Sure, I have always welcomed someone to shed some light on their religion but what agitates me is that the fact that almost every belief is based on the Bible itself. "The Bible said"; "God said"; where in reality; there's no solid proof that the Bible is an authentic manuscript written by GOD (assuming this Entity does exist). Again; we never know for sure how the ORIGINAL counterpart came about. It is said that "The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors. The Bible is a compilation of 66 separate books, divided into two primary divisions: the Old Testament (containing 39 books) and the New Testament (containing 27 books). It is believed that all of the books of the Bible were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit." So now the ORIGINAL itself were written under the 'inspiration of the Holy Spirit'; then how can one be sure if it's really God's inspiration to the fellow writer OR his own imagination? Have you ever heard the saying that what you perceive may not be the truth? Thousands of years ago; humans claim that the Earth is flat because they see it as flat. Does the argument that the Bible is 100% truth really hold water? It may have an accuracy of 80% truth; it may also have 20% of the truth; we DO NOT know. I am not doubting your religion per se; but I just cannot agree with the Christians that say "Jesus is the ONLY way" because like what you said; Jesus Christ was real. So was Buddha. So was Prophet Muhammad. Now; you are telling me the teachings that descended upon us by these other Noble 'guides' are 'fake'? There were in fact miracles witnessed by other followers in their respective religions as well... and recorded down in their teachings. Are those fake? Because if you insist "Jesus Christ is the ONLY way" then I have to disagree with that and at the end of the day, we'll just have to end the debate on different footing.
since this is off-topic from the thread ... i'm going to be quick and prompt with my answer on Jesus Christ being the "Son of God". if you have more questions, please make a thread ... and i'll be more than happy to go indepth on this topic. The ideal of "son" is misunderstanding compare to a traditional sense. Jesus Christ is a part of Godhead of one God. There is God, our Lord Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Flesh of God, and the Holy Spirit, the entity of God in us. I don't know how the term "Son of God" came into play. probably, b/c Jesus Christ was given birth in human fashion ... therefore, some would assume that he is a production of the next generation of godly forms. however, that is false and wrong. [edit] babyrain -- you posted ... let me read, read, read. lol.
cause Jesus saves n you don't?? if people wanna see Jesus... jus go to Mexico... lot more Jesus than you can count...
lol. Sorry for the slow response. I wanted to be as accurate and clear as I possible can. And again … sorry for the lengthy post. I addressed you individually and did not give a response in assumption to you as general stereotypical atheist. Therefore, I ask you to give me the same respect. I stated in my post, that my belief in the Bible is to the extent of its authenticity in regarded its relevant accounts given on the life of Jesus Christ. However, i will indeed go into further analysis below on why the Old Testament (OT) and New Testaments (NT) are compose of legit sources and stances. True, the Bible does contain 66 separate books, 39 in the OT and 27 in the NT. And you are also correct to assume the legitimacy of the written documents given its authorial publication. However, the only two methods to proving whether the author was inspired by God or wrote according to his own fancy is actually be present at the time of it being written or having documentation showing that the author is indeed telling the true. The second method of proof is still ill-advised since most skeptics (like you, BabyRain) would still question the second proof-documentation’s authenticity as well. Therefore, the only method is to be there when the OT was written, and that isn’t possible. The only way I use to prove the legitimacy of the OT is use quotation and sources from NT citing the genuineness of the OT. And here is one -- The legitimacy of the NT is much easier to define. Since, its authors were foremost present in an era which can be proven with other publication and outside references. And personally for myself, it is the NT that is the most important part of the Bible. Not that I don’t consider the OT to be important … but it is the Mosaic Covenant and after Christ Jesus, the Mosaic Covenant is dismissed and a new one is proclaim through Jesus Christ. Here’s a link to reference the legitimacy of the NT -- http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm Actually, no I have not. I assume what I perceive in the mirror is what other people see when they look at me. I assume that when I type “I’m looking into my computer screen.” The reader will formulate a mental image of me looking into my computer screen. I don’t mean to make fun of your question … it’s probably b/c I don’t understand it fully. -sweat On the analogy you made … it is flawed. If you understand astronomical history, the ancient Greek understood and new the roundness of the Earth and its spherical shape. Some Greeks were even bold enough to attempt to calculate its equatorial circumference. However, through time and different informative conflictions, the ideals that was once perceived and known were lost. Fortunately, they found again for us to use today. I think this analogy fits my point of view too (^.^), since in the past, the ideals of Christianity was known and perceived as common knowledge. However, now we are going through a dark time (like when the knowledge of a spherical Earth was lost). And hopefully in the future, the ideals of Christianity would be found and established again. The teachings of Islam, Buddha, Confucianism, Taoism, Daoism, etc, etc, etc. are fundamentally equal to Christianity. The knowledge on ‘How to be a “Good” citizen’ is not needed to be form in a religious faction. It is common sense. Do not steal, lie, commit sexual immoral acts, respect your parents, and etc. However, only Christianity gives a resolution to the problem of sin. Buddhism does not, so doesn’t Confucianism, or Taoism, or Daoism, or even Islam. (I have not study much in the teachings of the Koran; therefore I will not compare its context with the Bible). Only Christianity gives an answer to the cycle of sin. And that cycle can only be broken with Christ Jesus. (I know you don’t want to hear this, BabyRain <_< but it's a proven fact). Let me ask you a question, BabyRain. Are you honestly satisfied knowing that this life, what you see now, what you have now, and what you can have in the distant future, be all it can be and nothing more? For it is known and non-debatable fact, that all the things (materialistically speaking) we hold dear in this life … will not be with us in the end.
lol ask yurself...do u believe in alien? ufo? alien abduction? ghost? there are plenty of sightings and so called proofs for those as well but how true are they? are u 100% sure that these are all lies? why would a person lie? to protect his interest would anyone die for it? yes of cuz, just like how a loyal imperial guard would sacrifice his own life to protect the interest of his king or like what a WWII japanese kamikaze pilot would do for his country
so if i save some people i can be a jesus man too?... is it less a person and more a title? hohoho, he saved that kid from a fire and burned to death... what a jesus. -^_^
lol JESUS! allow me to re-introduce myself.. my name is JES!.. JES to the U.S.. saved mankind with my last breath.. I turn that water into wine n wine back into water.. Fresh out the fryin pan into the fire I be the, music biz number one supplier hahha not feelin too creative right now...
no, i would not consider their accusation as lies. lol. why would i? that would very hypocritical of me to give such an assumption. the truth is your analogy proves my statement. simply b/c i haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. why are you so sure that christianity is fib? if you had read further into my post ... you would have seen that I've addressed the notion of pride and misinformation. however, you do bring up a good point. loyalty is proven in history to be a very powerful tool in form of self-sacrifice. i believe that any of the disciples of Jesus Christ, if ask, would take their own lives from Him. However, that isn't the situation. The situation is that their lives were given not for Jesus Christ, but for telling the truth. Christians in the Roman Empire were persecuted and killed; simply b/c they were speaking and preaching about Jesus Christ. Someone, whom they know is real. word. lol.
Well, I am rather surprised that you have not heard of the saying "What you perceive may not be the truth"... Have you not been watching enough movies? It's very simple. A person may stumble onto a 'murder' scene and see this guy holding a knife with bloodied hands, supposedly in the act of 'stabbing' another. This witness will then of course come to the conclusion that the guy is murdering the other. But, in actual reality, the guy was trying to wrestle the knife away from the dead man trying to commit suicide. Does this make sense? This is just ONE of the many examples; perhaps you can go watch a few movies to get an idea of what I am saying. If the world is devoid of people who made mistakes in what they witnessed as truth; then there would have never been any innocent people sent to prison based on 'mistakes' that the witnesses perceived to be the truth. What one perceives as truth is usually one's own conclusion. I am not saying that everything you perceive is false; but since you brought up the argument that the Bible must be the truth based on an account of 'witnessed' events, this is what I say to you. Oh, on the subject of Bible, if you take a look in the Lounge of this forum, you'll notice the recent news of Hong Kong residents whom have called the decency of the bible into question due to its sexual and violent content... and I quote: So you see, the Bible itself is now being subjected to claims of obscenities and what not. Are you honestly telling me that lewd phrase came from the inspiration of Holy Spirit? I am not saying Christians are fake. I am just saying that the Bible CAN never and SHOULD never be taken at face value. A true believer of Christian would be able to choose what to believe in and not believe blindly without his own rationalization. Just because someone wrote that it's "the word of God" or "word from God" don't mean that it really came from God?! LOL, well I can't answer for everyone here; but I will tell you what I know of Buddhism, or more specifically the Tibetan Buddhism. Of course the Buddhism have no 'answer' to the cycle of sin. Simple; because the Buddhism DO NOT believe in the cycle of sin per se and 'solution' to the problem of sin. There IS never going to be a 'solution' to the problem of sin per se; because if there IS a solution; humans will cease to exist. Well, now it's time for you to indulge on my opinion for a second here. Buddhism do not believe in the original sin and cycle of sin because the Buddhism have an answer to that; which is the laws of KARMA. Well, the Buddhists believe in the law of Karma. When you do things which harm others; You sow, so shall you reap. However, a misconception is that people suffer due to their bad Karma; which is not necessarily accurate. Many people come to this Earth with a definite plan that they will have a specific illness; be it cancer or live in poverty and other types of suffering. But it's not necessarily that the person's bad karma is 'paying him back'. It could be an accident, a mischance and nothing more. Nor does it mean that the poor wretched doctor has a load of karma added because some things are accidents, and it does not mean that if a person has a definite, unavoidable accident, he is going to be saddled with karma. The person who comes down and is injured through a complete mischance gets 'credits' because the failure of that life was not of his making. And sometimes, you may have a very good person who gets a lot of pain and suffering... and we may think that it is unfair that such a good person should have to endure such suffering, or you may think that the person is paying back an exceedingly bad karma.. he must have been a fiend in previous life... But this may be wrong. The person may be enduring all these in order to see how the pain can be eliminated for others who come after.. He may be accumulating good karma instead. It could also be because enduring all those pain/suffering would enable him to advance his own spiritual progress in the quickest time. The Buddhism do not believe in Heaven/Hell because we believe in Reincarnation. The cycle of birth and rebirth; ie Reincarnation. And of course we do have our own 'solution' to break the 'cycle of birth and rebirth' and that is by attaining the state of Buddhahood aka Nirvana. So you see, the Buddhism do not have a solution to cycle of sin per se; because the Buddhism simply believed in another matter altogether. And who are we to tell whose belief is wrong or right? And if you are still in doubt; I shall further explain to you that in Buddhism; there is also an explanation to why we come to exist and live in this state. 1) There is suffering and there is a cause for that suffering. Suffering can be overcome, and there there is a way of peace. The Buddhists also refer to this as the Four Noble Truths. 2) Nirvana. aka state of Enlightenment. Mind and matter are in a state of constant change. The mind causes the spirit to bog down as if stuck in clay. Withdraw the mind, and then one attains to Nirvana, and so becomes free from suffering and the cycle of continual rebirth, living, dying and being reborn. 3) The Eightfold Path, which means- correct views correct aspirations correct speech correct conduct correct methods of livelihood correct effort correct thoughts correct contemplation Buddhahood is a state of being. One can attain Buddhahood no matter what one's station in life. The Prince or the garbage collector can each be pure and holy. We are like actors on a stage, and we take the status which will be of most assistance to us in learning that which we have to learn. The Thousand Buddhas, as is often mentioned; is merely an indication that one can attain to Buddhahood in a thousand or so different ways. The thousand, is merely a figure of speech. There could be millions of ways. Buddha is a symbol, not the graven image of a God. The Buddha figures are just reminders of what we can be if we want to be, and if we work to be. Well I am sorry I have come to such a lengthy explanation of my own beliefs, I hope they did not bore you... The Christians have time and again explained religious issues based on their Bible; so I guess I should be doing the same in terms of explaining my point of view. I give my respect to where it is due. I do not respect anyone be it Christians or Muslims or Hindus who just tried to explain things from their perspective and REFUSED to listen to others' views; so I guess you probably owe it to me to listen to my explanation about the Buddhism's beliefs as well? Proven fact? By whom? With due respect; my beliefs don't even believe in the 'cycle of sin' in the first place; why would I want to break it? And I think that; should be left alone because if we go further, we would have to come to a debate of the difference in beliefs in the various religions and flaws in them as well, no? Now now, just because I don't believe in the same religion as you doesn't mean I am a shallow person who never dwelved into the mysteries of Life itself and what not. I believe you are guilty of making an assumption there of me being quite an 'uninformed' little twerp contented to live this Life and never thought about what happens after?! Of course I have my own beliefs in what happens in the afterlife. I believe strictly in reincarnation and not Heaven or Hell per se. Just as you Christians have your goal of going to Heaven; mine is attaining Nirvana and to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth. If you choose to debate further; I'll raise some points which I considered are flaws in the Heaven/Hell concept. First of all, why does Hell even exist if God (in the Christian sense) supposed to be compassionate? "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful"... Most Christians (not you, yet) would then answer, "Hell is created for Satan" Well then, wouldn't God be compassionate enough to just make Satan vanish (since God is Almighty) instead of resorting to torture? And why would God let humans fall into hell for them to burn eternally??? That kind of torture is definitely extreme cruelty; and isn't God against cruelty?! In fact; God has always been recognised as the most Kind; the most Merciful; the most Loving, the most Compassionate... the list goes on! And if a Christian (not you) says; "those humans fall into Hell because they don't believe in God" (as God in the Christian sense) wouldn't that portray God as a vengeful being? Just like,"You didn't believe in me... so I'm sending you to Hell to burn forever"... and God is asking us all NOT to be cruel and vengeful when he Himself is doing that? Isn't that hypocrisy? The existence of a Hell and Heaven per se just do not entice me enough. And I have another point to 'explain' why this concept was construed in the beginning... As you are probably aware, Buddhism existed before Christianity... so, in an attempt to explain why the concept of Hell and Heaven are created in the first place and that there is no such thing as reincarnation, I would say... One obvious example is this; in the days of long ago the priests had utter power and they ruled people by terror, by the thought of eternal damnation. Everyone was taught that they had to make the best of this life because there would be no other opportunity. It was known that if people were taught of reincarnation, they might tend to slack in this life and pay for it in the next. So... now are you satisfied to know that I do, in fact, believe that this life, what I see now, what I have now, and what I can have in the distant future, are NOT what all they can be and are something more??? In fact, if it intrigues you, my beliefs even explained who and what Jesus was? His purpose and why he came on this Earth? If you want me to elaborate on that; I would gladly do so... Considering Christians are always so willing to share their beliefs... And by the way, you do in fact, notice I am using the term "my beliefs" instead of "my religion" right? Because contrary to the common mistake in the claim that Buddhism is a religion, it is in fact, more a Way of Life than anything else. A Path one may choose to embark on, on his quest to seek further Enlightenment. And perhaps I should stress that we are only making our own points of view based on our own respective beliefs; so yeah... no personal offence. We'll just take this as a discussion and an analysis/comparison of our beliefs yeah? On a cheeky note, I gleefully wonder how long it will take you this time to come up with a complete rebuttal/counter-argument/opinions to everything I have said? -bigsmile
Now that's a thing I concur with you... Apollon does in fact, did better than you I must say... in terms of answering/counter-arguing our points of view. Most of the times, I do not see any relevance to our points of view in what you come up as a 'defence' -blush Sorry, no offence OK... just my two cents'...
Wow, some prime discussion went on while I have retired to my sleep. ATM I don't have enough time on the computer to write up a proper contribution to this thread (it is ticking downwards at 10 minutes...) but if anyone CARED enough to chop chop their essays down to smaller pieces it would be amazing (just because that page down button is our common enemy in making a conherent point which the reader can easily follow)
b-rain all the time we've exchanged views here ive not been offended by you or anyone else, why would now be any different, maybe its a figure of speech Im glad your enjoying your discussion with my Christian brother, im glad someone who probably knows more than me is here to answer your questions too.
Hey Hiake *muah* No! I ain't going to 'chop' my beautifully-written essay! -angry LOL, well I have taken painstakingly effort in writing it; so I think you should take some effort in reading it? 10 minutes?? does this mean ur not going to be around?
MUAH back -hug Nah, on a library computer here... I didn't mean to SHORTEN your essay, just divide them into MULTIPLE individual shorter posts (like one post per quote and its respective rebuttal?)
Alright since you requested it... I'll make some multiple postings.. and if anybody reports me; I'll point them to you OK? And what are u doing at the library?? Thought you have completed exams! Borrowing sum fiction? Come back soon so we can haf our 'discussion' over the MSN...
LOL, got some work to do with TIFF... All for free some perks :| Because I am a poor student like that... I won't be home until later today :( Sigh sigh, maybe I should crash the university library and see if my student account is still active during summer term
Well, I am rather surprised that you have not heard of the saying "What you perceive may not be the truth"... Have you not been watching enough movies? It's very simple. A person may stumble onto a 'murder' scene and see this guy holding a knife with bloodied hands, supposedly in the act of 'stabbing' another. This witness will then of course come to the conclusion that the guy is murdering the other. But, in actual reality, the guy was trying to wrestle the knife away from the dead man trying to commit suicide. Does this make sense? This is just ONE of the many examples; perhaps you can go watch a few movies to get an idea of what I am saying. If the world is devoid of people who made mistakes in what they witnessed as truth; then there would have never been any innocent people sent to prison based on 'mistakes' that the witnesses perceived to be the truth. What one perceives as truth is usually one's own conclusion. I am not saying that everything you perceive is false; but since you brought up the argument that the Bible must be the truth based on an account of 'witnessed' events, this is what I say to you. Oh, on the subject of Bible, if you take a look in the Lounge of this forum, you'll notice the recent news of Hong Kong residents whom have called the decency of the bible into question due to its sexual and violent content... and I quote: So you see, the Bible itself is now being subjected to claims of obscenities and what not. Are you honestly telling me that lewd phrase came from the inspiration of Holy Spirit? I am not saying Christians are fake. I am just saying that the Bible CAN never and SHOULD never be taken at face value. A true believer of Christian would be able to choose what to believe in and not believe blindly without his own rationalization. Just because someone wrote that it's "the word of God" or "word from God" don't mean that it really came from God?!
