh?

Originally posted by Alliance
Since Thundar's "hypothesis" (uneducated guess) was wrong from the start...this made this whole thread priceless.

Irony is usually not realized by those who produce it.

Originally posted by Shakamunison
Please answer the question. What if you found out all of what you believe was not true? What would you do?

I think you missed the point being made in my prior post. If one doesn't believe in truth being absolute, then they've already conceded that they are following a lie.

All of this being stated, I'll let this be my last post in this thread. As the initial question being posed has already been answered, as well as those that directly followed it.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think you missed the point being made in my prior post. If one doesn't believe in truth being absolute, then they've already conceded that they are following a lie.

So if a person fervently believes what they believe is truth and it is absoulte, but is in fact neither, is it still true, or are they merely being ignorant?

Man: The world is flat! I hold this as an absolute truth!

Absolutes are rarely nice things. You mentioned above wise men - back in the original days of philosophy "doubt" - in a wise context - was considered a virtue. To be open to the concept one is wrong is vital to learning and growing. An open mind behind reasoned conviction is far more praiseworthy then absolute opinion without room to grow.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think you missed the point being made in my prior post. If one doesn't believe in truth being absolute, then they've already conceded that they are following a lie.

All of this being stated, I'll let this be my last post in this thread. As the initial question being posed has already been answered, as well as those that directly followed it.

No, I did not miss your point, I just thought is was a cop out. You did not answer the question. All you did was say you are better then ever one else.

I know what you would do if your religion was to be proved wrong.

chimp

😆

Originally posted by Thundar
Hmmm...I think what you've listed above actually supports my hypothesis, particularly since the young ruler was in a discontented state about life, much like Siddhartha Gautama was upon realizing the fickleness of worldly pleasures.

Buddha lived a severely protected life, his father keeping as much age and death from him as possible. The Buddha thus had little if any concept of age or death, disease or sickness, no concept of suffering. The Buddha convinced his father to allow him an excursion into the city. His father spent a few weeks preparing the path that would be taken through the city, removing all blemish from it. The Buddha left the path upon sighting an elderly individual. He then came into contact with sickness, a funeral and a holy man. He questioned why such existed since they had not existed for him previously. He left his home, forsaking his inheritance and position (before he ever could have met any religious figure) and travelled, making his own conclusions as his experiences taught him. Given the distance between his homeland and Israel, there is little possibility he could have met Christ even if they had lived at the same time, on top of that, he had already given everything worldly up when he left his home. The Buddha was without worldly possession at the point he left his family, and he did not travel prior to that point as his environment could not be controlled by his father in the manner his father wished.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What if's are not really relevant to any question or discussion. The beauty of Theism is that you can not at present prove anyone they are wrong - if someone could, there would already be a contravertial proof.

Also, many aspects of faith can be disproven as well.

Just because right now it seems like God is impossible to be disproven scientifically it does not mean that that will always be the case.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think you should be asking yourself that question. 😬

I don't care if I am right or wrong. What works for me works for me, all I care is that I live a good life.

What would you do if you found out Jesus' resurrection never happened ? Would you still beleive ?

MY [b]real answer is that I don't subscribe to any beleif wholeheartedly.

I've been Christian for 18 years, and I do not miss it. I like Christian ppl, dont get me wrong, but the religion does not work for me. No religion really does.

I use Buddhism as a personal philosophy, but I do not beleive Buddha was 100% right about his findings, he after all, is just human, same with Jesus.

They are both just human men who acquired wisdom ahead of their time.

Albert Einstein was a genius...does that mean I will model my entire life after him, and let go of myself ?

Hell no

And to find out that we are wrong, will never happen... God has never revealed his form to us...ever. All we have are collection of myth and stories. God has not proven his existance.

Why would he do it now ? [/B]

Thundar, pleas answer....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Thundar, pleas answer....

Those who are blind cannot see...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Those who are blind cannot see...

Erm . . . the deepness of that is really superficial if you think about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm . . . the deepness of that is really superficial if you think about it.

It is just a saying, like you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If you ask why don't you just bring the water to the horse, you miss the point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is just a saying, like you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If you ask why don't you just bring the water to the horse, you miss the point.

I do get what your saying. I just think that stating that "a person who cannot see, cannot see" is funny.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do get what your saying. I just think that stating that "a person who cannot see, cannot see" is funny.

That is what helps me remember. 😎

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually what if's can and oftentimes are very relevant.

Also, many aspects of faith can be disproven as well.

Just because right now it seems like God is impossible to be disproven scientifically it does not mean that that will always be the case.