Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'd like to start this thread. This is a matter of purely intellectual discussion in our quest for truth.

Christianity is a book-based religion. There is no evidence for the claims and dogmas of Christianity other than what is said in the Bible and this fact also makes this book the bedrock of Christianity. In the past as today Christians have picked through the Bible arguing with each other over the meaning of its phrases and words and tried to convince non-Christians of the truth of a book that they cannot even agree about themselves. But one thing which all Christians agree about is that the Bible is God's word - not that it contains God's word, but that it is God's word, an infallible and complete revelation given to man by God. We will examine this claim and show that like most of the claims made by Christians it has very little substance to it at all.

If the Bible really is God's word it indicates that he is a very strange being indeed One would expect that the creator of the universe would only speak to man when he had something of great importance to say and that what he said would be of universal significance. Not so. The book of Chronicles for example consists of little more than lists of names of people we know little or nothing about and who died thousands of years ago. No commandments, no ethical principles, no hints on how to live properly or to worship God - just page after page of useless names. Why would God waste his and our time revealing such things? And what about the Songs of Solomon? This book consists of a collection of erotic love poetry. Once again, with the world in such a mess one would have supposed that God could have thought of something more important to say to man than this.
Then we come to the Gospels which recount the life of Jesus. Why has God decided to reveal the whole of Jesus' biography, not once, but four times? And why has he revealed what are, quite clearly, four different and contradictory versions of the same story? Unlike Christians, historians have given perfectly plausible answers to these questions. The Bible is not a revelation from God, rather it is a compilation, a fairly untidy compilation, written by many different people, over many centuries, changed and edited from time to time, and containing legends, stories, genealogies, fables, sacred and secular writings. It is no more a revelation from God than are the Iliad or the Odyssey, the Ramayana or the Mahabharata, books which the Bible resembles quite closely.

Now, its time to scrutinize the bible through objectivity not by subjectivity.

I can respect your position, but your desired discussion requires a stance as to the purpose of life according to Christianity. This is one of the variances between some groups that believe in the Bible. My religion believes that the ties between parents and children are important in the eternities, this impacts the import of keeping of genealogical record. Also, authority in the Bible is based heavily in patriarchal order, this authority grants some precedence to some individuals throughout.

Given the strength of the subjective aspect of Christianity's interpretations it may be impossible to truly discuss the Bible entirely objectively.

Also, the Bible is the writings of men that heard God's word. They then wrote the scripture. It is not often direct from God to writing. Many of us do not hold it infallible. Some will disagree, but that is some Bible followers view on the subject.

Originally posted by Regret
Also, the Bible is the writings of men that heard God's word. They then wrote the scripture. It is not often direct from God to writing. Many of us do not hold it infallible. Some will disagree, but that is some Bible followers view on the subject.


While contemporary Christians make this claim that although the books of the Bible were actually written by different people, these people were inspired and guided by God as they wrote, the ancient authors of the Bible never did. For example Luke says at the beginning of his Gospel:

Insomuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us it seemed good to me also having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you (Lk 1:1-3).

Nothing about being filled with the spirit of God either before or while he wrote, he simply says that others had written accounts of the life of Jesus so he thought it might be a good idea if he wrote something also. If he really was inspired by God to write the Gospel why didn't he say so? But the claim of inspiration is not just unsubstantiated, it also raises a very serious problem. Christians are always claiming that in prayer God speaks to them, gives them advice and tells them what to do. They claim that his voice is very direct, very clear and very real. But if they really have no doubt that God is communicating with them surely his words should he recorded and included in the Bible. The Bible contains words God spoken to Moses, Joshua, Matthew, Mark Peter and Paul so why shouldn't the words he speaks to modern day Christians be included also?

Paul specifically says that all scripture is God-breathed. Also, true prophecy does not occur without the Holy Spirit.

Your position is uneducated. If you had actually read Chronicles you would realize that are references to the Spirit in several places such as 1 Chron. 12:18 or references to the Saul's errs which may be considered a warning against in 1 Chron. 10:13 and a large portion of 1 Chron. 16 is a powerful and meaningful prophecy. Moving onto 2 Chronicles you should probably read 2 Chron. 6:40-42 or read further mentions of God's Spirit in 2 Chron. 20:20 and I am only scratching the surface.

Genealogies are extremely important in prophecy as the Messiah was prophecied to be a descendant of David and of Abraham.

The Chronicles and the other so-called Books of History in the Bible were written with the purpose of showing the progress of the Jewish people so that the writings of the Jewish prophets may be connected back to them and show God's power and love for the Jewish people over the centuries.

As for the Bible being infallible, yes it is. The gift of prophecy is extremely real and God's Word was written through the prophets. Despite what many here would say the Bible does not contradict itself as has been shown by many scholars over the last few decades, however, I accept that some here will never accept that fact.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Your position is uneducated. If you had actually read Chronicles you would realize that are references to the Spirit in several places such as 1 Chron. 12:18 or references to the Saul's errs which may be considered a warning against in 1 Chron. 10:13 and a large portion of 1 Chron. 16 is a powerful and meaningful prophecy. Moving onto 2 Chronicles you should probably read 2 Chron. 6:40-42 or read further mentions of God's Spirit in 2 Chron. 20:20 and I am only scratching the surface.

Genealogies are extremely important in prophecy as the Messiah was prophecied to be a descendant of David and of Abraham.

The Chronicles and the other so-called Books of History in the Bible were written with the purpose of showing the progress of the Jewish people so that the writings of the Jewish prophets may be connected back to them and show God's power and love for the Jewish people over the centuries.

As for the Bible being infallible, yes it is. The gift of prophecy is extremely real and God's Word was written through the prophets. Despite what many here would say the Bible does not contradict itself as has been shown by many scholars over the last few decades, however, I accept that some here will never accept that fact.

In ancient times there was no standardized version of the Old Testament. Different Jewish groups and different regions had their own versions. There were the Septuagint, the Aquila, Theodotion's version and Symmachu's version, all containing different text and different numbers of books. The Old Testament used by modern Christians is based on the Massonetic version which only appeared after the Jamnia Synod at the end of the 1st century AD. The New Testament did not appear in its present form until the year 404 AD, nearly four hundred years after the death of Jesus. Before that time, the Gospels of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul and a dozen other books were included in the Bible. In 404 AD these books were simply cut out of the Bible because they contained teachings that were contrary to Christian theology of that time. One of the oldest existing Bibles, The Codex Sinaiticus, includes the Epistle of Barnabas, a book that is not included in the modern Bible. If these books were considered to be revelation by early Christians why don't modern Christians consider them to be revelation?

When we look at the Bibles used by modern Christians we find that there are several different versions. The Bible used by the Ethiopian Church, one of the most ancient of all churches, contains the Books of Enoch and the Shepherd of Hernias which are not found in the versions used by Catholics and Protestants. The Bible used in the Catholic Church contains the books of Judith, Tobias, Banuch, etc which have been cut out of the Bible used in Protestant churches. Prof H.L. Drummingwright of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in his introduction to the Bible explains how these books came to be cut out of the Bible used by the Protestants. These books were, he says, "in most Protestant Bibles until the 19th century, when publishers, led by the British and Foreign Bible Society voluntarily began to omit them". Once again, these books contained ideas which the churches did not like so they just cut them out. How can a book like Judith be the infallible word. of God one moment and not the next? Why are there so many different versions of the Bible? And which version is the infallible word of God?

We have seen that there are many mistakes in the Bible but we will have a look at three more examples of its inaccuracies. Today, even schoolchildren know that the earth moves; it moves on its axis and at the same time it moves around the sun. We also know that the tectonic plates on the earth's surface move .

The Bible however, clearly states that the earth does not move. In 1 Chronicles 16:30 the Bible says, "The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." (See also Ps 93:1, 96:10 and 104:5).

Here, and in many places, the Bible contradicts scientific fact. Moreover the Bible does not just contradict scientific fact it also contradicts itself. Let us have a look at the creation story. In the first book of the Bible it says that God created all the plants and trees on the third day (Gen 1:11-13), all birds, animals and fish on the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23) and finally, man and woman on the sixth day (Gen 1:2627). Yet a little further on the Bible gives a different version of the creation story saying that God created man first (Gen 2:7), then all plants and trees (Gen 2:9), after that all birds and animals (Gen 2:19) and only then did God create woman (Gen 2:21-22). These two versions of the creation story clearly contradict each other.

Now let us have a look at the story of Noah's Ark. In one place in the Bible we are told that Noah took two of every animal and put them in the ark (Gen 6;19). Later the Bible says Noah took seven pairs of all clean animals and birds and two of all other creatures and put them in the ark (Gen 7:2). Again the Bible is contradicting itself. Christians will object to this saying that these and the numerous other mistakes in the Bible are only small and of no significance. However, only one mistake is required to show that the Bible is not infallible. Also, if mistakes can be made in small matters they can be made in important matters. And, finally, one mistake is proof either that the Bible is not the word of God or that God is capable of mistakes.

I like to hear the opinion of others... group

Originally posted by mahasattva
In ancient times there was no standardized version of the Old Testament. Different Jewish groups and different regions had their own versions. There were the Septuagint, the Aquila, Theodotion's version and Symmachu's version, all containing different text and different numbers of books. The Old Testament used by modern Christians is based on the Massonetic version which only appeared after the Jamnia Synod at the end of the 1st century AD. The New Testament did not appear in its present form until the year 404 AD, nearly four hundred years after the death of Jesus. Before that time, the Gospels of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul and a dozen other books were included in the Bible. In 404 AD these books were simply cut out of the Bible because they contained teachings that were contrary to Christian theology of that time. One of the oldest existing Bibles, The Codex Sinaiticus, includes the Epistle of Barnabas, a book that is not included in the modern Bible. If these books were considered to be revelation by early Christians why don't modern Christians consider them to be revelation?

When we look at the Bibles used by modern Christians we find that there are several different versions. The Bible used by the Ethiopian Church, one of the most ancient of all churches, contains the Books of Enoch and the Shepherd of Hernias which are not found in the versions used by Catholics and Protestants. The Bible used in the Catholic Church contains the books of Judith, Tobias, Banuch, etc which have been cut out of the Bible used in Protestant churches. Prof H.L. Drummingwright of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in his introduction to the Bible explains how these books came to be cut out of the Bible used by the Protestants. These books were, he says, "in most Protestant Bibles until the 19th century, when publishers, led by the British and Foreign Bible Society voluntarily began to omit them". Once again, these books contained ideas which the churches did not like so they just cut them out. How can a book like Judith be the infallible word. of God one moment and not the next? Why are there so many different versions of the Bible? And which version is the infallible word of God?

We have seen that there are many mistakes in the Bible but we will have a look at three more examples of its inaccuracies. Today, even schoolchildren know that the earth moves; it moves on its axis and at the same time it moves around the sun. We also know that the tectonic plates on the earth's surface move .

The Bible however, clearly states that the earth does not move. In 1 Chronicles 16:30 the Bible says, "The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." (See also Ps 93:1, 96:10 and 104:5).

Here, and in many places, the Bible contradicts scientific fact. Moreover the Bible does not just contradict scientific fact it also contradicts itself. Let us have a look at the creation story. In the first book of the Bible it says that God created all the plants and trees on the third day (Gen 1:11-13), all birds, animals and fish on the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23) and finally, man and woman on the sixth day (Gen 1:2627). Yet a little further on the Bible gives a different version of the creation story saying that God created man first (Gen 2:7), then all plants and trees (Gen 2:9), after that all birds and animals (Gen 2:19) and only then did God create woman (Gen 2:21-22). These two versions of the creation story clearly contradict each other.

Now let us have a look at the story of Noah's Ark. In one place in the Bible we are told that Noah took two of every animal and put them in the ark (Gen 6;19). Later the Bible says Noah took seven pairs of all clean animals and birds and two of all other creatures and put them in the ark (Gen 7:2). Again the Bible is contradicting itself. Christians will object to this saying that these and the numerous other mistakes in the Bible are only small and of no significance. However, only one mistake is required to show that the Bible is not infallible. Also, if mistakes can be made in small matters they can be made in important matters. And, finally, one mistake is proof either that the Bible is not the word of God or that God is capable of mistakes.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the true copies of the Old Testament, end of that discussion. Books blocked: some actually contradict the Truth and should have been removed, others, like the Book of Enoch, should not have been. This has nothing to do with the infallibility of the Bible, but more with the intreptation of man.

1 Chronicles 16:30 - Although I understand your position on this verse I feel you misinterpret the meaning of this passage. In its context it means that God is sovereign over the world and that no one will destroy or change it against his will.

The Creation Story - Your misinterpretation is embarassing in this case. Genesis 2:8 God planted the garden first then put man in it. Wow, I can hardly believe that you didn't see that. Genesis 2:19 God HAD formed, or already created, he simply brings them to man after he created man to get them named. Figure that one out. And finally, Adam got lonely so God created woman. What a beautifully non-contradicting story.
Side note: Interesting how the Bible got the order of the formation of the earth right according to science (plants, then animals, then man).

Noah put seven pairs of clean animals and two of all others. Well, I never took much math in university, but seven pairs of clean animals and two of all others still means two of everything. Stop grasping at straws and read the Bible in its intended context.

Originally posted by mahasattva
We have seen that there are many mistakes in the Bible but we will have a look at three more examples of its inaccuracies. Today, even schoolchildren know that the earth moves; it moves on its axis and at the same time it moves around the sun. We also know that the tectonic plates on the earth's surface move .

The Bible however, clearly states that the earth does not move. In 1 Chronicles 16:30 the Bible says, "The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." (See also Ps 93:1, 96:10 and 104:5).

* it does NOT say that the earth does not move... the verse says, it cannot BE moved...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Here, and in many places, the Bible contradicts scientific fact. Moreover the Bible does not just contradict scientific fact it also contradicts itself. Let us have a look at the creation story. In the first book of the Bible it says that God created all the plants and trees on the third day (Gen 1:11-13), all birds, animals and fish on the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23) and finally, man and woman on the sixth day (Gen 1:2627). Yet a little further on the Bible gives a different version of the creation story saying that God created man first (Gen 2:7), then all plants and trees (Gen 2:9), after that all birds and animals (Gen 2:19) and only then did God create woman (Gen 2:21-22). These two versions of the creation story clearly contradict each other.

* Genesis 2:7 does NOT say God created man first...

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2:7

* now, where does it say that God created man first?

* the verse obviously starts with the word, "AND" which means something happened before it...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Now let us have a look at the story of Noah's Ark. In one place in the Bible we are told that Noah took two of every animal and put them in the ark (Gen 6;19). Later the Bible says Noah took seven pairs of all clean animals and birds and two of all other creatures and put them in the ark (Gen 7:2).

* seven pairs... and what is the difference of a pair, and seven pairs? it's still by two's, a male and its female...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Again the Bible is contradicting itself. Christians will object to this saying that these and the numerous other mistakes in the Bible are only small and of no significance. However, only one mistake is required to show that the Bible is not infallible. Also, if mistakes can be made in small matters they can be made in important matters. And, finally, one mistake is proof either that the Bible is not the word of God or that God is capable of mistakes.

* the word of God is infallible... the Bible contains not only the word of God but also words of Christ, apostles, prophets, angels, Satan, demons, etc...

Originally posted by Nellinator
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the true copies of the Old Testament, end of that discussion. Books blocked: some actually contradict the Truth and should have been removed, others, like the Book of Enoch, should not have been. This has nothing to do with the infallibility of the Bible, but more with the intreptation of man.

1 Chronicles 16:30 - Although I understand your position on this verse I feel you misinterpret the meaning of this passage. In its context it means that God is sovereign over the world and that no one will destroy or change it against his will.

The Creation Story - Your misinterpretation is embarassing in this case. Genesis 2:8 God planted the garden first then put man in it. Wow, I can hardly believe that you didn't see that. Genesis 2:19 God HAD formed, or already created, he simply brings them to man after he created man to get them named. Figure that one out. And finally, Adam got lonely so God created woman. What a beautifully non-contradicting story.
Side note: Interesting how the Bible got the order of the formation of the earth right according to science (plants, then animals, then man).

Noah put seven pairs of clean animals and two of all others. Well, I never took much math in university, but seven pairs of clean animals and two of all others still means two of everything. Stop grasping at straws and read the Bible in its intended context.

I am comparing the different and contradictory versions of the bibles. If we look at the bottom of the pages in most Bibles we will find many notes These notes indicate mistakes, variations or doubtful readings in the text of the Bible. And there are literally hundreds of them. Some of the mistakes or variation' consist of only a few words but some of them are long passages (see for example the notes to Luke 9:55-56; John 5:3; Acts 24:6; 1 Corinthians 8:36-38; 11:4-7; Corinthians 10:13-15). Also notice that the notes to Mark 16:9-20 mention that this.' long passage is not found in the ancient Bible. In other words, this long passage in the Bible was added at a later time. How can Christians honestly claim that the Bible is infallible and without mistakes when all the mistakes are pointed out at the bottom of each page?

In the New Testament Jesus and his disciples often quote the Old Testament in order to make a point or, more usually, to attempt to prove that the Old Testament prophesizes events in the life of Jesus. But when we compare these quotes with the original text of the Old Testament we find that they are almost always different. We will use here the New International Version of the Bible.

Old Testament: But you, Bethlehem Ephasthah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old (Mic 5:2).

New Testament : But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel (Matt 2:6).

The quote in the New Testament contains not just different words, it also changes the meaning of the original. Has Matthew misquoted the Old Testament because he was not familiar with it and made a mistake? Has he deliberately misquoted in order to alter the meaning? Or is the Old Testament Matthew used different from the one we have today? The New Testament quotes the Old Testament dozens of times and hardly a single quote is accurate. Christians will protest and say that these changes are only minor and of no importance. Perhaps so, but these are proofs that the Bible does contain mistakes, contrary to what Christians say. Also, it is strange that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, who according to Christians were inspired by God to write the New Testament, could not even quote the Old Testament correctly.

Originally posted by mahasattva
But one thing which all Christians agree about is that the Bible is God's word - not that it contains God's word, but that it is God's word, an infallible and complete revelation given to man by God.

This is 100% not true. Only extremist Christians believe that the Bible is infalible.

Originally posted by mahasattva
In the New Testament Jesus and his disciples often quote the Old Testament in order to make a point or, more usually, to attempt to prove that the Old Testament prophesizes events in the life of Jesus. But when we compare these quotes with the original text of the Old Testament we find that they are almost always different. We will use here the New International Version of the Bible.

Old Testament: But you, Bethlehem Ephasthah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old (Mic 5:2).

New Testament : But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel (Matt 2:6).

The quote in the New Testament contains not just different words, it also changes the meaning of the original. Has Matthew misquoted the Old Testament because he was not familiar with it and made a mistake? Has he deliberately misquoted in order to alter the meaning? Or is the Old Testament Matthew used different from the one we have today? The New Testament quotes the Old Testament dozens of times and hardly a single quote is accurate. Christians will protest and say that these changes are only minor and of no importance. Perhaps so, but these are proofs that the Bible does contain mistakes, contrary to what Christians say. Also, it is strange that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, who according to Christians were inspired by God to write the New Testament, could not even quote the Old Testament correctly.

"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."
Micah 5:2

"And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel ."
Matthew 2:6

* no mistakes, no contradictions...

I actually agree that Mark 16:9-20 should be omitted considering that the two earliest reliable manuscripts do not contain it and I'm old school purist.
Old Testament: But you, Bethlehem Ephasthah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old (Mic 5:2).

New Testament : But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel (Matt 2:6).

Behtlehem Ephastrah and Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are exactly the same thing, it does not change the meaning. You should research more carefully before claiming these things. Ephastrah was the word used to distinguish the difference between the Bethlehem north of Jeruselaem and south of Jerusalaem. This proved important because Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem Ephastrah to be the Messiah. This is simply a difference between the Greek or whatever Matthew was written in (can't remember, might have been Aramaic) and the Hebrew used in the OT.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm old school purist.

I hope you're not reading it in English then.

Originally posted by peejayd
* it does NOT say that the earth does not move... the verse says, it cannot BE moved...



If i were try to understand the whole context: " The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." this passage implies unchanging world yet it contradict scientific fact because the world or whole universe is constantly changing(not established) and ceaselessly moving....

The bible says the earth rests on pillars.

But the world shall not be removed, nor destroyed against God's will = meaning of the passage.
And for Alliance, I don't always read in English.

Yes. We know the earth cannot be moved. Thats why its not orbiting about the sun!

You still miss the meaning Alliance.

I don't think so. I'm an old school purist. It means what it says. Its so simple. You don't understand.

Originally posted by Nellinator
But the world shall not be removed, nor destroyed against God's will = meaning of the passage.
And for Alliance, I don't always read in English.
Just wondering, do you attribute natural disasters to god as a punishment meted out upon sinners?

Originally posted by Storm
Just wondering, do you attribute natural disasters to god as a punishment meted out upon sinners?

Oh. THATS why all the bad stuff always happens below the "bible belt"!

Originally posted by mahasattva
I'd like to start this thread. This is a matter of purely intellectual discussion in our quest for truth.

Christianity is a book-based religion. There is no evidence for the claims and dogmas of Christianity other than what is said in the Bible and this fact also makes this book the bedrock of Christianity. In the past as today Christians have picked through the Bible arguing with each other over the meaning of its phrases and words and tried to convince non-Christians of the truth of a book that they cannot even agree about themselves. But one thing which all Christians agree about is that the Bible is God's word - not that it contains God's word, but that it is God's word, an infallible and complete revelation given to man by God. We will examine this claim and show that like most of the claims made by Christians it has very little substance to it at all.

If the Bible really is God's word it indicates that he is a very strange being indeed One would expect that the creator of the universe would only speak to man when he had something of great importance to say and that what he said would be of universal significance. Not so. The book of Chronicles for example consists of little more than lists of names of people we know little or nothing about and who died thousands of years ago. No commandments, no ethical principles, no hints on how to live properly or to worship God - just page after page of useless names. Why would God waste his and our time revealing such things? And what about the Songs of Solomon? This book consists of a collection of erotic love poetry. Once again, with the world in such a mess one would have supposed that God could have thought of ... My dear Buddhist friend, why do you feel the need to criticise the Bible? As Buddhists, it is important that we don't criticise and judge others, in fact, we must respect and support all other religions like Buddha and the Dalai Lama says. Moreover, as a Buddhist, we have no quest for truth, as truth is self-revealing and in front of our eyes as we live in it.I wish you happiness and peace in your heart and the wisdom not to go out on a mission to criticise other religions.

Originally posted by Storm
Just wondering, do you attribute natural disasters to god as a punishment meted out upon sinners?

No, I attribute that to tectonic plates. But, I do believe that God designed the world the way it is and that God has a purpose behind everything. Punishment? definitely not, I see God using natural disasters as a chance to reveal himself to some people. I see many people being saved in India and Thailand right now as a result of Christian aid organizations. God works in mysterious ways.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, I attribute that to tectonic plates. But, I do believe that God designed the world the way it is and that God has a purpose behind everything. Punishment? definitely not, I see God using natural disasters as a chance to reveal himself to some people. I see many people being saved in India and Thailand right now as a result of Christian aid organizations. God works in mysterious ways.
Very good point, my friend. We are a bit more enlightened when we realise that God works in mysterious ways.

Originally posted by Wonderer
My dear Buddhist friend, why do you feel the need to criticise the Bible? As Buddhists, it is important that we don't criticise and judge others, in fact, we must respect and support all other religions like Buddha and the Dalai Lama says. Moreover, as a Buddhist, we have no quest for truth, as truth is self-revealing and in front of our eyes as we live in it.I wish you happiness and peace in your heart and the wisdom not to go out on a mission to criticise other religions.

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.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, I attribute that to tectonic plates. But, I do believe that God designed the world the way it is and that God has a purpose behind everything. Punishment? definitely not, I see God using natural disasters as a chance to reveal himself to some people. I see many people being saved in India and Thailand right now as a result of Christian aid organizations. God works in mysterious ways.

Natural Disasters is part of this universal Law- the natural law of nature. It is inherently properties of the universe which underlies all phenomena. Thus, the law of gravity can be created nor destroyed?

I have problem with this hidden God. God wants us to believe in him so that we can be saved - but if this is so why doesn't God simply appear and perform a miracle so that everyone will see and believe? People will say that God wants us to believe in him out of faith, not because we see him with our eyes. However, according to the Bible, God in the past performed the most awesome miracles and often intervened dramatically in human affairs so that people would know his presence. So if he did so in the past, why doesn't he do so now?

People will say that God does perform miracles today (healing, solving personal problems etc) but being stubborn and evil most people refuse to believe. However these so-called miracles are individual and rninor and leave much room for doubt. If God performed a really impressive miracle which could have no other possible explanation, then most people certainly would believe.

According to the Bible when the Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years, God fed them by making food fall regularly from the sky (Ex16:4). During the 1980's, several million Ethiopian Christians died slowly and painfully from starvation due to a prolonged drought. God had then the opportunity to make food fall from the sky, as the Bible claims he did in the past, in order to prove his existence, his power and his love. I would say, from this objective point of view, that this God, supreme being, did not manifest his presence because he does not exist.

This is question many non-Christians repeatedly ask. You called the miracles individual and this is true in many cases. But, this is a good thing because it is how God shows that he loves each person individually and how wants each and every person to come to know him. God does perform major miracles. I have seen hundreds of people praying together with authority to God to spare them from a hurricane and the hurricane (sorry I cannot remember which one) fell two or three classes in one day and then never reached mainland America. Some would say that it was the weather, but I believe God had something to with it. I have farmers pray for rain and receive it in the middle of drought that recently ended in my region. I have herad of people being raised from the dead (and they were actually dead) in the name of Jesus (this is a major miracle in my eyes). My own sister lost control driving on ice and crossed a median into oncoming highway traffic and was tee-boned directly on her door at 100 km/h and lived easily with nothing more than a few scrapes and bruises despite being smashed into the windshield, the side window, and having her seatbelt dig deeply into the pelvis. Some might say it was luck, but I know that it was God's intervention, she would have died otherwise. "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him." 2 Chronicles 16:9 (Another good verse from the Chronicles).

Coincidence does not mean providence. Simple as that

"I know...I kust know" YOu force yourself to make half-@ssed associations out of fear.

Being risen from the dead is not by coincidence. Being healed of paraplegia is not a coincidence. God is very real and at work in the world.
And I have already explained that I do not live out of fear of God, but in love with him. But, I guess you will make whatever assumptions best suit you.

No. Its not an event at all. It results in you misunderstanding the situation. Pray for somthing unnatural...lite for a tree to turn into an icicle....it wont ever happen.

You still don't answer how dead people can be risen from the dead. It is a miracle that God uses to show his love for us.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You still don't answer how dead people can be risen from the dead. It is a miracle that God uses to show his love for us.

Dead people cannot be raised from the dead. The bible is not a book of fact, it is a book a faith. However, the dead to rise from the dead, it is called reincarnation.

I'm not talking about in the Bible. I'm talking about people being raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit in this decade. It happens whether you want to believe or not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm not talking about in the Bible. I'm talking about people being raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit in this decade. It happens whether you want to believe or not.

No. You have to prove that. I think someone is fulling you. Just a magic trick.

It happened in 2001. http://web.archive.org/web/20030203134422/www.cfan.org/offices/usa/testimonies/resurrection/page1.htm
Check it out. This is but one example.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It happened in 2001. http://web.archive.org/web/20030203134422/www.cfan.org/offices/usa/testimonies/resurrection/page1.htm
Check it out. This is but one example.

OK, you check this out.

http://www.greaterthings.com/Polemic/Daniel_Ekechukwu_Resurrection_Hoax/index.html

http://www.testimonies.com.au/topics/raised_from_dead_1.htm
Now try this. I thought you might like (or hate) this one because it is the testimony of a Buddhist monk.

I also understand that people will be skepitcal of people being raised from the dead. In fact a better hoax site than the one you gave me is http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bonnke2.html to show you that I'm not naive.

no god has a seed in my heart. For trying to be incluseive, you're exceedingly exclusive....and wrong.

MAYBE you simply don't see the seed?

PROBABLY you just made it up to make yourself feel more right

Originally posted by Nellinator
http://www.testimonies.com.au/topics/raised_from_dead_1.htm
Now try this. I thought you might like (or hate) this one because it is the testimony of a Buddhist monk.

I also understand that people will be skepitcal of people being raised from the dead. In fact a better hoax site than the one you gave me is http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bonnke2.html to show you that I'm not naive.

I was wondering the testimony of this monk there was no mentioned named lucifer or even purgatory. What he says, is quite some kind a copy cat Dante's Divine Comedy. Also, he was mentioning a very similar concept in a Buddhist theory of life and Death. See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_lotus_sutra_study_center/between_death_and_rebirth.htm


I doubt his scheming story..


"Don't believe in anything simply because you heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it." ---The Buddha Sakyamuni

Stories like that are likely made up piecees of crock.
Originally posted by mahasattva
"Don't believe in anything simply because you heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it." ---The Buddha Sakyamuni
A fine piece of advice...but why should we believe it?

I'm just throwing out pieces of testimony. They may or may not be true. But this is true I assure you: God performs miracles through people (people do not perform miracles) and people are healed and things are changed by the faith of true believers.

No. Once again you make a hypocritcal statement.

" may or may not be true" but you "assure" us that at least SOME testimony is true.

How do you know if the "miracle" is doen by your god or by a person. How can you tell?

"true" believers

Those people may or may not have been raised from the dead... I do not know for certain, but I do know that God performs miracles.

The Bible says that if someone performs an act in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit they are done by God. That is how I tell if it is God.

Originally posted by Nellinator
This is question many non-Christians repeatedly ask. You called the miracles individual and this is true in many cases. But, this is a good thing because it is how God shows that he loves each person individually and how wants each and every person to come to know him. God does perform major miracles. I have seen hundreds of people praying together with authority to God to spare them from a hurricane and the hurricane (sorry I cannot remember which one) fell two or three classes in one day and then never reached mainland America. Some would say that it was the weather, but I believe God had something to with it. I have farmers pray for rain and receive it in the middle of drought that recently ended in my region. I have herad of people being raised from the dead (and they were actually dead) in the name of Jesus (this is a major miracle in my eyes). My own sister lost control driving on ice and crossed a median into oncoming highway traffic and was tee-boned directly on her door at 100 km/h and lived easily with nothing more than a few scrapes and bruises despite being smashed into the windshield, the side window, and having her seatbelt dig deeply into the pelvis. Some might say it was luck, but I know that it was God's intervention, she would have died otherwise. "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him." 2 Chronicles 16:9 (Another good verse from the Chronicles).

Some of the most bizarre things about Jesus were the miracles he is said to have performed. One of the most famous of these was bringing Lazarus back from the dead. Lazarus had been dead for at least four days and was presumably in heaven, while his family were heartbroken and grieving. In raising him from the dead, Jesus certainly demonstrated his power but what did Lazarus and his family get out of it? Lazarus was removed from heaven and brought back to "this vale of tears" only to have to die all over again some time in the future while his family would also have to go through grieving and distress all over again (Jn 11:1-44).

To the Buddhist this miracle, if it even really happened, seems to be unnecessary, and even cruel. How much more practical and humane was the Buddha's approach to death. On one occasion a young mother named Kisagotami came to the Buddha with her dead son, deranged with grief and pleading with the Buddha to give her son medicine. Full of compassion the Buddha told her to go and get a mustard seed from a house where no one had ever died. In the process of looking for such a seed, Kisagotami gradually came to realize that death is an integral part of life and she overcame her grief ( Dhammapada Atthakatta). Jesus performed showy miracles which seemed to leave people much as they were, the Buddha gently and skilfully led people to understanding. This is what the Buddha meant when he said that education is the highest miracle (Digha Nikaya, Sutta).

Another miracle where Jesus seems to have given little thought to the consequences of what he was doing was the one he supposedly performed at Godara. A man was possessed by devils, and just before Jesus exorcized them the devils asked Je sus if he would send them into a nearby herd of pigs. Jesus obliged, sending the devils into the pigs, which then rushed screaming down the side of a cliff into a lake where they drowned (Mk 5:1-13). The man who had been possessed by the devil must have been very grateful for this but one wonders what the owners of the pigs would have thought. The loss of their animals would have caused them gr financial hardship. Not surprisingly, we are told that after this incident the people from the nearby village came to Jesus and begged him to leave their territory (Mk 5:17). Note that Matthew tells this same story but he exaggerates it, claiming the not one but two men were exorcized (Matt 8:28-32).

This supposed miracle also highlights Jesus utter disregard for nature. He could simply have expelled the devils but instead he chose to do it in a most cruel w by driving to their deaths a large number of completely harmless and innocent animals. On another occasion he used his miraculous powers to kill a fig tree simply because it could not bear fruit (Matt 21:18-20). Apparently he never considered that animals could have eaten its leaves, birds could have nested in branches, travellers could have rested in its shade and its roots would have helped prevent erosion of the soil by the rain and the wind - which probably explains why the tree had been left growing. No advantage at all came from killing the tree was little more than an act of wanton vandalism.

While some of Jesus' miracles were pointless others seem to have verged on the ridiculous. Once Jesus was invited to a wedding. After some time there was Ii wine left to drink so Jesus turned several large jars of water into wine (Jn 2:1 -1l ). No doubt the host must have appreciated not having to go out to buy more alcohol but it does seem a bit incongruous. that God should incarnate as a man, come earth and use his powers just so that people wouldn't run out of drinks at the parties.

Whenever Christians want to convince the truth of their religion they will quote from the Bible, believing as they do, that every word in the Bible is literally true. But when we quote from the Bible to prove that their religion is primitive, silly or illogical (e.g. that smoke comes out God's nose and fire comes out of his mouth, Ps 18:7-8; or that donkeys can talk, Num 22:28) they will say: "That's symbolic, it is not meant to be taken literally." Christians are very selective in how they interpret the Bible. Some passages are 'God's word' and literally true and other parts, usually the embarrassing parts, are not meant to be taken literally. Either the Bible is God's infallible word or it is not, one cannot pick and choose. And if indeed some passages are meant to be taken literally and others are not, how do Christians decide? If the Stories about Balaam 's donkey talking, Adam and Eve eating the apple, or Moses turning his stick into a snake are not meant to be taken literally, perhaps too, the stories about Jesus' resurrection are only symbolic and not meant to be taken literally.

I have a disagreeance with Buddha's teaching because he basically tells the women that death is natural part of life. However, this is not true. God created man for eternal life. Sin ended this, yet the question of eternity and the desire of immortality is still a part of human existance.

Jesus proved a point with many of his miracles. Ruining the fig tree to prove faith. Jesus is eternal (as supported by scripture) and therefore knew that the long term effects of proving the power of faith to humans far outweighed the small benefits to animals (who are insignificant to human life).

I often questioned why Jesus cast the demons into the pigs. However, I realized through research (which I do when I have doubts) that it was actually beneficial to the people. Jews (notice that I say Jews not Christians) did not and do not keep pigs as livestock because their meat is forbidden in the Law of Moses. These pigs were ,therefore, likely wild and detrimental to the economic situation of the region (pigs spread parasites). The people begged Jesus to leave, I believe, because they were afraid of his power.

I fully believe that God communicates in many different ways (by burning bush, by miracles, by prophecy, by donkey if needs be, etc.).

Jesus's resurrection was real but also had symbolic importance in that it showed us that victory over death (and therefore, sin, for the wages of sin is death). This is the good news of Jesus.

And for your pleasure I purposely did not quote the Bible.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I have a disagreeance with Buddha's teaching because he basically tells the women that death is natural part of life. However, this is not true. God created man for eternal life. Sin ended this, yet the question of eternity and the desire of immortality is still a part of human existance.

Jesus proved a point with many of his miracles. Ruining the fig tree to prove faith. Jesus is eternal (as supported by scripture) and therefore knew that the long term effects of proving the power of faith to humans far outweighed the small benefits to animals (who are insignificant to human life).

I often questioned why Jesus cast the demons into the pigs. However, I realized through research (which I do when I have doubts) that it was actually beneficial to the people. Jews (notice that I say Jews not Christians) did not and do not keep pigs as livestock because their meat is forbidden in the Law of Moses. These pigs were ,therefore, likely wild and detrimental to the economic situation of the region (pigs spread parasites). The people begged Jesus to leave, I believe, because they were afraid of his power.

I fully believe that God communicates in many different ways (by burning bush, by miracles, by prophecy, by donkey if needs be, etc.).

Jesus's resurrection was real but also had symbolic importance in that it showed us that victory over death (and therefore, sin, for the wages of sin is death). This is the good news of Jesus.

And for your pleasure I purposely did not quote the Bible.

Firstly, the Buddha is not dead. He has attained Nirvana, a state of utter peace and freedom. The other name of the Buddha gives Nirvana is the Deathless State (Amata) because after one attains it one is no longer subject to birth or death. But this is only expedient means according to the Lotus sutra which Shakyamuni, the Buddha's enlightentement whose life is Eternal. Of course Nirvana is not the naive 'eternal life' described in the Bible, where the body is resurrected and where angels sing. In fact it is so subtle it is not easy to describe. However it is not non-existence, as the Buddha makes very clear (Majjhima Nikaya Sutta; Sutta Nipata).

It is equally untrue to say that the Buddha cannot help us. During his forty year career, the Buddha explained in great detail and with masterly clarity everything we need to attain Nirvana. All we need to do is to follow his instructions. His words are as helpful and as valid today as when he first spoke them. Of course the Buddha doesn't help us in the same way as Christians claim Jesus helps them, and for a very good reason. If a student knew that during the exams he could ask the Leacher for the answers to the exam questions, he would never study and consequently would never learn. If an athlete knew that by merely asking for it the judge would give him the prize, he would never bother to train and develop his body. Simply giving people everything they ask for does not necessarily help them. In fact, it guarantees that they will remain weak, dependent and lazy.

Shakyamuni, the Buddha, pointed us to Nirvana and told us what provisions we would need for the journey. As we proceed, we will learn from our experiences and our mistakes, developing strength, maturity and wisdom as we do. Consequently when we finish our journey we will be completely different persons from when we started. Because of the Buddha's skilful help we will be fully enlightened.

To say that the Buddha is dead and cannot help you is not only wrong it also implies that in contrast, Jesus is alive and can and does help you.

Let us look at these two assumptions. Christians claim that Jesus is alive but what evidence is there of this? They will say that the Bible proves that Jesus rose from the dead. Unfortunately statements written by a few people thousands of years ago don't prove anything. A statement in the Mahabharata (one of the Hindu holy books) says that a saint had a chariot which could fly. But does this prove that the ancient Indians invented the aeroplane? Of course it does not. The ancient Egyptian scriptures say that the god Khnum created everything out of clay which he shaped on a potters wheel. Does this prove that everything which exists is just mud? Of course it does not. A passage in the Old Testament says that a man named Balaam had a donkey which could talk. Is that conclusive proof that animals can speak? Of course it is not.

We cannot uncritically accept claims made in the Bible any more than we can uncritically accept claims made in other sacred books. When we examine Bible claims about Jesus' supposed resurrection we find very good reasons why we should not believe them . In fact, the Bible actually proves that Jesus is not alive. Just before he was crucified Jesus told his disciples that he would return before the last of them had died (Matt 10:23, Matt 16:28, Lk 21:32). That was 2000 years ago. Jesus has still not returned. Why? Obviously because he is dead.

The second assumption is that Jesus always responds when you pray to him. It is very easy to prove that this is not true. Christians die from sicknesses, suffer from misfortunes, have emotional problems, give in to temptations etc just as non-Christians do and despite the fact that they pray to Jesus for help. I have a friend who had been a devout Christian for many years. Gradually he began to doubt and he asked his pastor for help. The pastor instructed him to pray and even got members of the church to also pray for him. Yet despite all these prayers to Jesus for strength and guidance my friend's doubts increased and he eventually left the church. Later he became a Buddhist. If Jesus is really alive and ready to help why do Christians have just as many problems as non-Christians do? Why didn't Jesus answer my friend's prayers and help him to remain a Christian? Obviously because he is dead and cannot help.

YOu might object to answer this question that there are people who can testify that their prayers have been answered. If this is true, it is also true that there are Muslims, Taoists, Sikhs, Hindus, Shintos and devotees of Kuan Yin and not too mention Buddhists who can say the same thing.

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.
Maybe what I know about what Buddha really said and what you know what he said is different then. The point is that you will achieve no good by criticising other religions. What makes us Buddhists different than other religions is indeed in the fact that we don't go out trying to convince others of our truth, but that they can see from the example that we set that we are truly humble and that we don't think we are right and others wrong.
There really is no need for criticism, loving-kindness is what we need in the world, you will only cause unnecessary conflict if you try to convince other religions of their faults.
Let us set an example of unconditional loving-kindness without the need to criticise other religions, which is a waste of precious time.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Maybe what I know about what Buddha really said and what you know what he said is different then. The point is that you will achieve no good by criticising other religions. What makes us Buddhists different than other religions is indeed in the fact that we don't go out trying to convince others of our truth, but that they can see from the example that we set that we are truly humble and that we don't think we are right and others wrong.
There really is no need for criticism, loving-kindness is what we need in the world, you will only cause unnecessary conflict if you try to convince other religions of their faults.
Let us set an example of unconditional loving-kindness without the need to criticise other religions, which is a waste of precious time.

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.

Originally posted by mahasattva
"Don't believe in anything simply because you heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it." ---The Buddha Sakyamuni

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

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

You are your own trap.

I am or Buddha?

Originally posted by Alliance
I am or Buddha?

What?

The tarp!


...I mean trap.


ITS A TARP!

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Wonderer
Very good point, my friend. We are a bit more enlightened when we realise that God works in mysterious ways. I agree! And our new sciences are blending with this thought........also metaphysics that were thought to be of the devil, but there is only ONE power...........We are only just ants amongst the elephants.......we are only trying to understand....

Originally posted by Regret
Dogmatic crap can still have good advice. Only a fool ignores good advice because of where it came from.
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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A smart rat can steal the cheese right out of the trap without setting it off.
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.

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. 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.

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....
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.

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.

But if some stnaces are contradictory...then what?

Originally posted by Alliance
But if some stnaces are contradictory...then what?
It's all good. People must be given the freedom to believe what ever they want to. We should first watch our own contradictions and faults before we criticise others, otherwise we are being contradictory ourselves.

In any event, we have no real authority to state that one system is more contradictory than another. Moreover, we are only human with limited understanding about the universe anyway, so how can we really say with absolute surety that something is indeed contradictory or even what "contradiction" amounts to ultimately int the face of the mystery of the ultimate universal truth?

In short, if we criticise and judge other people and their views, while feeling that we are right and they wrong, we create negative karma and thereby suffer the negative consequences.

We are only human though, and all of us judge at some point or another, but we must strive towards enlightenment.

People have different ideas of what there absolute enlightment is, so everyone is working towards there own goal, so no matter how you look at it, people are going to have a different goal in life.

* according to the Bible, they are miracles performed by God in the Old Testament, and Christ in the New Testament...

* yes, these miracles are somewhat effective because it brought the faith to people and believed in God... but some people, despite of all things seen, still do not believe...

* for example: the Israelites, the whole sea was split in front of their eyes, Moses went away for 40 days & nights, and the people turned away from God and worshipped a gold calf...

* in the New Testament, Christ even given five thousand men loaves and fishes to eat through a miracle... the second instance, there were four thousand men...

* but still, not all people believed... however, God still wants everyone to be saved...

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth."
I Timothy 2:3-4

* so even without miracles, we must acquire faith and strive to perfection...

"Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us go on to what belongs to full growth, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God,
Of the doctrine of washings, and of imposition of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment;"
Hebrews 6:1-2

* so by acquiring faith in God, add these:

"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness love.
For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."
II Peter 1:5-8

* faith, love and hope...

"But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
I Corinthians 13:13

* hope in what?

"While we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"
Titus 2:13

* okay?

MAN christians are hopeless! if your gonna believe in the bible at least get the guts to say that science and logic is wrong! instead of illlogically and completely unsuccesfully trying to meld them together to show christianity's superiority to logic and science. you cant have both. either your logical or a christian. christianity is NOT logical/reasonable and reason does not support christianity. FACT!

WOAH! Slow down there. The bible and logic go perfectly, as long as you dont take the bible so freaking literally.

nope they dont even non literally logic and christianity are poles apart.

no. not really.

Originally posted by Alliance
WOAH! Slow down there. The bible and logic go perfectly, as long as you dont take the bible so freaking literally.

How true. Too many people take the Bible 100% literally.

*adds quote into his profile*

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

That makes two points for me.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
MAN christians are hopeless! if your gonna believe in the bible at least get the guts to say that science and logic is wrong! instead of illlogically and completely unsuccesfully trying to meld them together to show christianity's superiority to logic and science. you cant have both. either your logical or a christian. christianity is NOT logical/reasonable and reason does not support christianity. FACT!
Atheists are not necessarily more rational than theists, though we find some arguing that they would be or just be plain better than theists. That, however, is not only bigotry, but is in fact an example of how atheists can fail to be rational and adopt just the sort of ridiculous beliefs which they find contemptible in others.

Originally posted by Storm
Atheists are not necessarily more rational than theists, though we find some arguing that they would be or just be plain better than theists. That, however, is not only bigotry, but is in fact an example of how atheists can fail to be rational and adopt just the sort of ridiculous beliefs which they find contemptible in others.

Athiests are victim to many of the same rational problems as theinsts are, though imo on a much smaller level. The main problem lies on the fact that you make a claim that there is no god, while to amny people that seems absurd because they were raised on one.

Athiest are not better. You don't get a leg up on morality because you are a part of a group, you get it becuase of your character.

Its perfectly rational to have a beef with hateful religous zealots...but it ok to have a beef with any sort of hateful zealots....even inf they're atheist. You don't have a monoply on reason, pluralistic opinons should be present.