It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

A simple explanation of why Buddhism is correct.

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


The Bible states emphatically that there is one God. Man cannot become God. Jesus is the creator of all things. Man is seperated from God and is in need of a Savior. One is saved through faith in Jesus, not by good works, while Buddhism says that you must follow the eight fold path. An original golden era in the Garden of Eden, and a subsequent fall of humanity. Original sin shared by all present-day humans, derived from Adam and Eve.
A world-wide flood in the time of Noah. The need for a sinless personal savior whose execution enabled individual salvation through atonement. A god-man savior who was born of a virgin, executed, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Again, I revert to my prior post on a debate on the Resurrection.




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Did you watch the documentary?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Not yet am at work. However here is a comparison link from a Buddhist site.
www.buddhist-tourism.com...

Here is the comparison directly quoted (I don't have alot of time right now so I copied and pasted)

Difference Between Buddhism And Christianity
God

Buddhism The original Buddhist doctrine does not entail any Godly figures. However, the later Buddhist sects introduced some godly figures.


Christianity : There is only one God, Jesus, who is loving and approachable.

Salvation

Buddhism : According to the Buddhist concept, one has to work for one's own salvation, and therefore, cannot blame or depend on others for salvation.


Christianity : Salvation is not based on one's work, but instead, is a free gift to all those who would accept Jesus Christ as their savior.

Eternal Life

Buddhism : According to the Buddhist doctrine, there is an eternal life, which depends on the karma of one's present life.


Christianity : There is an eternal life in Heaven, which has nothing to do with karma and comes as a free gift of salvation.

Love And Compassion

Buddhism : The concept of Buddhism does not mention a God who showers love and takes care of His people.


Christianity : Bible, the holy book of the Christians, mentions the God's love for His folks or devotees.

The Concept of World

Buddhism : Buddhism neither deals with the beginning nor a definite end of the world.


Christianity : According to the Christian doctrine, the God has created the world from nothing, and rules it according to His own definite plan.

Spiritual Texts

Buddhism : The Buddhist canons includes only those insights which the Buddha won by His own strength and will after comprehending the nature of truth.


Christianity : The Bible, holy text fort the Christians, is regarded as the 'Words of God' and includes those realities, which are unknown to the mankind.


Again I refer to my invite to a debate on the Resurrection. Yes or no?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


That site isn't very true to what Buddhism really is.

www.pbs.org...

The four Noble Truths:


The Four Noble Truths comprise the essence of Buddha's teachings, though they leave much left unexplained. They are the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of the end of suffering, and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering. More simply put, suffering exists; it has a cause; it has an end; and it has a cause to bring about its end. The notion of suffering is not intended to convey a negative world view, but rather, a pragmatic perspective that deals with the world as it is, and attempts to rectify it. The concept of pleasure is not denied, but acknowledged as fleeting. Pursuit of pleasure can only continue what is ultimately an unquenchable thirst. The same logic belies an understanding of happiness. In the end, only aging, sickness, and death are certain and unavoidable.


Karma:


Contrary to what is accepted in contemporary society, the Buddhist interpretation of karma does not refer to preordained fate. Karma refers to good or bad actions a person takes during her lifetime. Good actions, which involve either the absence of bad actions, or actual positive acts, such as generosity, righteousness, and meditation, bring about happiness in the long run. Bad actions, such as lying, stealing or killing, bring about unhappiness in the long run. The weight that actions carry is determined by five conditions: frequent, repetitive action; determined, intentional action; action performed without regret; action against extraordinary persons; and action toward those who have helped one in the past. Finally, there is also neutral karma, which derives from acts such as breathing, eating or sleeping. Neutral karma has no benefits or costs.


The Cycle of Rebirth.


Karma plays out in the Buddhism cycle of rebirth. There are six separate planes into which any living being can be reborn -- three fortunate realms, and three unfortunate realms. Those with favorable, positive karma are reborn into one of the fortunate realms: the realm of demigods, the realm of gods, and the realm of men. While the demigods and gods enjoy gratification unknown to men, they also suffer unceasing jealousy and envy. The realm of man is considered the highest realm of rebirth. Humanity lacks some of the extravagances of the demigods and gods, but is also free from their relentless conflict. Similarly, while inhabitants of the three unfortunate realms -- of animals, ghosts and hell -- suffer untold suffering, the suffering of the realm of man is far less.

The realm of man also offers one other aspect lacking in the other five planes, an opportunity to achieve enlightenment, or Nirvana. Given the sheer number of living things, to be born human is to Buddhists a precious chance at spiritual bliss, a rarity that one should not forsake.


I believe that Jesus's teachings were highly influenced by Buddhism and taught many of its tenets. I believe the resurrection story is just that, a story. A story that exemplifies Jesus' teaching of rebirth, or reincarnation.

In an attempt to "create" a religion the words of Jesus have been made up, omitted and/or distorted by Biblical writers, imho.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


I'm still stuck on the "free gift" part.

Remind me how many times the Christian deity gave something away for free, without asking for anything or compensating for douchebaggery?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
As a serious Buddhist, I just laugh at other people's misconceptions about Buddhism.

This whole thread is a farce.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender

Again I refer to my invite to a debate on the Resurrection. Yes or no?



As a Buddhist, I'll debate any Christian on any topic. No problem for me.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by mkmasn
So again, if there is no me, the fear would not be validated, ever.

The problem is, there is a me. It is the culmination of all thoughts, memories, experiences and understanding "me" (I) have up to the present.

Only when you truly understand all of those things, and you may never understand those things because they are constantly changing (hence the need for rebirth in order to achieve Nirvana in the Hindu world), can you truly understand what it means to be and then you can start being.

We are saying the same thing, just in different ways. You believe you are there already, I know I am not.

If you are already there, however, what is keeping you here?
edit on 13-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)


The 'me' you 'think' you are is not what you are. The thoughts and memories are appearances to what you are. What you are is here in the present always and you see images appearing. The images of 'past and future' flash up presently because nothing can be seen or heard any 'other time' than now.
You believe you have accumulated something 'along the way' (in time) called a 'person'. You believe you are a person in time. If this is what you believe this is what your experience will be. 'I am a person in time that was born and will die'. You now have let's say 80 years of worry. From where you believe you are you look back at your past and look forward to future. The belief is 'I must protect my life'.

The belief that life can be taken from me and the attachment to what i have accumulated and what i will get (in time) is what makes conflict. The belief is that i have something and that i am something and i will protect what's 'mine'. This causes the fighting and defending. Believing that you are a 'person in time' causes the feeling of lack, loss and general uneasiness that people feel. This sets up the feeling that there is something missing so people go out to fill that hole, they have to steal from 'others' to fill the hole and fight with 'others' so nothing gets taken from them.
Only when it is realized that 'i am not a person in time' will you feel whole. Only when you find out what you really are will that feeling of lack dissolve.

Attitude of a Buddhism student:
•To view ourselves as a critically ill person
•To view the teaching that is being offered to us as a treatment for our illness.
•To view the teacher as a skilled doctor.


edit on 14-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


So again, if there is no "me," fear is not valid, since fear comes from the things that make up the "me."

Again, we are saying the same thing, just in different ways.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Please don't belittle Buddhism by comparing to Abraham religion that treats women as a 2nd class citizen and includes rape and all those nasty things.

As an Atheist, Buddhism(and its prequels) is the only thing i follow, not in a pray kinda of way but in meditation, yoga and selfless ness.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Hello mkmasn!
I believe that the truth of the matter should be best decided on the evidence. Here is what I propose. I propose a debate on whether the Resurrection of Jesus probably happened historically. We will be using the same historiographical guidelines for examining evidence providing theories that secular historians use. Here is why I think this matters. If Jesus did rise from the dead, then Biblical Christianity is true (therefore Buddhism is false since they are opposed to each other) since Christianity hinges on the Resurrection. If he didn't, then Christianity is false. That simple.

I would like this to be a discussion between the two of us. I hate chasing arguments down 50 different bunny trails. We can even set it up with ground rules (ie 10 rounds for each side, word limit per post, etc). Since I am taking the affirmative side (that Jesus' Resurrection probably happened historically), I would have the opening statement, etc. What do you say?


Why the need to debate? It's pointless.

You'd have to prove Jesus existed, which aside from the Gospels and a couple small references in other works after his death, can't be done, although I'd concede he did exist.

You'd have to prove Jesus died on the cross, which, again, aside from the Gospels and a couple small references after his death, can't be done, but I'd even concede that.

You'd have to prove Jesus was divine in order to accommodate the resurrection, which can't be done.

You'd have to prove the bible, which was written by man, is infallible, regardless of faith, which can't be done.


Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


The Bible states emphatically that there is one God. Man cannot become God. Jesus is the creator of all things. Man is seperated from God and is in need of a Savior. One is saved through faith in Jesus, not by good works, while Buddhism says that you must follow the eight fold path. An original golden era in the Garden of Eden, and a subsequent fall of humanity. Original sin shared by all present-day humans, derived from Adam and Eve.
A world-wide flood in the time of Noah. The need for a sinless personal savior whose execution enabled individual salvation through atonement. A god-man savior who was born of a virgin, executed, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Again, I revert to my prior post on a debate on the Resurrection.


There is one God. Man becoming God is the same as man being at one with God, or man returning to God.

A debate between us would get nowhere. We have different views on the one God we believe in.

You could cite historical accuracies in the bible and use that to claim it to be true, and I could show you fictitious novels using historical accuracies, and we would both agree they were fictitious. You could argue we needed a sinless personal savior, I could argue all we need is God.

I'd have to prove, basically, there was no Christian God, even though I believe IN God, and that he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, Greek, Roman, Norse, etc. Why would I do that?

Why can't we just talk about it and allow each other to draw our own conclusions from each other's thoughts and insights? There doesn't have to be a right or wrong.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
As a serious Buddhist, I just laugh at other people's misconceptions about Buddhism.

This whole thread is a farce.


Keep practicing.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I would only use evidence that is considered fact by overwelming majority of scholars even skeptical ones. I would not need to prove the bible infallible, nor even generally trustworthy. I would have no need to prove that Jesus was divine in order to prove that he resurrected. Again we would only use the methodology that secular historians use in determining the historical facts and which theory best fit the facts.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by bibledefender

Again I refer to my invite to a debate on the Resurrection. Yes or no?



As a Buddhist, I'll debate any Christian on any topic. No problem for me.


Ok, how does the ground rules for our debate sound to you? May I suggest since this is an open forum (again anyone can just jump in and put their two cents in, which would possibly detract attention from the debate), would you be interested in joining a moderated debate site (onlinedebate.net is a good one, although predominately atheist)? Or maybe email?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


In the Bible, man didn't become God, God became a man. Quite a difference. But as you do not wish for a structured discussion, I will leave it at that.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 





I'd have to prove, basically, there was no Christian God, even though I believe IN God, and that he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, Greek, Roman, Norse, etc. Why would I do that?


First, no you wouldn't. Whether there is a God or not can be left out. However, again, if the resurrection probably happened, then Christianity is probably true. If he didn't, it is false.

As for there being right or wrong, I do believe it is that important. If Christianity is true, we are sinners and unable to save ourselves. The only thing that can save us is God's love in which He offers the gift of everlasting life by paying the penalty for our sins. If the resurrection is false, Christianity is false, which opens the door for Buddhism being true. Hence, no hell, no need of a savior etc.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I would only use evidence that is considered fact by overwelming majority of scholars even skeptical ones. I would not need to prove the bible infallible, nor even generally trustworthy. I would have no need to prove that Jesus was divine in order to prove that he resurrected. Again we would only use the methodology that secular historians use in determining the historical facts and which theory best fit the facts.


Actually, you would, since in the bible, Jesus is said to be God, which, in Christian terms, is divine. And, in order for him to be resurrected, as the bible states he was, in the way the bible states he was, he would have to be divine.

Both of those are central tenets to the Christian faith, the basis of which comes from the bible.

There is no historical document on the planet that proves either of those two things, it is entirely faith based. Otherwise, everyone would be Christian.

And, if you were to use a different theory, you wouldn't be proving anything, since it would be just that: a theory.
edit on 15-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I would only use evidence that is considered fact by overwelming majority of scholars even skeptical ones. I would not need to prove the bible infallible, nor even generally trustworthy. I would have no need to prove that Jesus was divine in order to prove that he resurrected. Again we would only use the methodology that secular historians use in determining the historical facts and which theory best fit the facts.


Actually, you would, since in the bible, Jesus is said to be God, which, in Christian terms, is divine. And, in order for him to be resurrected, as the bible states he was, in the way the bible states he was, he would have to be divine.

Both of those are central tenets to the Christian faith, the basis of which comes from the bible.

There is no historical document on the planet that proves either of those two things, it is entirely faith based. Otherwise, everyone would be Christian.

And, if you were to use a different theory, you wouldn't be proving anything, since it would be just that: a theory.
edit on 15-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



Yup Jesus claimed to be divine, so what? That is a claim. The Resurrection, if it happened, would validate that claim since he stated that proof of his divinity would be the resurrection, or if it didn't happen, would invalidate his claim (hence, Christianity would be false). According to historiography (as well as criminal investigations, scientific investigations), the theory that best takes into account the data (the accepted facts of the case) is the one that probably happened. If a competing theory better explains the accepted facts better than the resurrection, then that is what probably happened. And it is also interesting that you decide at the outset that there is no documents that prove the claims, and yet refuse to have a discussion (ie a two way discussion) on the evidence at hand and weigh them. You should weigh the evidence first and then make your conclusions. You are showing your bias my good man.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I would only use evidence that is considered fact by overwelming majority of scholars even skeptical ones. I would not need to prove the bible infallible, nor even generally trustworthy. I would have no need to prove that Jesus was divine in order to prove that he resurrected. Again we would only use the methodology that secular historians use in determining the historical facts and which theory best fit the facts.


Actually, you would, since in the bible, Jesus is said to be God, which, in Christian terms, is divine. And, in order for him to be resurrected, as the bible states he was, in the way the bible states he was, he would have to be divine.

Both of those are central tenets to the Christian faith, the basis of which comes from the bible.

There is no historical document on the planet that proves either of those two things, it is entirely faith based. Otherwise, everyone would be Christian.

And, if you were to use a different theory, you wouldn't be proving anything, since it would be just that: a theory.
edit on 15-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



Yup Jesus claimed to be divine, so what? That is a claim. The Resurrection, if it happened, would validate that claim since he stated that proof of his divinity would be the resurrection, or if it didn't happen, would invalidate his claim (hence, Christianity would be false). According to historiography (as well as criminal investigations, scientific investigations), the theory that best takes into account the data (the accepted facts of the case) is the one that probably happened. If a competing theory better explains the accepted facts better than the resurrection, then that is what probably happened. And it is also interesting that you decide at the outset that there is no documents that prove the claims, and yet refuse to have a discussion (ie a two way discussion) on the evidence at hand and weigh them. You should weigh the evidence first and then make your conclusions. You are showing your bias my good man.


No, I refuse to have a debate. We can discuss this all you want, I am willing to listen.
.
edit on 15-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Well, all a debate is is a structured discussion between two people with agreed upon set of rules that both sides must follow in order to keep the discussion on topic. What is wrong with that? How about a discussion via email?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
Well, all a debate is is a structured discussion between two people with agreed upon set of rules that both sides must follow in order to keep the discussion on topic. What is wrong with that? How about a discussion via email?


Ok let's debate, then since you're so adamant about it. But it's right here in this thread. Make all the rules you want.




top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join