It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


300 proofs to GODs existance

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:21 PM
My background with respect to Buddhism was with respect to the Black Buddha also known as death.

There are many Buddha's Jag and to be honest have not really invested much time learning about the other's.

It is interesting to note that with respect to the Story of Exodus death was referred to as the Hand of God, which in respect to Buddha's in general. The term Hand of God is applied as definitive of the term Buddha.

This is applied literally, meaning that the Buddha's in a very real sense are not really individuals but God himself (his hands) .

Jag remember when we were kids and we used to argue that my dad was better than your dad?

This is no different except to say my God is better then your God?

Quexalcote of Mexico:

He was:
* born of a spotless virgin
* retired to the wilderness and fasted for forty days
* was worshipped as a God
* crucified between two thieves
* was buried and descended into Hell
* rose the third day

I know this one is true will be more that happy to suggest that you are wrong and skeptical of my beliefs to deny that it is true, but all I am really saying is my God is better than yours.

But the reality is Jag that for me God works in mysterious ways and its possible that one of those mysterious ways was for him to present himself to all peoples is what apparently was in a general way the same.

So, while I can spend about an hour (or for that matter a week) telling everyone here that skepticism with respect to what I believe is evidence of skepticism of my faith I would rather not.

Someone might conclude that good old Toltec as blown a fuse or two and I really see not reason to give that impression.

To be honest Jag......

Any thoughts?

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:24 PM
There is only one Sakya Buddha.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:25 PM
Buddhism seems interesting but I don't understand the 4 something path (excuse my ignorance of the topic).

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:30 PM
You mean the four noble truths. It is the eight fold path.
Read my extensive posting in the Unskeptical Skeptic - Part 1, it gives a list. (for more info - use google with Sakya Buddha and keep looking until you find a link to "" - it has a lot of info.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:32 PM
Toltec - I still do not think you comprehend my thesis about the unskeptical skeptic.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:34 PM
There is the fat Buddha which I think is the one you are talking about, the slim one which the Afghanis shot up one of his statues. There is also the Jaded Buddha and if memory serves a total of six.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:39 PM
see link....

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:48 PM
Here is the site to learn about Sakya Buddha (also spelled Shakya).

It is ran by real live Buddhists.

The term buddha means "enlightened one"; therefore a person may become a "buddha" but when referring to "The Buddha", the reference is to Sakyamuni Buddha (also spelled Shakyamuni). You will also see references to Siddartha Buddha and Gautama Buddha; they are all the same person. (Siddartha was his birth name, Gautama was his family name, and Sakya was the name of his clan, the term "muni" means sage).

It seems that very few people really read my posting in the Unskeptical Skeptic Part 1 because there are several paragraphs dealing with Sakya Buddha.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 08:53 PM
see link.....

Jag I am not certain you understand me.

ever heard of the perfect storm

MA was being very NICE Jag was he not??

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 09:30 PM
Do not fall into the western mind trap when dealing with Hindu beliefs.
They are talking about two different Avataras of Vishnu. Remember the
Hindus (and Buddhists) believe in reincarnation. The Hindus list normally
list ten Purna-Avataras (full incarnations) of Vishnu among whom is
Krishna. They also list several Amsa-Avataras (partial incarnations) of
Vishnu among whom is Jesus Christ. However when speaking of Sakya Buddha,
there are speaking about a single Avatara of Vishnu (the Buddha of whom
we generally speak) known as Sakya Buddha. There are also list some
incarnations of Rama. (Note that most Hindus contend that a Purna-Avatara
of Vishnu can be born (or advented) ONLY in India.

[Edited on 6-8-2003 by jagdflieger]

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 10:30 PM
Google search on Quexalcote produced 142 hits, among which are:
sdfkljde Watch Jakarta.

Note the comment at the top about Kersey Graves scholarship (this is also a skeptic's web site).
The web site contains many errors concerning Krishna, etc.
Every site dealing with Quexalcote does not state where they got their information (they seem to be quoting Graves). I cannot find a reference to Quexalcote other than Graves,Toltec can you give one? Do you know of any archaeological references to Quexalcote or any original textual refences to him.

Best source around (that I know for Hinduism):
Operated by real live Hindus

[Edited on 6-8-2003 by jagdflieger]

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 10:45 PM
Een afer reading t, I still do not have a strong belief in GOD. It just doesn't seem logical to me that there would be one almighty creator. I think life came into being by chance. Also... I had always wondered about the Adam and Eve story. If it's true that go made Adam and Eve before all other cretures, Then wouldn't that be saying that life is only around 200,000 years old? I do believe that' around the time modern humans came into being. Dinosaurs are millions of years old, how could that be then? If you don't agree with me I don't care, I'm just saying that GOD doesn't make sense t me at all.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 10:55 PM

Now, we ask the Christian reader, -- and it will be the first query of every man whose religious faith has not made shipwreck of his reason, -- "What does all this mean? How are you going to sustain the declaration that Jesus Christ was the only son and sent of God, in view of these historic facts? Where are the superior credentials of his claim? How will you prove his apparently legendary history (that is, the miraculous portion of his history) to be real, and the others false?" We boldly aver it cannot be done. Please answer these questions, or relinquish your doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

To me this seems very sad actually but then again that is my opinion seems clear though that the question is still there. I see no reason to agree with the author for me my impression is he does not choose to accept the idea that God can actually do what he did. Which in my opinion was to be all these people.

Jag I have been to China as well as Japan I have family there what you are saying is incorrect and there is not site or book or anything else which would change my mind about what I have been taught.

I was just talking to someone from Thailand not more than a month ago about the subject of the Buddha's, sorry Jag but you are wrong.


Hey Giantsfan with respect to the issue of Dinosaurs yes that is a factor in denying biblical history which is often reflected as being about 4500 years old. Some would respond though that the Bible should not actually be taken literally.

Any thoughts?

[Edited on 6-8-2003 by Toltec]

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 11:07 PM
Then I suppose that the people at who claim to be buddhists are wrong. That is where my information for Sakya Buddha comes from. And about what am I wrong?

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 11:28 PM
Can we agree that Buddha was not raised from the dead?

Jesus was. Witnesses saw this. People saw him living.

They saw Him die and rise.

In every other historical account, witnesses are taken for granted.

One must make a stand.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 11:48 PM
Quexalcote = Quetzalcoatl???? Here are two links for

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 11:58 PM
Are you arguing about Buddhism Jag? Aren't you a Christian?

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 12:10 AM
Indeed I am a Christian, but there seems to be many misconceptions on skeptic web sites about what Buddhists believe and Hindus believe and who Krishna is.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 12:24 AM
Didn't you tell me on another post that different religions shouldn't get involved in Christian doctrine?

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 12:44 AM
What we have here is a situation where skeptics web sites have made assertions about Buddhism (e. g., Sakya Buddha was crucified as a sin atonement" - actually he died of old age) to make points criticism Christianity. These are misconceptions of Atheists bashing another theist to bash a theist - go it. I am not involved in say any dispute of doctrine between the two basic schools of Buddhism, or matters of Hindu belief. What I am doing is saying "Here is what the atheists say about Buddha" well here is what the Buddhists say about Buddha (I gathered this information from Buddhist literature). Another example to gain information about Krishna, I am reading A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's, founder of the Hare Krishna movement, book on Krishna. In other words, I don't get involved in disputing what to believe, but do report what they say they believe. It is sort of like saying that Roman Catholics believe in infant baptism. It is not a concern on whether or not they should believe or practice but merely a statement that they do believe - understand.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in