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: 18
14
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn
So, I've been reading up on dependent origin (like I said, I'm not a Buddhist), but from what I can gather, this only applies to the laws of the universe. We would have to assume God is subject to the laws of the universe in order to use this as a way to prove or disprove God.

If God created the laws of the universe, couldn't he change them at will?



If god is not dependently originated he would not be able to interact with this universe, including starting it.

If god is dependently originated he would merely be another sentient being, like a mundane spirit.

Either way, god loses.
edit on 16-8-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


But dependent origin only applies to the laws of this universe. God is beyond this universe, so he is not subject to the laws of this universe. So dependent origin cannot be used as an argument against God.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


But dependent origin only applies to the laws of this universe. God is beyond this universe, so he is not subject to the laws of this universe. So dependent origin cannot be used as an argument against God.



Already addressed. Reread post. If god is not dependently originated...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


But dependent origin only applies to the laws of this universe. God is beyond this universe, so he is not subject to the laws of this universe. So dependent origin cannot be used as an argument against God.



Already addressed. Reread post. If god is not dependently originated...


That doesn't address anything.

That's like saying three strikes and you're out, even though you were playing soccer.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: mkmasn

A very late reply- the Buddha would not answer questions about God o origin of the universe. He maintained" a noble silence, and maintained that pursuing these questions was not the way to achieve his goal of ending suffering.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: maes2


Just something haunted my mind. there is a statement that God has created everything. and especially light !

According to James teaching in the first century, God is light and can not create Himself.

Quote
Rabbi Bun expounded: What is the meaning of the verse [Isaiah 45:7], “He forms light and creates darkness?” Light has substance. Therefore, the term “formation” is used with regard to it. Darkness has no substance, and therefore with regard to it, the term “creation” is used. It is similarly written [Amos 4:12], He Forms mountains and creates the wind.”

Another explanation is this: Light was actually brought into existence, as it is written [Genesis1:3], “And God said, let there be light.” Something cannot be brought into existence unless it is made. The term “formation” is therefore used. In the case of darkness, however, there was no making, only separation and setting aside. It is for this reason that the term “created” (Bara) is used. It has the same sense as in the expression, “That person became well (hi-Bria).”
Unquote
Eth Cepher Sitrei Torah
Stephen Pidgeon pp 13

Not intended to be contrary but only to show another view.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Minor point:

Buddhism is not a religion.

Major point:


Very simply, God exists beyond all boundaries of Time and Space. Using this, we can say that God is EVERYWHERE.


Correct, God is omnipresent. I'm not sure if that means that he IS everywhere, or he CAN be everywhere, but I don't think it really matters.


Therefore:

x = God

Everything is built from x.


Incorrect -- "God is everywhere" is different than "God is everything". We are not built "from God", we are built from matter. Pantheism is the belief that God is everything, and that is not a Christian belief, so, if this is the basis on which you are making your claim, then there cannot be a Christian Buddhist.



Who said?
There are quite a few as I understand it.
Buddhism is far more about the method for reaching a happy and content existence while being helpful and supportive to all other living beings than it is about any one view of the universe or "God".



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: mkmasn

No one can 'become' God.
God is 'being' this that IS.

What is there really? If you take away all the words that point to something other than what there is - words like 'before' and 'after' divide 'this that IS' and 'this that IS' is totally missed.

Everything is happening right now but now cannot be put into words - no story can be told about now.
Now is undeniable and ungraspable but always present - now is everywhere!

No one is doing now - all apparent people are being done now.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Barliman
Perhaps someone should have told the Dalai Lama who supports the Buddhist monks in Myanmar (silently, without speaking out against their behaviour or severing all connections to them and showing the real face of Buddhism).

Myanmar Violence: Roots of Buddhist Nationalism

Jesus would have referred to Buddhist spiritual leaders as big fat hypocrites, just as he did with the Jewish religious teachers, scholars, gurus and spiritual fathers. There's no difference between the different daughters of Babylon the Great.

'No words but deeds', is the motto of the football club Feyenoord, a very good motto. Something the Buddhist leaders (monks) in Myanmar and those who do not speak out against them in Buddhism (such as the Dalai Lama) should probably take to heart. Cause some people out here are seeing right through the hypocrisy and empty words about being such a peaceful religion, just like the Muslims will say about Islam as their spiritual brothers blow themselves up for their Allah/God. 'Oh, just a minority extremist group right? Then why do your spiritual leaders in your country not denounce them and point out what kind of shame these people are bringing to their religion? How bad their teachings are that fuel this behaviour? Many things could be pointed out and emphasized by them on a regular basis without pretending it's not a big deal and making up excuses for the behaviour of the flock (the fruits of the tree). Jesus said something about rotten trees (rotten religions) bearing rotten fruit (bad/rotten behaviour in the adherents) as well. Hypocrisy being one of those rotten fruits, violence (incl. military service) as well. Military service isn't spoken against much in this world's major organized religions either (Christendom, which is not Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism).

Wake up please:

Hypocrisy is as widespread as nationalism.
edit on 22-5-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Barliman
Perhaps someone should have told the Dalai Lama who supports the Buddhist monks in Myanmar (silently, without speaking out against their behaviour or severing all connections to them and showing the real face of Buddhism).

america.aljazeera.com...

Minority radical monks have used Buddhism to promote violence against the Rohingya. However, not all Buddhists are promoting religious intolerance. For example, the Dalai Lama has unequivocally condemned extremist monks such as Wirathu and Myanmar’s leaders for failing to end the attacks against Muslims. Besides, a closer look at the Rohingya crisis reveals a checkered and complicated history that goes beyond a religious spat.

www.nytimes.com...


The Dalai Lama, after the riots in March, said killing in the name of religion was “unthinkable” and urged Myanmar’s Buddhists to contemplate the face of the Buddha for guidance.

Phra Paisal Visalo, a Buddhist scholar and prominent monk in neighboring Thailand, says the notion of “us and them” promoted by Myanmar’s radical monks is anathema to Buddhism. But he lamented that his criticism and that of other leading Buddhists outside the country have had “very little impact.”


Myanmar is a very isolated country and outsiders have little influence. The government insists on preserving that isolation, so there's not much that can be done short of an invasion.

It looks pretty clear to me though that the monks involved have breached their vows, and should be de-frocked.





Jesus would have referred to Buddhist spiritual leaders as big fat hypocrites, just as he did with the Jewish religious teachers, scholars, gurus and spiritual fathers. There's no difference between the different daughters of Babylon the Great.

You know him that well do you?



'No words but deeds', is the motto of the football club Feyenoord, a very good motto. Something the Buddhist leaders (monks) in Myanmar and those who do not speak out against them in Buddhism (such as the Dalai Lama) should probably take to heart.

Check above- I have just shown one example of His Holiness speaking out against violence.
Here is another:
www.independent.co.uk...

A good argument is always helped by a little scholarship and a good search engine.



Cause some people out here are seeing right through the hypocrisy and empty words about being such a peaceful religion,

Where is "out here" and who are these some people? How do they support their arguments.



just like the Muslims will say about Islam as their spiritual brothers blow themselves up for their Allah/God. 'Oh, just a minority extremist group right?

The endorsement of violence in the Old Testament and The Koran is hard to miss- especially the Koran. There is no such endorsement anywhere in the Buddhist texts- only a few small references that it might sometimes be necessary.



Then why do your spiritual leaders in your country not denounce them and point out what kind of shame these people are bringing to their religion?

How do you know what my country is, and how do you know what steps have been taken to handle religious violence within it? The truth is that you do not know and you are using the last sentence as a rhetorical device in the absence of knowledge.

As a rule shaming people to make them behave makes them resentful and recalcitrant.

However here's one example of an international Buddhist response to the Burma situation:
www.burmamuslims.org...



How bad their teachings are that fuel this behaviour? Many things could be pointed out and emphasized by them on a regular basis without pretending it's not a big deal and making up excuses for the behaviour of the flock (the fruits of the tree).


Teachings are teachings. They are recommendations and not binding.
"All the Buddhas but point the way, You yourself must make the effort"



Jesus said something about rotten trees (rotten religions) bearing rotten fruit (bad/rotten behaviour in the adherents) as well. Hypocrisy being one of those rotten fruits, violence (incl. military service) as well. Military service isn't spoken against much in this world's major organized religions either (Christendom, which is not Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism).


Buddhism has always adhered to the idea of right livelihood, and also of the five precepts- the first of which is to refrain from killing. Being a soldier is regarded as a perilous occupation
www.urbandharma.org...



This study has shown that the Pali Canon indeed forms an explicit opinion on the military. The Canon recognizes that, in a mundane perspective, the military is ever present, of high prestige, and even necessary in some circumstances for the protection of Buddhism. But, ultimately it must be judged from the higher insight of the transcendental, the lokuttara, where it becomes evident that the military is not conducive to Buddhist ethics and thus not conducive to performing Path actions. From this point of view, the military even loses its value in the mundane, where military pursuits are seen as prideful, destructive, and in vain, engendering a cycle of revenge which only leads to more suffering.


Im not sure where your apparent hostility to Buddhism comes from. There is enormous ethical overlap between New Testament Christianity, especially when we take into account the material that is being recovered from the Nag Hammadi texts and the Gnostic Gospels.

Then there is the very interesting possibiity that Jesus' lost years were spent in the Himalayas.







 
14
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join