Everything about Buddhism

YOU SLIPPING ON YOUR FREUDIAN AGAIN QUOTE:  “Reading the Bible only as literal would make things easier to understand, but the drawback is the application of knowledge becomes extremely limited to the exact and literal circumstance, rather than abstract and multi-applicable knowledge.”

PRAISE JESUS!  You actually ADMITTED that in reading the Bible LITERALLY would make things easier, where there is no drawback whatsoever because look how outright STUPID you have made yourself in taking the position that one is not to read the Bible literally!  LOL!!!

I have great plans for you in this discussion, and you better not RUN AWAY from them, do you understand? YES?

OH OH!  Guess what, you are still HIDING from the following post that I made to you, whereas I have addressed every Satanic post thus far that you have made to me!  What gives? SCARED? 

Here is the link that you are running away from in front of the membership, where you say you own this forum? Surely you jest! LOL! 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411140

The above link that you run from is only a modicum of what is yet to come in your Satanic behalf, understood? CHAIN UP!

That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.

The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.

You had a dispute on enlightenment, the first thing to do would be:

1. define enlightenment from the perspective of the religion
   
2. then to respond to you dispute
   
3. then to explain my personal thoughts if I have any disputes with the religion's definition.
   

What more could you have asked for?

Peace is the state or quality of being free from violence, conflict, or disturbance, both internally and externally.

Being free from torture is a part of being at peace.

Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering. 

Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.

I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.

Really. On what basis do you think that?

As you said above...

Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely, we should avoid that kind of suffering.

I'm speaking of the same suffering. We should become more conscious, so we can avoid suffering caused by ignorance.

Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness.  Curious really.

I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.

I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.

You could be right, but you have not shown why.  What does altruism mean?  and what do both religions hold to in relation to altruism? 

Altruism is the quality or practice of caring for the well-being of others without expecting anything in return, even if it means sacrificing one’s own interests or happiness.

I believe both religions show that being moral is at one's own self-interest.

When asking for empirical evidence, remember this is a religious forum, so not everything is founded in rationality.

That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.

The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.

Ok. It seems pretty lame to me. No offence. But what you are calling constraints is ipso facto rigid. In other words, outside of the constraints, there is ABSOLUTELY no path to your Nirvana. All of the many paths MUST lie within the constraints. The lameness is not the idea, but the fact that you refuse to call a spade a spade.

I guess my point is that although that might be Buddhism's understanding of the problem and solution of life, others have a different view. Communists for example believe the problem is - power - and the solution is wealth redistribution. I as a Christian think the problem is sin and that sin needs to be dealt with. for me, suffering is part of life. Possibly the result initially of sin, but not necessarily so. Getting rid of suffering in my opinion is really just a band-aid solution. Just go and have a drink. That's numb the pain. Just have a few more pills. It's almost escapism and doesn't actually address the real situation. 

I don't think we should go looking for suffering. That would be narcissistic. Yet, sometimes suffering is a way of showing love. And I think love is a higher goal than avoiding suffering. Sometimes too - I would not avoid suffering if it meant less suffering or pain for someone else. Hence, respectfully, why I suggested above that Buddhism is premised on selfishness - as the ultimate goal is to become enlightened and to go to Nirvana. it is basically an inward-looking religion, not outward.

Suffering comes for lots of reasons. One is stupidity. And surely, we should avoid that kind of suffering.

I'm speaking of the same suffering. We should become more conscious, so we can avoid suffering caused by ignorance.

I concur - I just don't know why this is any different for any person or for any worldview. 

Christianity is not specifically about altruism. It is about loving God and then loving others. It means not thinking too highly of yourselves and treating others as better. It means recognising that all of us are sinners until we die. Yet for those who have trusted in Christ, then the resurrection will be glorious. It is sadly the fact that many people calling themselves Christian, do so for a variety of reasons. Some out of tradition. Some because they live in America. Some because they don't know any better. Others for money. But the truth is not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian, except in name. If we don't live like Christians, loving God and loving others, then it is evidence that we lack the Spirit of God. Like the Buddhists might say at times, Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. I don't actually like that terminology, since Christianity is a religion - and it is a way of life. Yet, I would say it is more than that - it is a relationship with God. And when someone has a relationship with God, then they know God intimately. Some people can know about God, but knowing about God is not the same as knowing God. I think the difference is like the difference between the definition of a kiss. The pressing of lips on another set of lips. Compared with being kissed. You can know what a kiss is - and never ever be kissed. And yet a person who has been kissed will never not know. Christians are people I say, who have been kissed by God. They know it and their lives reflect it. Many others - know about God. And they can tell you all about what and who God is - holy, and love and kind and vengeful or whatever. But they don't know God. Hence, why I say Christianity is not specifically about being altruistic. 

I see as you have drawn the deep distinction between Buddhism and Christianity, respectively seeking inward, while the other seeking outward,... 

That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.

The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.

Ok. It seems pretty lame to me. No offence. But what you are calling constraints is ipso facto rigid. In other words, outside of the constraints, there is ABSOLUTELY no path to your Nirvana. All of the many paths MUST lie within the constraints. The lameness is not the idea, but the fact that you refuse to call a spade a spade.

My choice of words were what I believed to best capture the essence of the idea that many paths lead to Nirvana and still many more lead elsewhere.

If it be a spade, I shall call it that.

How would you better say it and why?

I guess my point is that although that might be Buddhism's understanding of the problem and solution of life, others have a different view. Communists for example believe the problem is - power - and the solution is wealth redistribution. I as a Christian think the problem is sin and that sin needs to be dealt with. for me, suffering is part of life. Possibly the result initially of sin, but not necessarily so. Getting rid of suffering in my opinion is really just a band-aid solution. Just go and have a drink. That's numb the pain. Just have a few more pills. It's almost escapism and doesn't actually address the real situation. 

I agree that band-aids do not fix the root of the issue, but I think it's important to note that not all Buddhists are communists. Buddhism and communism have some similarities, such as the rejection of a creator deity and the vision of universal egalitarianism, but they also have many differences, such as the views on materialism, violence, and individual freedom. Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy that has existed for over 2500 years, while communism is a political and economic ideology that emerged in the 19th century. Buddhism has many branches and schools, while communism has various forms and interpretations. Buddhists and communists have coexisted in some Asian countries, but they have also clashed and conflicted in others. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that all Buddhists are communists or vice versa.

I don't think we should go looking for suffering. That would be narcissistic. Yet, sometimes suffering is a way of showing love. And I think love is a higher goal than avoiding suffering. Sometimes too - I would not avoid suffering if it meant less suffering or pain for someone else. Hence, respectfully, why I suggested above that Buddhism is premised on selfishness - as the ultimate goal is to become enlightened and to go to Nirvana. it is basically an inward-looking religion, not outward.

I think that losing someone we love is more suffering than the suffering avoided by failing to consider their emotions. In other words, one person might say we suffer for our loved ones, but I think a true loved one would be more suffering to lose.

Ultimately, I see self-suffering for those we love as a path to a lesser suffering, which is at our self interest.

I was asking a relevant question about God's Holy scriptures, 

Christianity is not specifically about altruism. It is about loving God and then loving others. It means not thinking too highly of yourselves and treating others as better. It means recognising that all of us are sinners until we die. Yet for those who have trusted in Christ, then the resurrection will be glorious. It is sadly the fact that many people calling themselves Christian, do so for a variety of reasons. Some out of tradition. Some because they live in America. Some because they don't know any better. Others for money. But the truth is not everyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian, except in name. If we don't live like Christians, loving God and loving others, then it is evidence that we lack the Spirit of God. Like the Buddhists might say at times, Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. I don't actually like that terminology, since Christianity is a religion - and it is a way of life. Yet, I would say it is more than that - it is a relationship with God. And when someone has a relationship with God, then they know God intimately. Some people can know about God, but knowing about God is not the same as knowing God. I think the difference is like the difference between the definition of a kiss. The pressing of lips on another set of lips. Compared with being kissed. You can know what a kiss is - and never ever be kissed. And yet a person who has been kissed will never not know. Christians are people I say, who have been kissed by God. They know it and their lives reflect it. Many others - know about God. And they can tell you all about what and who God is - holy, and love and kind and vengeful or whatever. But they don't know God. Hence, why I say Christianity is not specifically about being altruistic. 

I see as you have drawn the deep distinction between Buddhism and Christianity, respectively seeking inward, while the other seeking outward, yet the seeking of serenity on heaven or earth is the same; they seek peace.

Buddhism is not for everyone, and many would dispute Christianity, I cannot determine this for other, but only myself.

I'm not a devout Buddhist, and many would say I'm not a Christian either, as my perspectives of the world are nuanced. I simply seek to understand reality the best that one can.

I see as you have drawn the deep distinction between Buddhism and Christianity, respectively seeking inward, while the other seeking outward,... 

I really don't want to talk about christianity because this is not the topic, but I can't help noticing the funny contradiction this christian person you are responding to has just exposed.

He claims christianity seeks outward which is completely at odds with what Jesus the Christ taught to his disciples: "The kingdom of God is within you", Luke 17: 20-21.

With all due respect, this dude is a farce. 

Jesus and I have such great plans for poor Critical-Tim, where he said that he will not run away from me, like the Bible inept Miss Tradesecret had to do to try and save face in front of the membership! 

Tradesecret wrote:  Ihave been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have readthe bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year andthe NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can evenread Hebrew and Greek.  #52

If it be a spade, I shall call it that.

How would you better say it and why?

I would just call it as it is.  I would probably use the word covenant. It is the idea that - freedom or flexibility or preference if you prefer, exist within boundaries that are inflexible or rigid.   The example I tend to use is the Garden of Eden.  God gave humanity total freedom to eat from every tree in the garden except one. The one tree which he was forbidden to eat was the boundary.  But it was an immovable boundary that had a real implication or consequence.  But it had to be real boundary or else the concept of true freedom would have no definition.  Sometimes, the modern mind wants to believe that freedom has no boundaries. They believe in the illusion of a "free mind".  Yet, unless freedom has a boundary, freedom means absolutely nothing. It becomes a word or a feeling. It loses all meaning. 

I would suggest that ambiguity in the Bible is simply indicative of the nature of it's compilation.

Multiple authors reinterpreting and translating a naive Middle Eastern mythological creation hypothesis.

I agree that band-aids do not fix the root of the issue, but I think it's important to note that not all Buddhists are communists. Buddhism and communism have some similarities, such as the rejection of a creator deity and the vision of universal egalitarianism, but they also have many differences, such as the views on materialism, violence, and individual freedom. Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy that has existed for over 2500 years, while communism is a political and economic ideology that emerged in the 19th century. Buddhism has many branches and schools, while communism has various forms and interpretations. Buddhists and communists have coexisted in some Asian countries, but they have also clashed and conflicted in others. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that all Buddhists are communists or vice versa.

hmm. I think you have misunderstood me. I don't equate Buddhism with communism.  I used communism above as an example of a worldview which suggests a problem to the world's problems and then a solution. Buddhism says it is about suffering. communism says it is about power. Christianity says sin is the problem. 

I don't think we should go looking for suffering. That would be narcissistic. Yet, sometimes suffering is a way of showing love. And I think love is a higher goal than avoiding suffering. Sometimes too - I would not avoid suffering if it meant less suffering or pain for someone else. Hence, respectfully, why I suggested above that Buddhism is premised on selfishness - as the ultimate goal is to become enlightened and to go to Nirvana. it is basically an inward-looking religion, not outward.

I think that losing someone we love is more suffering than the suffering avoided by failing to consider their emotions. In other words, one person might say we suffer for our loved ones, but I think a true loved one would be more suffering to lose.

Ultimately, I see self-suffering for those we love as a path to a lesser suffering, which is at our self interest.

We all self-sacrifice at times out of love and concern.   It is not a real sacrifice if it doesn't hurt.  The suffering therein is done for love - not for ourselves. 

I don't understand that last sentence. Can you try and rephrase it for me, please. Thanks.

I was asking a relevant question about God's Holy scriptures, 

Ok lets start beginning with "god's holy scriptures".   Who says they are "god's Holy scriptures"?

I don't think it is entirely accurate that the distinction with Christianity is inward v outward.  I actually quite emphatically indicated the difference was relationship.  Christians have a living relationship with God. Not with the universe. Not with the creation but with the Creator.  This is not the all or the ONE. It is the God who made the heavens and the earth. It is the God who himself gave his most precious possession, in order to demonstrate his love for his people. 

While it is true that Buddhism teaches an inward path, Christians don't ignore the inward.  We do believe that this relationship with God, who is external to us, requires our hearts to be renewed as evidence of this relationship being reconciled.  In other words, we say our hearts have been damaged - our sinful nature. This needs to be rectified - in order for us to be able to enjoy a proper relationship with God. like most things Christian, it is not just one way. There is inward, and outward. But more than that - we talk of the vertical and the horizontal. Once our relationship with God is sorted, then our relationships with others ought to follow as a natural consequence.   Of course, many people dispute Christianity. It requires a deep humility which most if not all can achieve. It's more than just denying your human pleasures. Or needs. It is as Jesus put it - being born again. Starting again.  This is truly a humiliating point.

I was asking a relevant question about God's Holy scriptures, 

Ok lets start beginning with "god's holy scriptures".   Who says they are "god's Holy scriptures"?

They are God's Holy Scripture as part of the religion, I don't have any rational explanation, people who are Christians simply do it out of faith.