Bible question and answers

Question: Does the bible really say that the earth is only six thousand years old?

Answer: No. there is no where in the bible that states how old the earth itself is in any way. In gen 1:1 in the hebrew it says 'and the earth became void and without form'. It doesn't say it was made void ect.. There could be and was billions of years between the time when god created the earth and when it was made 'void'.

Quest: Was Adam the first human?

A: In my opinion, no. In gen 1:27 the word 'man' in the hebrew is 'ish', or 'mankind' not 'Adam' as in gen: 2:9. In fact, there are many differences between gen 1:27's man and gen 2:7's Adam.
Such as adam was created after the seventh day, but 'mankiind' was made on 6 day. 6th day 'mankind' was created at the same time as 'womankind', unlike adam. Also, gen 1:27 man was given 'every herb bearing seed and every fruit tree', Adam was not given every fruit tree (tree of good and evil banned). The existance of preadam men also explains how cain gota wife

Q: Are the food laws done away with?

A: Not imo. Most people believe that god cleansed all animals and thus we can eat anything. They usually quote peter's vision in the book of acts as proof. That couldn't be more false. In acts 10:5-20 it doesn't mean that all animals are clean, it clearly says that all PEOPLE are clean. Peter says so himself.

Q: Did Judas commit suicide?

A: Maybe. Maybe not. In the gospels it says judas 'hung' himself, BUT in acts 1:18 it basically says he was thrown down a cliff and died on impact. Now, imo it cant be too easy to hang yourself to death and then throw yourself to ur death afterwards. In greek figures of speech, to 'hang' urself meant to self incriminate. judas did that. i think the pharasees were afraid of judas telling what they did so they threw him off a cliff. They tried to do the same to jesus.

.

Q: Has the law been done away with?

A: No way. 'Sin is the transgression of the law'. Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to 'fulfill' it. To fulfill the law does NOT mean to finish or to add to the law. It means to OBEY the law! He came to obey the law.

Q: Will sinners be tortured with fire and pain for eternity in the lake of fire?

A: This is the worst of the worst of false doctrine imo. it makes a fair, just god look like a evil monster.

The bible is overwhelmingly clear that any soul that enters the LOF will cease to exist. Yes, the soul can die! The soul is only immortal if u r saved. A sinners soul is mortal. jesus said 'fear not he who can kill ur body and not ur soul, but fear him who can kill both body and soul in hell'. In Rev 20:19, the greek word translated torment is 'kenosis', which never ever ever means torment, it can only mean distroyed. 'For ever and ever' in v10 is different than the word 'forever'. In the greek its simply a word meaning 'for a span of time'.

Originally posted by peejayd
* why argue about idolatry then? facepalm

I was correcting your misunderstand of Buddhist practice.

Originally posted by peejayd
* in some other ways, they are, I believe so… but in worshipping graven images, they fail very terribly…

That is your interpretation.

Originally posted by peejayd
* oh, yes you can… so long as you don't cause him to suffer… wink

I don’t want to be wrong about something that might be important.

Originally posted by peejayd
* why? no other Buddhist read what you read? isn't Buddha's teachings universal on all Buddhists?

No. There are too many Sutras:

http://www.indopedia.org/List_of_sutras.html

Originally posted by peejayd
* I remember you saying that believing in a "supreme being" or "god" is a delusion… are you judging me before? or is that part of your "sarcasm"? 🙄

When I say something is a delusion, I am talking about something in particular; like circular logic.
There is no consequences placed upon you by me, so I am not judging you.

Originally posted by peejayd
* Christian doctrine never tolerates wrong doings… and I believe, Buddhism never tolerates wrong doings also… not judging them - is okay… but letting them be? nope… it is our responsible to tell our brothers what they're doing is wrong… that's what you call "love" because you have "concern" for them…

There are things you can do to get kicked out of Buddhism, but they all have to do with hurting people.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you judging me? 🙄 I did not create the doctrine I say, I did not even need to interpret the doctrine I say… it's self-explanatory, example:

It is only self-explanatory to you because you were taught how to think.

Originally posted by peejayd
* this commandment is as basic as it is popular… I don't have to interpret it… catholics might be obeying other commandments of God in the Bible but they terribly fail in this category… we are also not allowed to tolerate wrong doings:

I have already shown you how someone could be worshiping a car and never light a candle, and how someone could light a candle to a statue and not be worshiping.

Originally posted by peejayd
* hope you understand my point…

You have a point?

Originally posted by long pig
...Yes, the soul can die! ...

Please prove there is a soul.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is only self-explanatory to you because you were taught how to think.

* I was not… wait, how do you even know you weren't the one who was taught how to think? 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have already shown you how someone could be worshiping a car and never light a candle, and how someone could light a candle to a statue and not be worshiping.

* which is not absolute because it is easier to determine that when people worships something, you can actually see what they are doing… which you stubbornly refuse to accept time and time again…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have a point?

* why, yes… a more concrete point than yours…

Originally posted by long pig
Quest: Was Adam the first human?

A: In my opinion, no. In gen 1:27 the word 'man' in the hebrew is 'ish', or 'mankind' not 'Adam' as in gen: 2:9. In fact, there are many differences between gen 1:27's man and gen 2:7's Adam.
Such as adam was created after the seventh day, but 'mankiind' was made on 6 day.

* of course, the word "man" in Genesis 1:27 is mankind and not Adam because Moses wrote the whole creation from Genesis 1:1 up to 2:3… then, in Genesis 2:4 onwards, Moses wrote the specifics…

Originally posted by long pig
6th day 'mankind' was created at the same time as 'womankind', unlike adam.

* Genesis 2:7 specifics (and Genesis 2:22 when God created Eve) is included in Genesis 1:27's sixth day, creation of man…

Originally posted by long pig
Also, gen 1:27 man was given 'every herb bearing seed and every fruit tree', Adam was not given every fruit tree (tree of good and evil banned).

* Genesis 2:16-17, God is talking specifically about the trees in the garden of Eden…while Genesis 1:29, God gave mankind all the trees in the world…

Originally posted by long pig
The existance of preadam men also explains how cain gota wife

* nope, Cain and Abel were not the only children of Adam and Eve… in Genesis 5:3-4, there came Seth, and many other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve… Cain's wife is logically one of his sisters, as the law about incest was not yet commanded in those times… in fact, Sarah, who is Abraham's wife is also his sister…

Originally posted by long pig
Q: Are the food laws done away with?

A: Not imo. Most people believe that god cleansed all animals and thus we can eat anything. They usually quote peter's vision in the book of acts as proof. That couldn't be more false. In acts 10:5-20 it doesn't mean that all animals are clean, it clearly says that all PEOPLE are clean. Peter says so himself.

* in Mark 7:19, Jesus declared all food clean… the food is brôma (G1033) in Greek which means "that which is eaten"… but there are things not to be eaten which are not considered as "food" in the Bible, for example: sacrificed to idols, blood and, what is strangled (Acts 15:29)…

Originally posted by long pig
Q: Did Judas commit suicide?

A: Maybe. Maybe not. In the gospels it says judas 'hung' himself, BUT in acts 1:18 it basically says he was thrown down a cliff and died on impact. Now, imo it cant be too easy to hang yourself to death and then throw yourself to ur death afterwards. In greek figures of speech, to 'hang' urself meant to self incriminate. judas did that. i think the pharasees were afraid of judas telling what they did so they threw him off a cliff. They tried to do the same to jesus.

* in the Bible, Judas Iscariot did commit suicide… St. Luke (who traced the course of all things accurately from the first, Luke 1:3) had written the event explicitly: "falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18)… St. Matthew wrote that Judas hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)…

Originally posted by long pig
Q: Has the law been done away with?

A: No way. 'Sin is the transgression of the law'. Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to 'fulfill' it.

* what law? the law of Moses? the law was for Israel (Malachi 4:4) and only until John the Baptist (Luke 16:16)… in the time of Christianity, we are not justified through the law of Moses (Acts 13:39)… some laws are retained but some are also obsolete… loving God and other people are example of laws that retained… while keeping the (literal day of ) sabbath is obsolete, because the "sabbath" in Christianity is a spiritual rest (Matthew 11:28-30)… Jesus destroyed sabbath (John 5:18), but He did not sin against sabbath because He is above sabbath, He is the Lord of sabbath (Mark 2:28)… what law did He fulfill? -> the laws and psalms concerning Himself only (Luke 24:44)…

Originally posted by long pig
Q: Will sinners be tortured with fire and pain for eternity in the lake of fire?

A: This is the worst of the worst of false doctrine imo. it makes a fair, just god look like a evil monster.

The bible is overwhelmingly clear that any soul that enters the LOF will cease to exist. Yes, the soul can die! The soul is only immortal if u r saved. A sinners soul is mortal. jesus said 'fear not he who can kill ur body and not ur soul, but fear him who can kill both body and soul in hell'.

* God punishing the devil does not make God an evil monster… the devil deserves it…

* in the Bible, spirits like angels do not die (Luke 20:36)… so the logical punishment for entities who do not die is a punishment which does not die or cease also… the worms and fire do not die in hell (Mark 9:44, 46, 48)… the "killling of body and soul in hell" in Matthew 10:28 means death… but "death" in the Bible does not automatically means to cease to exist… there is a physical death and there is a spiritual death… a person who lives an evil life is dead in God's eyes eventhough he is physically alive (I Timothy 5:6)… and being condemned and thrown into the lake of fire is death, i.e. second death (Revelation 20:14)…

Originally posted by long pig
In Rev 20:19, the greek word translated torment is 'kenosis', which never ever ever means torment, it can only mean distroyed.

* the "torment" is Revelation 20:10 is basanizô (G928) in Greek which really means "torment"…

Originally posted by long pig
'For ever and ever' in v10 is different than the word 'forever'. In the greek its simply a word meaning 'for a span of time'.

* the "for ever and ever"… "ever" is aiôn (G165) in Greek which really means "eternity"…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please prove there is a soul.

* in the Bible, we have soul… if there is no soul in Buddhism, we have no point of argument due to differences in basis…

Originally posted by peejayd
* I was not… wait, how do you even know you weren't the one who was taught how to think? 🙄

Because I was first taught to think like you do now, but then, later, I learned to think like a Buddhist. That gives me a perspective that you do not have.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because I was first taught to think like you do now, but then, later, I learned to think like a Buddhist. That gives me a perspective that you do not have.

* being a former member of a certain group which claims to be "Christians" cannot have credibility over this matter... for me, you are taught to think like a Buddhist, you think you're a Buddhist so you speak like a Buddhist, but when it's all said and done, you'll go back and say, "hey, that's only my opinion as a person, not as a Buddhist"... 🙄 with that perspective alone, you believe that those people who do not believe what you believe is having a delusion, which definitely leave you not excluded (apparently) to the very thing you think against them... so, please, don't fool yourself any longer...

* but be that as it may, i was a former catholic, spent at least two decades of my life as a catholic, studied in a catholic school and live in a catholic-dominated compound... this gives me concrete perspective of the catholic doctrine that you or anyone else does not have... you only think i was taught to think, but that's because you think you're always right... i was saying what is wrong with the catholic doctrine (not hating the people), not just because of my current affiliation but because i knew catholic doctrine from the very start in the first place... you, on the other hand, does not have any right to say what we (Christians) believe is a delusion because your former group fails to teach you the goodness of the words of God in the Bible... Buddhism is just your scapegoat, your desperate attempt to right the wrongs of your former belief, which is wrong in the first place because they fail to implement the good on you... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* being a former member of a certain group which claims to be "Christians" cannot have credibility over this matter... for me, you are taught to think like a Buddhist, you think you're a Buddhist so you speak like a Buddhist, but when it's all said and done, you'll go back and say, "hey, that's only my opinion as a person, not as a Buddhist"... 🙄 with that perspective alone, you believe that those people who do not believe what you believe is having a delusion, which definitely leave you not excluded (apparently) to the very thing you think against them... so, please, don't fool yourself any longer...

* but be that as it may, i was a former catholic, spent at least two decades of my life as a catholic, studied in a catholic school and live in a catholic-dominated compound... this gives me concrete perspective of the catholic doctrine that you or anyone else does not have... you only think i was taught to think, but that's because you think you're always right... i was saying what is wrong with the catholic doctrine (not hating the people), not just because of my current affiliation but because i knew catholic doctrine from the very start in the first place... you, on the other hand, does not have any right to say what we (Christians) believe is a delusion because your former group fails to teach you the goodness of the words of God in the Bible... Buddhism is just your scapegoat, your desperate attempt to right the wrongs of your former belief, which is wrong in the first place because they fail to implement the good on you... 😉

I can simply turn your argument on its head: You cannot know what it is like to be a Christian, because you are not a Christian. You simply think you are and that is because Satan has blinded your eyes. You started off as a Catholic, which is not a Christian, and you became what you are now, not a Christian. I could talk about lineages, and how the Church of Jesus was small, and any Church that is big is not Christian. I could go on, but it gets way too silly. This ignores the fact that all protestant religions came from the Catholic religion, with the exception of East Orthodox Church, but we are not talking about them.

(Now, because you sometimes don’t get it, that was sarcasm meant to enlighten you to the delusion of your argument)

You are making empty claims that have no basis is history or fact. This is common among fundamentalist Christian. Now I know that the details of your church are going to be unique, because where you are in the world. But Christianity came to your land, like it did everywhere else spread by missionaries.

Now this absolutely ridiculous claim that you make above is tiresome. You seem to believe that because I speak from my own perspective, and don’t cloak myself in some Buddhist authority, that makes me an egomaniac, or something of that nature. This is a blatant attempt to turn the attach personal, and it has no effect. Please, if you can’t focus on the debate, then do not try to make it personal, just stop.

Moving from a Catholic to the Church you are in now is not a change in religion. That would be the same as me becoming a Zen Buddhist; I would still be a Buddhist. I used to be a Christian (it does not matter if you believe they are not Christian, because most likely they would not believe you to be a Christian. Funny how they would think the same as you, in the respect).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can simply turn your argument on its head: You cannot know what it is like to be a Christian, because you are not a Christian. You simply think you are and that is because Satan has blinded your eyes. You started off as a Catholic, which is not a Christian, and you became what you are now, not a Christian. I could talk about lineages, and how the Church of Jesus was small, and any Church that is big is not Christian. I could go on, but it gets way too silly.

* good to know that you know it's silly… 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
(Now, because you sometimes don’t get it, that was sarcasm meant to enlighten you to the delusion of your argument)

* feel free to think other people is having a "delusion" except you… and you don't judge, yeah right… 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now this absolutely ridiculous claim that you make above is tiresome. You seem to believe that because I speak from my own perspective, and don’t cloak myself in some Buddhist authority, that makes me an egomaniac, or something of that nature.

* say hello to yourself, kiddo… 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is a blatant attempt to turn the attach personal, and it has no effect. Please, if you can’t focus on the debate, then do not try to make it personal, just stop.

* you are the one who's making this personal now… so why don't you stop? you know what's tiresome? it is you saying Christian doctrines are myths and delusions, refusing to accept Buddhists ethics and spewing hypocritical sermons on your own while claiming to be a Buddhist… I already told you catholics are Christians in our society, but doctrinal-wise they are not… what's hard to accept?

* the way I see it, you have ulterior motive… I deviate catholicism from Christianity because there is vast gap of differences in doctrines… you try to merge the two because it would be easier to accuse - let's say - idolatry to Christianity… in that case, I say catholicsm do idolatry but the Christian doctrine recorded in the Bible never did those things and were very uber-prohibited… the tides turn because you are now desperate to fuse catholicism and Christianity even to the point that you are now defending the idolatry of catholicism… nice try, but it fails…

* now, go back to where the conflict started… a question arises if it is a sin to light a candle for a Buddha statue… I replied, it's a "no-no"… you sprouted and said that it's also a "no-no" in Buddhism… now, if you have any logical decency, it is tantamount by saying worshipping Buddha is wrong or prohibited in Buddhism… mr.king castle said that there are no rights and wrongs in Buddhism, then you said "suffering" is wrong… it only means that both of your arguments are complete crap… to escape yourself from embarrassment, you're telling me now that what you've been saying is only your opinion? wow! 🙄 have fun fooling yourself, mr.shakyamunison… and have fun wrecking Christianity… may the good Lord rebuke thee… 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
… you know what's tiresome? it is [b]you saying Christian doctrines are myths and delusions, [/B]

So, you want me to lie? I think it is even worse then that. I think you want me to reaffirm your beliefs. Are your beliefs so week that you need a Buddhist on the internet to tell you that your beliefs are the truth and we should all bow to them?

Originally posted by peejayd
refusing to accept Buddhists ethics and spewing hypocritical sermons on your own while claiming to be a Buddhist…

I don’t think you know what Buddhist ethics are.

What is the Mystic Law? That will tell you all you need to know.

Originally posted by peejayd
I already told you catholics are Christians in our society, but doctrinal-wise they are not… what's hard to accept?

I do not care how you personally believe things to be. You could believe that the sky is green, but I will not say the sky is green, because it is blue.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the way I see it, you have ulterior motive… I deviate catholicism from Christianity because there is vast gap of differences in doctrines… you try to merge the two because it would be easier to accuse - let's say - idolatry to Christianity… in that case, I say catholicsm do idolatry but the Christian doctrine recorded in the Bible never did those things and were very uber-prohibited… the tides turn because you are now desperate to fuse catholicism and Christianity even to the point that you are now defending the idolatry of catholicism… nice try, but it fails…

You are judging Catholics based on your interpretation of the bible. I have seen this before. It is a delusion that feeds off of your ego. If you were to say that Catholics have a different belief then you, then you would be correct. You could even say that from your point of view they are practicing idolatry, but you have already pointed out that they are showing reverence. Reverence is not idolatry, but you can see it that way if you wish too. However, to say that Catholics are not Christian is just inaccurate. Then to say that Catholics are Christian in our society, but not in the bible is a delusion. It is like saying the sky is blue, but not to me.

Originally posted by peejayd
* now, go back to where the conflict started… a question arises if it is a sin to light a candle for a Buddha statue… I replied, it's a "no-no"… you sprouted and said that it's also a "no-no" in Buddhism… now, if you have any logical decency, it is tantamount by saying worshipping Buddha is wrong or prohibited in Buddhism… mr.king castle said that there are no rights and wrongs in Buddhism, then you said "suffering" is wrong… it only means that both of your arguments are complete crap…

Because king castle and I do not agree, that makes our opinions crap? That is just silly. By that way of thinking, we must all agree, or we are all complete crap.

Originally posted by peejayd
to escape yourself from embarrassment, you're telling me now that what you've been saying is only your opinion? wow! 🙄 have fun fooling yourself, mr.shakyamunison… and have fun wrecking Christianity… may the good Lord rebuke thee… 😉

the difference is that my Buddhist teachings were Zen style so i am allowed to not share the same belief as shaky and its okay b/c we can each reach our own goal via a different path.

i may if i am reincarnated try again... although one does not have to belief in the religious belief of Hinduism which Buddhism stems from.

nor do i need to believe that bhrama is real nor that Buddha talked to him and converted him. i can simply take Buddhism and its teaching to strengthen my mind and study it as a philosophy to live my life.

anyways the mystic law is:

a mantra of cause and effect.

anyways.... i have accepted my "true nature" and my place in the scheme of the universe and i am at peace with it.

i cause misery and suffering to those who have done it to others as is my Buddhist nature. 😉

i have accepted that suffering is part of the world and its okay. hence, i have risen above it. chew on that.

also comtemplate and argue the use of "right" in the context of asian culture and how it must mean the same in western culture b/c of the word being used.

THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS:

1. All is suffering (dukkha).
2. Suffering is caused by desire/attachment.
3. If one can eliminate desire/attachment, one can eliminate suffering.
4. The Noble Eight-fold Path can eliminate desire. Extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification should be avoided.

THE NOBLE EIGHT-FOLD PATH:

1. Right Views.
The true understanding of the four noble truths.
2. Right Intent.
Right aspiration is the true desire to free oneself from attachment, ignorance, and hatefulness.
[These first two are referred to as prajña, or wisdom.]
3. Right Speech.
Right speech involves abstaining from lying, gossiping, or hurtful talk.
4. Right Conduct.
Right action involves abstaining from hurtful behaviours, such as killing, stealing, and careless sex.
5. Right livelihood.
Right livelihood means making your living in such a way as to avoid dishonesty and hurting others, including animals.
[The above three are referred to as shila, or morality.]
6. Right Effort.
Right effort is a matter of exerting oneself in regulating the content of one's mind: bad qualities should be abandoned and prevented from arising again; good qualities should be enacted and nurtured.
7. Right Mindfulness.
Right mindfulness is the focusing of one's attention on one's body, feelings, thoughts, and consciousness in such a way as to overcome craving, hatred, and ignorance.
8. Right Concentration.
Right concentration is meditating in such a way as to progressively realize a true understanding of imperfection, impermanence, and non-separateness.

The Theravada tradition of Buddhism teaches that everyone must individually seek salvation through their own efforts. To attain nirvana, one must relinquish earthly desires and live a monastic life. The Mahayana tradition teaches that salvation comes through the grace of bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas defer their own enlightenment to help others, thus enabling many more living beings to attain salvation.

Buddhist universalism is best represented by the Mahayana tradition, which embraces the well-being of all sentient life.

The meaning of the term nirvana, literally "the blowing out" of existence, is not entirely clear. Nirvana is not a place like heaven, but rather an eternal state of being. It is the state in which the law of karma and the rebirth cycle come to an end - though Buddhist conceptions of personal (non-)identity make these notions problematic. Nirvana is the end of suffering; a state where there are no desires, and individual consciousness comes to an end. Attaining nirvana is to relinquish clinging, hatred, and ignorance. Its achievement entails full acceptance of imperfection, impermanence, and interconnectedness. Sometimes "nirvana" is used to refer either to Buddhist heaven or complete nothingness, but most Buddhists would not understand the term in this way.

Both King Castle and peejayd, if you wish to lean about my religion, why I believe the way I do, and why it is different from both of you, then read this BBC article. It is very fair and straight forward. It explains the religion in simple language that you should be able to understand. It does a much better job then I could do. Please remember I am a Soka Gakkai member, and not a member of the other groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/nichiren_1.shtml

I will not clutter this thread by posting the content, but I encourage you to read it, because I think it will clear up a lot of misunderstanding.

I do not follow the religion 100%, that is why I do not speak for SGI.

i know the main belief of your Buddhist study and its cool..*shoulder Shrug*

i dont think anyone follows any religion or philosophy 100% and that is okay too it doesnt make you any less of a follower whether christian, buddhist or muslim, it is your intent that helps make you who you are along with your belief with a truly honest effort to self improve or be spiritually enlighten.

i think i will follow a mixture of Buddhism/atheism/nihilism

Originally posted by King Castle
i know the main belief of your Buddhist study and its cool..*shoulder Shrug*

i dont think anyone follows any religion or philosophy 100% and that is okay too it doesnt make you any less of a follower whether christian, buddhist or muslim, it is your intent that helps make you who you are along with your belief with a truly honest effort to self improve or be spiritually enlighten.

i think i will follow a mixture of Buddhism/atheism/nihilism

I hope peejayd will read it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you want me to lie?

* no, but frankly, I just want you to stop replying on my posts…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is even worse then that. I think you want me to reaffirm your beliefs. Are your beliefs so week that you need a Buddhist on the internet to tell you that your beliefs are the truth and we should all bow to them?

* you just don't get it… man, you really have a high level of hypocrisy… I don't need you to reaffirm my belief… you don't even know the scope of what I'm talking about… you just don't understand and yet you feel you are intelligent enough to satisfy me with your irrelevant and inappropriate answers…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t think you know what Buddhist ethics are.

* considering what you're spewing here in the forum, I really think you are the one who does not know anything about Buddhist ethics…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is the Mystic Law? That will tell you all you need to know.

* I don't care about that…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not care how you personally believe things to be.

* likewise… I don't freakin' care… I just want you to stop…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You could believe that the sky is green, but I will not say the sky is green, because it is blue.

* wrong, this is how it is: me and the book I believe tells us that the sky is blue… your book tells us that the sky is blue… but you are preaching the sky is green… I'm telling you that the books you and I believe respectively tells us the sky is blue… you refuse to accept the truth but you're on your own… you can't even speak for your book because you are not in conformity with the very book you believe in… what a pity…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are judging Catholics based on your interpretation of the bible.

* "worshipping graven images" does not leave any space for any interpretation… it is self-explanatory… if you deny that the catholics worship graven images then you're blind and you're stubborn… you're just making a poor excuse… catholics do idolatry, and catholic doctrine do teach idolatry... you say they don't, so your "sky is green" argument applies to you…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have seen this before. It is a delusion that feeds off of your ego. If you were to say that Catholics have a different belief then you, then you would be correct. You could even say that from your point of view they are practicing idolatry, but you have already pointed out that they are showing reverence. Reverence is not idolatry, but you can see it that way if you wish too.

* the one who has big ego here is you… you want to merge catholics and Christians so you can hit two birds in one stone… you want to attribute idolatry to Christians but you fail, because the Bible clearly prohibits it… here comes catholicism which practices idolatry, and you want them to be "Christians" so you can attribute idolatry to Christians… now, you're becoming desperate to the point that you're even defending catholics for their idolatry… reverence is not idolatry, true… but veneration of Mary and the apostles and popes, their images, their relics are forms of worship which constitute idolatry… but of course, you failed to understand that, mr.know-it-all…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, to say that Catholics are not Christian is just inaccurate. Then to say that Catholics are Christian in our society, but not in the bible is a delusion. It is like saying the sky is blue, but not to me.

* you're the one whose in a delusion… 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because king castle and I do not agree, that makes our opinions crap? That is just silly. By that way of thinking, we must all agree, or we are all complete crap.

* you want me to lie? the "sky is green" argument just slaps back to your face… 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not telling you my opinion because of some fictitious embarrassment. I am telling my opinion because it is my opinion.

* and you are entitled to it… you're just too coward to say anything for your religion because you are afraid you cannot walk the walk… so you find the easy way out - to say that what you're saying is only your opinion and not within the boundaries of Buddhism…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I find it irritating when people quote the bible to me, so I am not going to quote from the Lotus Sutra (my holy book) to you.

* you find it irritating coz you have big ego… you refuse to accept I was right and you don't understand the Bible the way I understand it when you were once a "Christian"… see, you exploit several conflicts and contradictions of your philosophy… you once tried to argue I was worshipping the Bible because I find it holy… now, you are proclaiming you believe that the Lotus Sutra is a holy book… I can accuse you the very same thing but I won’t… I just simply want to point out your hypocrisy…

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not follow the religion 100%, that is why I do not speak for SGI.

* I will not be surprised if one day you will proclaim to be better than what you believe in… you do not even say you "try" to follow your own religion 100% because you have a big ego… you say I'm sensitive, seems to me, you're the one who's sensitive… see how this thread became a Buddhist thread when it's all about the Bible in the first place? the moment you see something logical comes out in the path of Christianity, you sprout out like a mushroom to overshadow it… this thread is not about Buddhism in the first place… it's not even about catholicism… it’s questions about the Bible and the answers should be according to the Bible… you see a slice of Buddhism, and you grab it like there's no tomorrow… you're barking in the wrong tree several pages of the thread obviously…

Originally posted by peejayd
* no, but frankly, I just want you to stop replying on my posts…

You want me to stop posting on a public forum?

Originally posted by peejayd
* you just don't get it… man, you really have a high level of hypocrisy… I don't need you to reaffirm my belief… you don't even know the scope of what I'm talking about… you just don't understand and yet you feel you are intelligent enough to satisfy me with your irrelevant and inappropriate answers…

It seems I am not giving you the answer you wish. We don’t always get what we want.

Originally posted by peejayd
* considering what you're spewing here in the forum, I really think you are the one who does not know anything about Buddhist ethics…

There is only one sin my form of Buddhism, and that is slander of the Mystic Law.

Originally posted by peejayd
* I don't care about that…

Then you will never understand the answer to the question you keep asking me.

Originally posted by peejayd
* likewise… I don't freakin' care… I just want you to stop…

You want me to stop replying to you on a public forum?

Originally posted by peejayd
* wrong, this is how it is: me and the book I believe tells us that the sky is blue… your book tells us that the sky is blue… but you are preaching the sky is green… I'm telling you that the books you and I believe respectively tells us the sky is blue… you refuse to accept the truth but you're on your own… you can't even speak for your book because you are not in conformity with the very book you believe in… what a pity…

It is your interpretation of that book. Just because you believe the bible one way does not mean that is the only way to see it.

Originally posted by peejayd
* "worshipping graven images" does not leave any space for any interpretation…

Life is never that absolute.

Originally posted by peejayd
it is self-explanatory…

Only to you.

Originally posted by peejayd
if you deny that the catholics worship graven images then you're blind and you're stubborn… you're just making a poor excuse… catholics do idolatry, and catholic doctrine do teach idolatry... you say they don't, so your "sky is green" argument applies to you…

It doesn’t really matter to me.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the one who has big ego here is you… you want to merge catholics and Christians so you can hit two birds in one stone… you want to attribute idolatry to Christians but you fail, because the Bible clearly prohibits it… here comes catholicism which practices idolatry, and you want them to be "Christians" so you can attribute idolatry to Christians… now, you're becoming desperate to the point that you're even defending catholics for their idolatry… reverence is not idolatry, true… but veneration of Mary and the apostles and popes, their images, their relics are forms of worship which constitute idolatry… but of course, you failed to understand that, mr.know-it-all…

So, you are afraid I’m going to do what? I’m going to hit two birds with one stone? I don’t have to artificially connect Catholics and Christians together: Catholocs are Christian.

It’s just a disagreement on what idolatry means between two Christian groups.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you're the one whose in a delusion… 😂

Which part?

Originally posted by peejayd
* you want me to lie? the "sky is green" argument just slaps back to your face… 😂

Was that kind of a “I know what you are, but what am I”?

Originally posted by peejayd
* and you are entitled to it… you're just too coward to say anything for your religion because you are afraid you cannot walk the walk… so you find the easy way out - to say that what you're saying is only your opinion and not within the boundaries of Buddhism…

1. You haven’t ask any questions about Nichiren Buddhism.
2. You have not read any of the links I have posted.
3. We were talking about Idolatry, and how looks can be deceiving.

This thing about “boundaries of Buddhism” should be on another thread.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you find it irritating coz you have big ego…

Ha ha ha If I said I had a stomachache, you would say it’s because I have a big ego. How silly?

Originally posted by peejayd
you refuse to accept I was right

So anyone who does not except you as right has a big ego? Wow.

Originally posted by peejayd
and you don't understand the Bible the way I understand it

That is true. You do not fully understand your interpretation of the bible.

Originally posted by peejayd
when you were once a "Christian"… see, you exploit several conflicts and contradictions of your philosophy… you once tried to argue I was worshipping the Bible because I find it holy… now, you are proclaiming you believe that the Lotus Sutra is a holy book… I can accuse you the very same thing but I won’t… I just simply want to point out your hypocrisy…

That would be true if I worship the Lotus Sutra, but it is just a book written by humans. It would be silly to worship a book.

Originally posted by peejayd
* I will not be surprised if one day you will proclaim to be better than what you believe in… you do not even say you "try" to follow your own religion 100% because you have a big ego…

Nichiren Buddhists believe that only those who chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo can achieve enlightenment. I do not believe this to be true. I believe you can gain enlightenment without chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. It is just a lot harder.

Originally posted by peejayd
you say I'm sensitive, seems to me, you're the one who's sensitive… see how this thread became a Buddhist thread when it's all about the Bible in the first place? the moment you see something logical comes out in the path of Christianity, you sprout out like a mushroom to overshadow it… this thread is not about Buddhism in the first place… it's not even about catholicism… it’s questions about the Bible and the answers should be according to the Bible… you see a slice of Buddhism, and you grab it like there's no tomorrow… you're barking in the wrong tree several pages of the thread obviously…

The question was about Idolatry, and Catholics. You are the one who starting in on the Buddhist angle.

Technically catholics aren't christians. It has nothing to do with interpretations. The basic tenant to being a christian is the same to be a jew. To believe in one god. They do not meet that requirement. They believe in three main gods and thousands of demi gods. They are pagans. Anything that negates you from being a jew negates you from being a christian, mainly because it's the same religion. Everything a jew must do, except animal sacrifice, a christian must do. The law is in full effect nothing has changed.

Originally posted by long pig
Technically catholics aren't christians. It has nothing to do with interpretations. The basic tenant to being a christian is the same to be a jew. To believe in one god. They do not meet that requirement. They believe in three main gods and thousands of demi gods. They are pagans. Anything that negates you from being a jew negates you from being a christian, mainly because it's the same religion. Everything a jew must do, except animal sacrifice, a christian must do. The law is in full effect nothing has changed.

What kind of Jew are we talking about? Reconstructionalist? Reformist? Orthodox? Those weird ultra orthodox Jews that only do it missionary style with punch hole **** sheets? Lots of different kinds of Jews.

And to what degree is one required to adhere to the laws set down in Deuteronomy?

Originally posted by long pig
Technically catholics aren't christians. It has nothing to do with interpretations. The basic tenant to being a christian is the same to be a jew. To believe in one god. They do not meet that requirement. They believe in three main gods and thousands of demi gods. They are pagans. Anything that negates you from being a jew negates you from being a christian, mainly because it's the same religion. Everything a jew must do, except animal sacrifice, a christian must do. The law is in full effect nothing has changed.

I thought all that was required to be a Christian was to believe in the salvation of Jesus.