Everything about Buddhism

Author: Critical-Tim

Posts

Total: 136
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
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!!!
You are misunderstanding my position. I did not say we must interpret all of the Bible, but that we must not read the whole scripture literally.
As I pointed out before, I believe parables and some other parts of the Bible were not intended to be literally, while others literally.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I have great plans for you in this discussion, and you better not RUN AWAY from them, do you understand? YES?
Take a moment to realize that you don't need to continue asking as if you wish; I will be here.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
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! 


The above link that you run from is only a modicum of what is yet to come in your Satanic behalf, understood? CHAIN UP!
I never saw any question marks... do you want me to interpret your implicit meaning?
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I have no shame or worries for the outcome of this dialogue.
If I win, I will gain credibility.
If I lose, I will gain better knowledge and understanding.
While I prefer to be correct, I'm not concerned.

It is you who should be concerned for losing, since you claim your knowledge with certainty while I remain open minded.

A person who never claimed they would be a victor before the game may still lose, but one who claims his victory during the game and loses will not simply lose the game, but his pride and dignity as well.

It's really a bad deal for you, and why I refrain from insults, along with site policy.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Let me sum this up:

You fail to reconcile your belief with God's direct words from Micah 6:4, rather than choosing to believe in all God's words.

You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:1 could be interpreted literally as one God who is also Jesus, or two beings, God as God and Jesus as Saviour.

You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:20 could be interpreted literally as using the word "interpretation" to describe the "origin," or the "reading" of prophecies.

You fail to present any evidence that the 1611 KJV Bible is the closest to God's words, begging the question why?
Side note: God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.

You refuse to provide evidence for a God given dictionary in which to interpret his words, since words lack inherent meaning.
Side note: Failing to use a God given dictionary necessitates a human dictionary to interpret meaning, then quoting said interpretation with human dictionary paradoxically claiming all interpretations invalid, which includes your arguments source.

Finally, you have the audacity to ask me to reply to your comment #49, which bears no question mark, necessitating my interpretation of your words to respond.

Remind me if I missed anything.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim

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. 

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?
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.  

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.
There are different meanings of peace.   I know that often when I see people following other religions or worldviews this can create conflict in me for I am concerned for them.  Violence of course is another word that has different definitions.  Some violence is acceptable in my view.  It is right to defend myself by violence or to defend my children from being raped.  I don't agree that violence breeds violence. It can have an influence of course. But it is not logically a necessity.  Define torture. Again there are levels of torture.  


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...
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. 


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.
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. 


Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret

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?
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
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.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
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.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
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. 
The perspective of avoiding unnecessary suffering is not exclusive to Buddhism, but is a component in many other religions and philosophies.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
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.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
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. 
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@IlDiavolo
Your quote is my paraphrase of Tradesecret's argument, which very well could be incorrect.
I suggest quoting directly rather than relying on my words, which may be a distortion.

Although, I see how you correlate Buddhism and Christianity; Nirvana and Heaven are found respectively in our choices and within.
They do seem quite similar in this regard.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
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 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. 

SO I would call a spade a spade. I would call your constraint an inflexible constraint that is rigid. Anything less than that actually diminishes your many true ways to Nirvana. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.

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. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
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"?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
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 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 can't speak for your devoutness. I can add you are not Christian either. No disrespect meant either - just concluding from your own words.  it is good to try and understand reality - I think we should all try to do so. The question of course is what will be our measuring stick for determining whether something is real or not. Or what is true or not. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
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. 
A farce.  LOL @ you. If you read my words to Critical -Tim, you might notice that I did not draw this same deep distinction as suggested.  In fact I said christianity is about relationship. And this means both inward, outward, and upward are just as important as each other.   

And the funniest thing is - you seem to lack any real sense of what Jesus was saying in Luke 17.  For instance - the word, you in that context, was it singular or plural? 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
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! 

I have been following this thread Brother D.. And I have asked my first question. There is so much to ask regarding Critical-Tim's responses/answers to members here yet very little  (if any) in the way of supporting evidence for said responses or answers. 

 As for The Reverend Tradesecret,  with all that alleged theological training and miraculous capabilities for " memorising the bible", i.e.

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

s/he is a spent force, if ever s/he was one to begin with.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
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 like your explanation; it demonstrates the flexibility of walking around within the garden yet confined to it, demonstrating flexibility within rigid constraints.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
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 don't believe that ambiguity is indicative to the nature of its compilation of multiple authors; If anything, they would have contradicted themselves by being specific.
I'm also unsure if they even knew that their works would be compiled. Why would they have been so vague?

I believe that there was a clear intent to leave the explanations ambiguous so as to apply to more circumstances of life, potentially knowing that time and culture would move on and that the ambiguity in the text would transcend that. You'll notice other parts of the Bible were less ambiguous such as, give your neighbor a goat and he shall become your friend, and that is definitely outdated in certain parts of the world.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
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. 
Do you think that one possible sin in to cause more suffering in the world than God allows on his own?
In my opinion, it seems that Buddhism labels the act of creating unnecessary suffering as wrong and not at our self-interests.
I think that they share interests in reducing suffering.

As you said, Christianity says the problem is sin, I think that removing the problems produced by sin is the proper way to fix what we can.
This does not devalue the Christianity search to remove sin altogether, it complements it by reducing the consequences of past actions while we work towards removing sin permanently. 

Ultimately, I see Buddhism as taking upon oneself all the unnecessary suffering that befalls one and recognising them as an inherent part of reality that we must learn from and reduce the best we can, necessitating the importance of learning to reduce suffering.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
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 think that making sacrifices for love is not selfless but out of self-interest, for if it were not love, we would not care, but because we love, we do care.
If we do something out of our way that we do not take pleasure in and we, do it not at the reward of ourselves but at the reward of another, whom we love, many would consider this selfless, as we reaped nothing, but I believe we reaped the avoidance of future suffering of losing the person that we loved.

I'm not certain there is anything done that can truly be considered altruistic; it is human nature to act on our desires, even though many willingly are blind to how they act in self-interest, they still are, but now they have become a puppet to their unconscious-self, which I believe is worse than see who one truly is.

Ultimately, I see going out of one's way in a seemingly selfless manner for someone that we love to be a path towards less suffering than losing the one that we love and thus in our self-interest.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
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"?
Even if God is a character in a mythological story and nonexistent, we would still capitalise the first letter of his name, such as Anakin Skywalker.

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.
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret

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. 
The relationship between Buddhists glorifying creation and Christians glorifying the creator is only distinguished if you don't believe the universe created itself.
It is interesting that the Kingdom of God is inside us yet he is the creator of the universe, it reminded me of the idea of self-creation since the creator is within what it created.

I am aware that the scripture does also say God existed before he created the Earth, did he move into what he created after creating it, I do not know.

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 don't think the version was well interpreted from IlDiavolo: "The kingdom of God is within you", Luke 17: 20-21.

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

Jesus taught that the kingdom of God was not a physical or temporal realm, but a spiritual and eternal reality. He said that the kingdom of God was not something that could be observed or located by human senses or signs, but something that was hidden and mysterious. He also said that the kingdom of God was not something that was exclusive or distant, but something that was inclusive and present. He said that the kingdom of God was in their midst, meaning that it was among them or within them. This means that Jesus was claiming to be the embodiment and manifestation of the kingdom of God. He was saying that by following him and his teachings, anyone could enter and experience the kingdom of God. He was also saying that by rejecting him and his teachings, anyone could miss and lose the kingdom of God.

I don't think it is within us or without us but penetrates and transcends us.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Critical-Tim
So I have heard that Buddhism isn't actually atheistic at all and has quite a lot of spiritualism, paganism, and practicing of magic involved.

I have heard that Shaolin Monks actually practice magic and worship different deities.

Is any of this true? And if not, can you provide evidence that this is not the case?

Also, what I mean by paganism is simply the belief that there are many gods, half-gods, and such who are all children of one supreme god, and the worship of these gods accompanied by performing magic with their help). Like what the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Canaanites and Gnostics and voodoo and shamans believed/believe (in addition to many other countries and historical people groups).
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Critical-Tim
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.

So you don't know who says they are God's  holy scripture? Although you have claimed they are.

Can you explain to me why it was that god required a vile, vicious,  and torturous  blood sacrifice of his "son" before  he would forgive  and save us from our sins?

Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Public-Choice
Some forms of Buddhism may be considered atheistic, while others may involve belief in supernatural beings and phenomena. Buddhism does not have a single concept of God, but rather focuses on the teachings of the Buddha and the attainment of enlightenment.

Paganism is also a broad term that covers various religions and practices that are often polytheistic, animistic, or nature based. Paganism is not a single unified religion, but rather a collection of diverse and sometimes overlapping beliefs and practices.

There is some evidence of syncretism between Buddhism and paganism in some regions and historical periods. Syncretism is the blending or merging of different religious traditions into a new system. For example, in ancient Gandhara (now part of Pakistan and Afghanistan), Buddhism came into contact with Greek culture and produced Greco-Buddhist art and philosophy that incorporated elements of both traditions. In Thailand and Cambodia, Buddhism coexists with local spirit religions that involve magic and rituals. In Japan, Buddhism was influenced by Shinto, the indigenous religion that worships kami (spirits) and practices purification rites.

Shaolin monks are famous for their martial arts skills and their association with Chan (Zen) Buddhism. Shaolin kung fu is one of the oldest and most influential styles of Chinese martial arts that combines physical training with meditation and philosophy. Shaolin monks do not practice magic or worship deities in the sense of paganism, but they may use certain rituals, symbols, and chants to enhance their concentration, discipline, and energy. Shaolin monks also respect and honor their ancestors, teachers, and the Buddha.