Reflective thoughts on Logic and Buddhism

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't claim to be a Christian. But there are many Christians right here on ATS that don't believe that "Jesus died for their sins". I've met many intellectual Christians that believe that his resurrection was metaphorical and not literal. Even say a History Channel special on priests that didn't believe the resurrection or the Eucharist were meant to be taken literally.

There are many type of the Christians and many ways to follow the teaching of Jesus.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But, don't you see, you're doing the same thing by saying that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God, but he can't be seen? Christianity has an aspect that is equally as mystical and mysterious as Buddhism or even Taoism.

Jesus can be seen if your in Heaven. But as of right now at this time in this place people on earth cannot see Jesus. So He isn't visible and invisible . You are ignoring the placement of the characters involved in your statement. Jesus and I were the objects of the statement. It is logical for me to say I cannot see Jesus at this moment in this place. So no I am not doing the same thing.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't claim to be a Christian. But there are many Christians right here on ATS that don't believe that "Jesus died for their sins". I've met many intellectual Christians that believe that his resurrection was metaphorical and not literal. Even say a History Channel special on priests that didn't believe the resurrection or the Eucharist were meant to be taken literally.

There are many type of the Christians and many ways to follow the teaching of Jesus.

Lol if you dont believe Jesus died for your sins you do not profess his teachings and therefore are not a Christian. I can claim to be whatever I want, but that doesn't make it true. To be a Christian by Biblical definition you must be born again. To believe all those things are literal are the only way to be born again according to the Bible.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I think that you've lost touch with the spirit of the original question:

Was Jesus both fully human and fully God at the same time? Is The Trinity three individual entities and one entity at the same time? Are we both eternal spiritual beings and temporal mortal bodies? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are all contradictory statements that Christianity asserts in the positive.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lol if you dont believe Jesus died for your sins you do not profess his teachings and therefore are not a Christian. I can claim to be whatever I want, but that doesn't make it true. To be a Christian by Biblical definition you must be born again. To believe all those things are literal are the only way to be born again according to the Bible.

NO. This is your interpretation. You do not speak for all Christians nor have you been given the authority to judge who is and who is not a Christian

A Christian is someone who follows their interpretation of what Jesus taught, not your interpretation of what Jesus taught, not even the Bible's interpretation of what Jesus taught.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

But with playing around with duality you place two opposing views against each other when it can be that the thing in between. A=All Christians are not Greedy Opposing A=All Christians Are Greedy. Neither A or Opposing A are true since the truth lies between the two opposing views. Some Christians are greedy and some Christians are Not Greedy. Both A and Opposing A can be an untrue measurement.

Ok, so here you believe you have shown me a Grey area in which I cannot say for sure whether the statement A is true or false therefore the Law of the Excluded middle falls apart. This is only true at first glance. You see your statement has a presupposition within it. Your statement presupposes that all Christians have the same characteristics. This is false therefore the statement A is false. You can derive the Law of the Excluded middle from the Truth table, and therefore it should hold true for every statement.

But A=Bible and B=Buddhism can point towards the same en-light-ment thing and describe the same thing with different words. If it is the Meta thing that exists behind the words that is important and not proving just that A is right and B is wrong. And A B can both be very bad descriptions of the Meta and unprecise in their description making en-light-ment hard to achieve.

Yes, a statement A and a Statement B can both be true. I have never said that it couldn't be that way. However, Jesus and Buddah definitely contradict one another. Jesus makes the statement there is a God, and in Buddhism there is no God. That is a contradiction. I would say you need to touch up on your theology if you believe Paul contradicts Jesus.

NO. This is your interpretation. You do not speak for all Christians nor have you been given the authority to judge who is and who is not a Christian

You know I love when people bring this kind of argument up. No its my interpretation? There is only one way to interpret a book. If we were reading Harry Potter, would you tell me that there are multiple interpretations for what the spell Expelliarmus does? No, because it does one thing through all the Harry Potter books, disarms a person. The same stands for the Bible. You use grammar context and time period to determine the meaning of a passage. You don't just get to pick what something in writing means.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And there it is! That's what you made this thread for, so that you could get to the point where you could say that!

"There is only one way to be a Christian, and it's your way!" Got it!

a reply to: windword

Was Jesus both fully human and fully God at the same time? Is The Trinity three individual entities and one entity at the same time? Are we both eternal spiritual beings and temporal mortal bodies?

Lets break your statements up into the correct form. Was Jesus fully Human or not fully Human? Not. Humans had a creation, Jesus did not have a creation (John 1) therefore He is not fully Human. Is Jesus fully God or not fully God? Fully God. Is the trinity three individual entities or not three individual entities? Not(only Mormons believe they are separate entities). Is the trinity one entity or not one entity? One entity. Are we eternal spiritual being or not eternal spiritual beings? Eternal Spiritual beings. Do we have mortal bodies or do we not have mortal bodies? we have mortal bodies. Either or stands when you look at the statement in the form A or not A.

There is no flaw in logic here. Nor do any of these statements contradict.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And there it is! That's what you made this thread for, so that you could get to the point where you could say that!

"There is only one way to be a Christian, and it's your way!" Got it!

I never brought up Christianity. Others asked question and centered the conversation around my faith. The conversation was meant to be centered around Both ANd and Either/or logic.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Buddhism can contradict itself and have as many paths as it wants to enlightenment even if the paths contradict themselves.

Which doesn't actually specify who is defending against your original points.

I suppose you can just say 'spiritualists' or 'Buddhists' but it's not far from declaring your opponent's position and then saying 'I win'.

Not trying to trip you up or give you a hard time! Put simply though, the people who would like to discuss this with you likely cannot without being addressed directly.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lets break your statements up into the correct form. Was Jesus fully Human or not fully Human? Not. Humans had a creation, Jesus did not have a creation (John 1) therefore He is not fully Human.

So Jesus wasn't born a human? He wasn't fully human and fully god at the same time? Your opinion goes against the teachings of Christianity.

I guess you're not really a Christian!

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lets break your statements up into the correct form. Was Jesus fully Human or not fully Human? Not. Humans had a creation, Jesus did not have a creation (John 1) therefore He is not fully Human. Is Jesus fully God or not fully God? Fully God.

So by your own logic, Jesus never actually lived a human life. He only masqueraded as human. Which means that this whole "suffering as a human would" nonsense is just that - nonsense. So one could go so far as to suggest that when Jesus was "crucified" (any true god would laugh in the face of such horrors) he was just going through the motions. He never actually suffered because he wasn't even human!

Ergo, no actual "sacrifice", because he never really lost anything at all.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Jehovah = "the existing One"
the proper name of the one true God
unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136

In both Buddhism and Hinduism The Oneness is behind everything. They might not call it god or always quantify it to not say something that is a lie about The Oneness. But it exists there even if it is not spoken out loud.

Nirvana

In the Buddhist context nirvana refers to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished. In Hindu philosophy, it is the union with the divine ground of existence Brahman (Supreme Being) and the experience of blissful egolessness.

In my opinion this is an over exaggeration. Nirvana is a step one the way to control the transformed ego. Not an ending but a new beginning without ego blindness to make you blind.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Sounds like an attempt at nonexistence while still actually existing. I don't know why people keep thinking that nonexistence is the equivalent of ascension.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Either you believe Jesus is God and died for your sins, or you're not a Christian. It's that simple.

Then I am not a Christian. I do, however, think the quotes of what Jesus supposedly said are valid.
So were Gautama's, and Krishna's, and Ghandi's.

And many, many other 'avatars' (whether myth or factual persons such as Ghandi).
The ideas are not original to "Jesus". That's what I want to point out. The ideas have been around since LONG before his supposed life.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lets break your statements up into the correct form. Was Jesus fully Human or not fully Human? Not. Humans had a creation, Jesus did not have a creation (John 1) therefore He is not fully Human.

So Jesus wasn't born a human? He wasn't fully human and fully god at the same time? Your opinion goes against the teachings of Christianity.

I guess you're not really a Christian!

He wasn't fully human. He was born of a virgin. Are humans born of a virgin or are the not born of a virgin? Show me were the Bible says he is fully human and I will shut up. I am not denying that he was in the form of a human but he definitely wasn't fully human.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Hebrews 2.

17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

www.biblegateway.com...:5-18

Well!.... that was easy! Next question?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Either you believe Jesus is God and died for your sins, or you're not a Christian. It's that simple.

Then I am not a Christian. I do, however, think the quotes of what Jesus supposedly said are valid.
So were Gautama's, and Krishna's, and Ghandi's.

And many, many other 'avatars' (whether myth or factual persons such as Ghandi).
The ideas are not original to "Jesus". That's what I want to point out. The ideas have been around since LONG before his supposed life.

Which is something I would have pointed out earlier, but decided it was unnecessary.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Which is something I would have pointed out earlier, but decided it was unnecessary.

I think that, despite it seeming unnecessary, there are lots of 'Christians' who are unaware of it.