why did God kill the first born of the Eqyptians?
-
Logic cannot explain the meaning of life .Why must God be good or cruel? I believe a universal creator transcends all good or bad.
Look at the sword verses in OT and benign ones in NT and one would know...
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
Anyway buddhism is beyond my ability to follow. No point following it.
I like christianality especially the sinful nature thing. I agreed with it more.
We are born with a sinful nature we are sinners.
According to the bible, humans take after God's look and nature. So, who to blame for our sinful nature ? Anyway, I don't agree sinful is humans nature because in Buddhism, there are many monks who have practised well and proved that sinful is not human nature.
If the medicine is bitter but can cure my sickness, no matter how bitter it is, I will still take it. The medicine is referring to Buddhism.
I'm glad to hear that your skin problem is cured. But a word of caution, it is just like powerful medicine to cure your sickness always have side effects. I shall not elaborate further. You have not fully understand Buddhism but claim to be. Anyway, I wish you well !
-
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
I have seen faithful Christians dying young. I believe you do.How do you explain that? I believe you will say God's will.
Take it easy. Look at the brighter side of life. Why is buddhism always about death and suffering?
Must I slam your head against the wall to make you realise that the Christians don't have answers to every question?
Your question is not even yours. It's been asked many times by skeptics. You can google and tell me it's not true. If you wish, you can also google for answers that some believers have provided. They answered the question to the best of their ablity.They don't lose faith because they cannot find an answer. They don't lose hope. At least not so easily like the cretins.
If you don't believe, that's the end of the story.
-
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
According to the bible, humans take after God's look and nature. So, who to blame for our sinful nature ? Anyway, I don't agree sinful is humans nature because in Buddhism, there are many monks who have practised well and proved that sinful is not human nature.
If the medicine is bitter but can cure my sickness, no matter how bitter it is, I will still take it. The medicine is referring to Buddhism.
I'm glad to hear that your skin problem is cured. But a word of caution, it is just like powerful medicine to cure your sickness always have side effects. I shall not elaborate further. You have not fully understand Buddhism but claim to be. Anyway, I wish you well !
I am a buddhist for a short period of time only. Not 30 years or 40 years. I learnt from a dharma centre. I din claim to be proficent in buddhism.I din claim to understand buddhism fully.
But pls respect me as I am not a buddhist anymore. Thanks for wishing me well.
Wad side effects u talking abt? haha lol.
-
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
I have seen faithful Christians dying young. I believe you do.How do you explain that? I believe you will say God's will.
God is not the cause of sickness disease and death. The devil is. Faithful Christians dying young, what is the cause of it? Of course it's God's will. but if they are faithful Christians, they don't have to be afraid because they have full assurance to go to Heaven.
-
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
According to the bible, humans take after God's look and nature. So, who to blame for our sinful nature ? Anyway, I don't agree sinful is humans nature because in Buddhism, there are many monks who have practised well and proved that sinful is not human nature.
If the medicine is bitter but can cure my sickness, no matter how bitter it is, I will still take it. The medicine is referring to Buddhism.
I'm glad to hear that your skin problem is cured. But a word of caution, it is just like powerful medicine to cure your sickness always have side effects. I shall not elaborate further. You have not fully understand Buddhism but claim to be. Anyway, I wish you well !
Humans took after God's FULL look and nature before Adam sinned. Because of the sin that is first committed, humans began to have sinful nature. We can't blame the devil for everything because that is self-denial.
I respect what you believe in, but we both have different views.
I don't feel my perspective of Christianity is a routine of prayer and going to Church. It is developing our relationship with Jehovah God.
-
Originally posted by Catknight:
Logic cannot explain the meaning of life .Why must God be good or cruel? I believe a universal creator transcends all good or bad.
Look at the sword verses in OT and benign ones in NT and one would know...
logic is a tool to help explain the meaning of life.
God is good, never cruel.
When you have a belief, you're already using logic to formulate them.
i dont know what verses you're talking about. very vague. can you show how they might support your view?
-
I am not a buddhist because it's not suitable for me. No offense to any buddhists or to buddhism.
I dun intend to insult buddhism. Hope u all dun misunderstand.
-
Originally posted by Great Heavens!:
God is not the cause of sickness disease and death. The devil is. Faithful Christians dying young, what is the cause of it? Of course it's God's will. but if they are faithful Christians, they don't have to be afraid because they have full assurance to go to Heaven.
satan again, the eternal whipping boys.
god's will I see. people die, whether young or old. some die early due to illness and accidents. I dunno what has it got to do with god? this is a fact of life. like this also need to use god will to explain? dun i have a better explanation than god will and the devil all the time?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
satan again, the eternal whipping boys.
god's will I see. people die, whether young or old. some die early due to illness and accidents. I dunno what has it got to do with god? this is a fact of life. like this also need to use god will to explain? dun i have a better explanation than god will and the devil all the time?
U go post at buddhsit forum lah. Buddhist must respect other ppl's religions dun critisize. -
then u mean to say Rony Tan criticism and slagging off other faiths is condonable? I see. some more he is a pastor, whereas I am private citizen.
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
logic is a tool to help explain the meaning of life.
God is good, never cruel.
When you have a belief, you're already using logic to formulate them.
i dont know what verses you're talking about. very vague. can you show how they might support your view?
What do you think about mypost about logic in the other thread ? But someone said
You cannot argue against religion with logic. Religion is always about faith.
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
If logic can determine what is true or false in the bible, the religion would haved died a very long time ago.
what do you think of this ?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
then u mean to say Rony Tan criticism and slagging off other faiths is condonable? I see. some more he is a pastor, whereas I am private citizen.
he is wrong he should not share gospel like this.How i share gospel with buddhist. I invite them to church let them hear the gospel they dowan i dun force them de.
Same with taoists frenz they dowan i wont scold them de.
Sharing gospel best dun scold their religion.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
he is wrong he should not share gospel like this.How i share gospel with buddhist. I invite them to church let them hear the gospel they dowan i dun force them de.
Same with taoists frenz they dowan i wont scold them de.
Sharing gospel best dun scold their religion.
he is not sharing, he is condemning. he even ask a psedo ex buddhist and ridicule in front of his congregation. he very lucky, he got off very lightly, not even a fine.
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
Wrong. It is not a biblical fact. This is the problem when verses are taken out of context by non believers (intentional or otherwise).
In the same chapter, if you read further on, it also says that “the LORD is slow to anger and great in power and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty” and later, “he Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him.”
Why do people tend to quote mine the scriptures for verses that will support their case (actually none) when they don’t want to acknowledge the other verses that declare God is also loving, righteous and just? You know these people are cherry picking when they deliberately quote verses out of context and deride the Christian God (as this thread has shown). Strangely enough, I’ve yet to come across a non believer who will highlight the verses in Scriptures that describe a loving God and use the example of Christ’s atonement to praise Him for His love and mercies. Actually not true also. In this case after they do, they usually come to faith. Haha…
So if one wants to affirm the truth of one verse, one has to affirm the truth of the other verses found in the other parts too. Especially if they’re talking about the same thing.
Secondly, the OT was written in biblical Hebrew, not English. It’s easy to use our modern mindset to interpret it, and the word, ‘vengeance” has very negative connotations for us (immorality, cruelty, arbitratriness). However, in the OT, the concept of vengeance has a positive connotation, and has to do with lawfuness, justice and salvation. Most of the time when it’s used in other texts during that time, very few instances is the term used of blood vengeance on the part of an individual. Most of the time it refers to judgment of a group or God to defend one of its/his own. In all cases, the use of vengeful to describe God is wrong.
Similarly, the idea of wrath/anger is often misinterpreted in the same spirit. While human wrath is destructive, the wrath of God refers to the moral outrage at true atrocity. Not a level that is easily reached like a hissy fit, as seen that God is ‘slow to anger’, but wrath is often used biblically as “the vigorous and welfare-motivated intervention by the Royal God, in breaking oppression and delivering His "dependents", by forceful removal of the habitually and aggressively treacherous from their lives, and by a re-structured reality, characterized by blessing and peace for the good.” As in the earlier example of the Israelites living in misery in Egypt, under the slave drivers and poor work conditions, God rescued them from the hands of the Egyptians to bring them to a better place.
To be sure, to claim that God is ‘angry’ or ‘vengeful’ by drawing inferences from verses randomly without a biblical context and understanding demonstrates a misrepresentation of the Christian God and Christianity.
Oh yes, I am aware that the bible also said that God is 'loving, righteous and just'. However it does not contradict that God is also angry, jealous, takes vengeance (for the purpose of seeking justice or whatever reasons), etc.
It just means that God as depicted in OT is a personal God that has the full range (or much) of emotions that we do. We love others, but we sometimes also feel angry about others (for whatever reasons, maybe someone was really evil, etc), we also feel jealous sometimes, etc. Nobody including God (as depicted in OT) is angry or jealous all the time, those emotions arise out of a certain context.
We might be understanding ‘criticizing’ differently, I understand it to be more of an evaluation, as in “criticizing an essay”. In that sense, one evaluates the pros and cons for the benefit of himself, not others, hence no audience required.
I see, in that case I agree.
Through logic and reasoning. Some non theists in this forum claim to employ their faculties to perform these functions but don’t seem consistent. For example, the late Antony Flew “followed the evidence” to move from atheism to deism. To be closed off to all sound use of logic and reasoning and remain in one’s faulty beliefs indicates that one is close minded or fundamentalist at best.
You see, if someone is already open to an alternative then he would be actively searching for the answers himself. It does not need someone to come to a forum to criticize their own faith. He will want to find out the truth of the matter regardless of whether anyone is criticizing him.
For example I mentioned about my Buddhist master turning into Christian based on his reading up of Buddhism. He used to criticize Buddhism a lot due to his utter lack of understanding of what Buddhism is about (he used to think of Buddhism as simply superstitions and a demonic religion). However he was informed that his approach is of little use and has in fact 'pissed off' people more than they actually change people or convert people. He was also challenged by his Uni professor to start writing a critique on Buddhism through his own studies and the professor will give him full support to do so, as that will be a more approachable way than insulting and denigrating the other religion without understanding.
But after finding out what Buddhism is about, he converted, but he did not do so because Buddhists are criticizing his Christian faith. He did so because he was open, he was willing to find out what the others are teaching, he was willing to question and examine.
If someone is already stuck to his own belief and unwilling to find out about other religion, then no amount of criticism will actually move a person.
That is why I say, helping 'potential people' is better than criticizing people who have already chosen their paths.
We differ on this point.
Because logic as described as “the principles of correct thinking” helps a person to develop a worldview and life view as well as in the pursuit of truth. Since God is truth, it follows that the use of logic is not divorced from faith in understanding God and to please Him. Biblical faith isn’t blind or mystical but requires knowledge. The Greek word of pistis means the result of being persuaded to believe something is true, even if it hasn’t happened yet or cannot see. Persuasion here is intricately related to the use of logic.
As I said, I am not saying that Christians are illogical or shun the use of logic.
I am saying that logic cannot possibly explain the entire workings of God, just like logic cannot explain the entire workings of the universe (what we understand is like only an infinitesimal speck of the vastness of the universe).
You haven't answer me, can you perfectly logically understand how God works? Yet you do have faith in Him right?
Let me quote something from my other moderator Thusness from a few years ago:
Faith is necessary because there is no certainty in knowledge. Even in exact science, no certainty is to be found. Of course certainty versus probable knowledge is a topic relating to Epistemology (the theory on Knowledge) but still, it is pivotal towards understanding why the need for faith at all. How science has led to the common misunderstanding that faith is not necessary is amazing but it is mostly due to the predictive nature of these scientific theories derived from thorough experimentation. This is, however, mainly due to the fact that the pool of data made available for the derivation of these theories does not go beyond our man-size world. As we know, Newtonian physics or classical science works well for a man-size world but not quite well in the macro and micro universe. Our ordinary experiences do not permit us to experience something having the mass of a star or traveling at half-speed of light, we presume that the entire universe must obey the laws of the man-size world. But when we are exposed to things not so ordinary, like traveling at a speed much faster then our ordinary experience of ‘speed’, we are lost because phenomena just don’t behave the way we expected it to be. The idea that time travel slower when they are approaching the speed of light and halt at speed of light is mind boggling. Similarly when scientists begin to deal with the universe of the outer space – the macro universe, they are dealing with much more massive objects than the man-size world, a billion times more. The idea that space curves and time halt at the speed of light came as a shocked to the classical scientists. This applies true when we deal with the micro universe of the quantum world. The world of the electrons does not comply with Newtonian nor Einstein theory. This includes the spooky non-local behavior of particles that AEN brought up in another thread. When Heisenberg introduced the ‘uncertainty’ principle, it is so weird that even Einstein rejected it and thus, Einstein famous remark -- “God does not play dice”. But “God does not play dice” is a belief system! I can’t remember where I read it but I could clearly recalled that even Stephen Hawking used phrases like “official dogma”, “deep emotional attachment to determinism” to describe scientists like Einstein. Stephen Hawking even went further to say that Einstein was doubly wrong when he said “God does not play dice”.
I will not dwell too deeply into it but the purpose is simply to illustrate that our knowledge is nothing certain nor absolute. Science is itself a belief system for us to better understand the phenomenon existence. It is its certainty in predictability within a prescribed environment that convinces us that faith is not necessary. It creates the impression of certainty and made a probable knowledge appears absolute but in actual case, science itself is a belief system and a great deal of faith (maybe good and rational faith in this case) is vested in science unknowingly............
...faith plays a vital role in our life and we are always investing faith in people, theories, concepts and belief systems unknowingly. Human is not just a rational being; to understand ourselves, we must also examine our emotional, mythical and psychological makeup.
To touch on what is ‘true’ and ‘right’ free of our belief systems is a philosophical question that I do not wish to get into. Coming into contact with Buddhism is more of coincidental. My deepening of faith in Buddha’s words came only as a result of practice. It is experiential and subjective. It is sort of ‘I know because I experience it.’
..............
'Right' implies complying with a pre-determined set of criteria. I think we must be aware of the distinction between "right faith" and "right attitude towards faith". If a certain belief system has a criterion "that one should have full trust in God", then 'testing God' is not 'right faith'. A half-hearted devotion will deny the relationship as well as the experience with God. To a rationalist this approach may not be appealing, but to some sages, their wisdom have penetrated deep enough to understand the entirety of our psychological and spiritual makeup. I do not see it as wrong. It is a practice that will similarly yield religious experiences. One should not be afraid to be blind in total devotion. Nevertheless if such practices are understood wrongly or fall under the hands of unscrupulous religious leaders, it can be devastating.
On the other hand, I think "right attitude towards faith" do require us to question and check the basis of our belief systems. For the latter, it is the process of authentication that deepens the faith; however this can be quite challenging psychologically and dangerous too. It can lead one to a state of total confusion.
Both approaches are different in nature. In Buddhism there are different paths to suit different people, it is not a one and for all cases. It ‘stagedÂ’ one according to their suitability and developed the necessary conditions for us to progress further. Spirituality is not an easy journey, we will learn along the road.Hmm… still disagree. Truth is exclusive by definition. I’m sure there are common grounds but commonality doesn’t negate the exclusivity of truth. Fundamentals are the same because God has revealed Himself in the general creation but the conclusions reached are different. If I affirm the truth that Christ said He is the only way to God, by definition, I must exclude all other claims to God. Doesn’t sound politically correct but at least it’s intellectually honest.
Hmm... don't think you get what I mean yet. What I am talking is the Truth that precedes belief system, and the Faith the precedes separate belief systems. Belief systems are many and they all contradict each other, even within a single religion the different denominations contradict each other as well. But what I am talking about goes deeper than that.
I think this video is good and explains what I mean especially the first 7:37 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04gdsFt_zDY
When you said that Christ is the only way to God, I will not refute that, but then the question is what exactly is the nature and substance of Christ. Most people are believing in their own image of what Christ is without any further experiential understanding. When you use your own conceptual understanding of what you perceive Christ to be to attempt to comprehend what Christ is, it will fail. No conceptual thought can capture Christ absolutely, it is only a limited pointer to the thing-in-itself. To know Christ, the egoic mind or the separate-self sense has to dissolve, and surrender to the direct experience of the Higher Power which you call Christ. It is not using thought to understand him, as my friend Thusness have said many years ago,
(partial excerpt from http://simpo.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=insight&action=display&thread=193)
...It is the current mode of thinking and understanding God that is at fault.
As long as Reality is concerned, it is the wrong tool to use.
Analysis is the way of comparison and measurement, it is dual.
The Luminous Light 'knows' not through analysis.
'Knowing' to the Mystic is not to make an object in mind and study it.
It is "knowing" through oneness, it is "knowing" through Beingness.
It is losing yourself and finding itself in otherness.
It is an entirely different art -- Merely reflecting and simply IS.
If we are resistant to the idea of dropping the 'How' and 'What',
then the path of faith and total submission towards God is preferred.
If we love God, do not analyse him, we are slaying him.
The mysterious gate is ever open in the HERE and NOW.
To experience in full, let go completely and leave not a trace of ourselves...This reminds me of a medieval Christian book 'The Cloud of Unknowing',
The book counsels a young student not to seek God through knowledge but through what the author speaks of as a "naked intent" and a "blind love." This is brought about by putting all thoughts except the love of God, under a "cloud of forgetting" and thereby piercing God's cloud of unknowing, with a "dart of longing love" from the heart.
Furthermore it is said in the bible:
20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
Anyway I understand that no amount of talking about this will convince you since you are deeply rooted into the belief system. But if you do have such a mystical experience or union, your perspective will change, as you begin to see that this truth and experiential insight is universal, since it is prior to all belief systems, all concepts, can be touched only directly through a direct means such as total submission to a higher power and dissolving the false ego or the separate self sense.. it is the direct experience of that One God (THAT from which everyone and everything arise and subsides from), not divided by our conceptual/egoic mind into 'my God' vs 'your God'.
As Father Thomas Keating said, Faith precedes belief systems, which means that Faith means the consent or surrender to the divine reality or to the Ultimate Reality or whatever name is in the different religion, before it is broken down into different belief systems which are bound to be influenced by the cultural conditioning of the person or the reformers who worked on that religion. So when Faith becomes contemplative, it begins to precede the Oneness behind all religions, before the experience of God is broken down into various belief sytems. You have to have some belief systems because we are human, as a starting point as I was trying to say, the faculties have to be organized around the faith, (inaudible), as a stepping stone or a conveyer belt to take us to a further level of relating to this mystery which is more direct, which doesn't reject our former religious practices, but has a certain freedom towards them so that they are not abolutized, so the only Absolute becomes The Absolute.
And on the other end of the spectrum which is an equally important is the separate sense, which is the 'I am' which Ken Wilber was speaking about, which begins to emerge in very early childhood, then becomes fully reflective and self-conscious in adolescence and so on. And this is the basic source of every human problem. It is the source of certainly every sin in the sense of 'missing the mark', because it is the separate self sense that opposes reality, and the Truth, and which creates our own 'self' and ultimately our own 'hell', if the 'self' we are developing goes to the extremes of selfishness as our experience and those of many others realize it's quite possible. So on one hand you have the basic oneness of everything that is in its Source, and the basic issue of separating ourselves from that Oneness which then means that we're separating ourselves from our True Self and everybody else and from the cosmos in varying degrees in which we sin, meaning to miss the mark, which is to fail to recognize the truth of the situation. So the separate self-sense is what all the religions is trying to cure as far as I can see, and all the consequences of that development which psychologically speaking have been researched in our times, and such things as the private or psychological unconscious, the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious... this whole world of motivation that we're not aware of is the fruit of the development of the separate self sense into energiy centers like the first three chakras of the Hindu scheme of things, which are trying to find happiness in the wrong place. We have designed happiness so that you cannot choose anything else. Even to choose evil is in the hope of finding happiness somehow there, or even to kill yourself is in hope of getting away from pain that is intolerable. So happiness is confused with the gratification of the instincts of child - security, power control, self-esteem and approval, and these grow into the false self and the ego, and so when you come to adult with this baggage of possessive attitudes towards yourself and the world and other people that can't possibly work in the adult life, but unfortunately you have to live with six billion other people who have the same problems. So it is no wonder there are social problems, because unless this radical problem is addressed, societies which are made up of a bunch of false selves is not going to do too well.
And hence to take the determination not to contribute to the messiness of the world by adding our own false selves projects to it is one of the greatest gifts you could give to humanity. And if enough people do this, then society will be transformed, and without it I don't think it can be. That's why religion, whatever it's forms are (and they are innumerous) is crucial because it is the only path, at least foreseeable path that leads most people to the experience of God. Now, other things can, like nature, or wonderful service of others, (inaudible), arts to some degree, but the holistic and concentrated ways that religion addresses the human problem are unmatched. But they also have to be gradually transceded, not by rejection, but by taking the steps in which we relate to God more and more maturely as we grow as human beings into adulthood. And love is certainly very crucial and motivating as to do so. And I suppose that's why the first commandment in the Judeo-Christian scheme of things is to Love the Lord your God with your WHOLE Mind, with your WHOLE Heart, with your WHOLE Soul, and with all your strength... it's impossible to do without contemplative prayer and the insights that that brings.
Then again, I’m not into blind faith and mysticism. I think the idea of promoting blind faith has done plenty of damage to Christian believers. The verses Christian mystics use tend to be misquoted or without a prior understanding of scriptures. Personal take is that most of the time, the mystic side of Christianity tends to confuse and confound with the use of flowery words to describe a subjective experiential event.
It is actually not the case. Mystics actually attempt to describe their experience in a very matter-of-fact way and many of them have profound understanding of the bible or their scriptures.
Secondly, faith that has support of logic is better than blind faith, but such faith is still based on a belief system, a belief, and beliefs still have room for doubts, because it is still on the realm of thought and there is no inner conviction.
True conviction arise when we submit totally to the higher power such that we feel we are being 'lived'. There will be no more doubts and conviction when it is born of direct experience. There is a direct certainty of that Being, or God, that is undeniable and undoubtable - even without thoughts. 'You' have dissolved into That.
There is completely no room for blind faith anymore at that time - because you so completely see the Truth of it.
We differ on this. Christianity affirms the existence of an “ultimate substance’ – truth. I quote Ronald Nash’s book, Faith and Reason, pg 162 – 164.
Yes, I do not deny that. In fact that is what I am saying - that Buddhism differs from all other religions due to its lack of talking about an 'ultimate substance'. Almost all religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc... all talk about an 'ultimate substance'.
But it is not that we do not experience the Ground, the Substance, it is that we also understand its empty (not nothingness, but interdependent origination - will not go too deeply into that) nature. I do not think I will go into this deeply here.
I have been away for a long time. Just came back and I noticed so much trolling and bashing around from some forumers. Cannot possibly have a good discussion without the thread being hijacked. haha...
Yes I noticed this too. lol
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Oh yes, I am aware that the bible also said that God is 'loving, righteous and just'. However it does not contradict that God is also angry, jealous, takes vengeance (for the purpose of seeking justice or whatever reasons), etc.
It just means that God as depicted in OT is a personal God that has the full range (or much) of emotions that we do. We love others, but we sometimes also feel angry about others (for whatever reasons, maybe someone was really evil, etc), we also feel jealous sometimes, etc. Nobody including God (as depicted in OT) is angry or jealous all the time, those emotions arise out of a certain context.
I see, in that case I agree.
You see, if someone is already open to an alternative then he would be actively searching for the answers himself. It does not need someone to come to a forum to criticize their own faith. He will want to find out the truth of the matter regardless of whether anyone is criticizing him.
For example I mentioned about my Buddhist master turning into Christian based on his reading up of Buddhism. He used to criticize Buddhism a lot due to his utter lack of understanding of what Buddhism is about (he used to think of Buddhism as simply superstitions and a demonic religion). However he was informed that his approach is of little use and has in fact 'pissed off' people more than they actually change people or convert people. He was also challenged by his Uni professor to start writing a critique on Buddhism through his own studies and the professor will give him full support to do so, as that will be a more approachable way than insulting and denigrating the other religion without understanding.
But after finding out what Buddhism is about, he converted, but he did not do so because Buddhists are criticizing his Christian faith. He did so because he was open, he was willing to find out what the others are teaching, he was willing to question and examine.
If someone is already stuck to his own belief and unwilling to find out about other religion, then no amount of criticism will actually move a person.
That is why I say, helping 'potential people' is better than criticizing people who have already chosen their paths.
As I said, I am not saying that Christians are illogical or shun the use of logic.
I am saying that logic cannot possibly explain the entire workings of God, just like logic cannot explain the entire workings of the universe (what we understand is like only an infinitesimal speck of the vastness of the universe).
You haven't answer me, can you perfectly logically understand how God works? Yet you do have faith in Him right?
Let me quote something from my other moderator Thusness from a few years ago:
Faith is necessary because there is no certainty in knowledge. Even in exact science, no certainty is to be found. Of course certainty versus probable knowledge is a topic relating to Epistemology (the theory on Knowledge) but still, it is pivotal towards understanding why the need for faith at all. How science has led to the common misunderstanding that faith is not necessary is amazing but it is mostly due to the predictive nature of these scientific theories derived from thorough experimentation. This is, however, mainly due to the fact that the pool of data made available for the derivation of these theories does not go beyond our man-size world. As we know, Newtonian physics or classical science works well for a man-size world but not quite well in the macro and micro universe. Our ordinary experiences do not permit us to experience something having the mass of a star or traveling at half-speed of light, we presume that the entire universe must obey the laws of the man-size world. But when we are exposed to things not so ordinary, like traveling at a speed much faster then our ordinary experience of ‘speed’, we are lost because phenomena just don’t behave the way we expected it to be. The idea that time travel slower when they are approaching the speed of light and halt at speed of light is mind boggling. Similarly when scientists begin to deal with the universe of the outer space – the macro universe, they are dealing with much more massive objects than the man-size world, a billion times more. The idea that space curves and time halt at the speed of light came as a shocked to the classical scientists. This applies true when we deal with the micro universe of the quantum world. The world of the electrons does not comply with Newtonian nor Einstein theory. This includes the spooky non-local behavior of particles that AEN brought up in another thread. When Heisenberg introduced the ‘uncertainty’ principle, it is so weird that even Einstein rejected it and thus, Einstein famous remark -- “God does not play dice”. But “God does not play dice” is a belief system! I can’t remember where I read it but I could clearly recalled that even Stephen Hawking used phrases like “official dogma”, “deep emotional attachment to determinism” to describe scientists like Einstein. Stephen Hawking even went further to say that Einstein was doubly wrong when he said “God does not play dice”.
I will not dwell too deeply into it but the purpose is simply to illustrate that our knowledge is nothing certain nor absolute. Science is itself a belief system for us to better understand the phenomenon existence. It is its certainty in predictability within a prescribed environment that convinces us that faith is not necessary. It creates the impression of certainty and made a probable knowledge appears absolute but in actual case, science itself is a belief system and a great deal of faith (maybe good and rational faith in this case) is vested in science unknowingly............
...faith plays a vital role in our life and we are always investing faith in people, theories, concepts and belief systems unknowingly. Human is not just a rational being; to understand ourselves, we must also examine our emotional, mythical and psychological makeup.
To touch on what is ‘true’ and ‘right’ free of our belief systems is a philosophical question that I do not wish to get into. Coming into contact with Buddhism is more of coincidental. My deepening of faith in Buddha’s words came only as a result of practice. It is experiential and subjective. It is sort of ‘I know because I experience it.’..............
'Right' implies complying with a pre-determined set of criteria. I think we must be aware of the distinction between "right faith" and "right attitude towards faith". If a certain belief system has a criterion "that one should have full trust in God", then 'testing God' is not 'right faith'. A half-hearted devotion will deny the relationship as well as the experience with God. To a rationalist this approach may not be appealing, but to some sages, their wisdom have penetrated deep enough to understand the entirety of our psychological and spiritual makeup. I do not see it as wrong. It is a practice that will similarly yield religious experiences. One should not be afraid to be blind in total devotion. Nevertheless if such practices are understood wrongly or fall under the hands of unscrupulous religious leaders, it can be devastating.
On the other hand, I think "right attitude towards faith" do require us to question and check the basis of our belief systems. For the latter, it is the process of authentication that deepens the faith; however this can be quite challenging psychologically and dangerous too. It can lead one to a state of total confusion.
Both approaches are different in nature. In Buddhism there are different paths to suit different people, it is not a one and for all cases. It ‘staged’ one according to their suitability and developed the necessary conditions for us to progress further. Spirituality is not an easy journey, we will learn along the road.Hmm... don't think you get what I mean yet. What I am talking is the Truth that precedes belief system, and the Faith the precedes separate belief systems. Belief systems are many and they all contradict each other, even within a single religion the different denominations contradict each other as well. But what I am talking about goes deeper than that.
I think this video is good and explains what I mean especially the first 7:37 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04gdsFt_zDY
When you said that Christ is the only way to God, I will not refute that, but then the question is what exactly is the nature and substance of Christ. Most people are believing in their own image of what Christ is without any further experiential understanding. When you use your own conceptual understanding of what you perceive Christ to be to attempt to comprehend what Christ is, it will fail. No conceptual thought can capture Christ absolutely, it is only a limited pointer to the thing-in-itself. To know Christ, the egoic mind or the separate-self sense has to dissolve, and surrender to the direct experience of the Higher Power which you call Christ. It is not using thought to understand him, as my friend Thusness have said many years ago,
(partial excerpt from http://simpo.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=insight&action=display&thread=193)
...It is the current mode of thinking and understanding God that is at fault.
As long as Reality is concerned, it is the wrong tool to use.
Analysis is the way of comparison and measurement, it is dual.
The Luminous Light 'knows' not through analysis.
'Knowing' to the Mystic is not to make an object in mind and study it.
It is "knowing" through oneness, it is "knowing" through Beingness.
It is losing yourself and finding itself in otherness.
It is an entirely different art -- Merely reflecting and simply IS.
If we are resistant to the idea of dropping the 'How' and 'What',
then the path of faith and total submission towards God is preferred.
If we love God, do not analyse him, we are slaying him.
The mysterious gate is ever open in the HERE and NOW.
To experience in full, let go completely and leave not a trace of ourselves...This reminds me of a medieval Christian book 'The Cloud of Unknowing',
The book counsels a young student not to seek God through knowledge but through what the author speaks of as a "naked intent" and a "blind love." This is brought about by putting all thoughts except the love of God, under a "cloud of forgetting" and thereby piercing God's cloud of unknowing, with a "dart of longing love" from the heart.
Furthermore it is said in the bible:
20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
Anyway I understand that no amount of talking about this will convince you since you are deeply rooted into the belief system. But if you do have such a mystical experience or union, your perspective will change, as you begin to see that this truth and experiential insight is universal, since it is prior to all belief systems, all concepts, can be touched only directly through a direct means such as total submission to a higher power and dissolving the false ego or the separate self sense..
As Father Thomas Keating said, Faith precedes belief systems, which means that Faith means the consent or surrender to the divine reality or to the Ultimate Reality or whatever name is in the different religion, before it is broken down into different belief systems which are bound to be influenced by the cultural conditioning of the person or the reformers who worked on that religion. So when Faith becomes contemplative, it begins to precede the Oneness behind all religions, before the experience of God is broken down into various belief sytems. You have to have some belief systems because we are human, as a starting point as I was trying to say, the faculties have to be organized around the faith, (inaudible), as a stepping stone or a conveyer belt to take us to a further level of relating to this mystery which is more direct, which doesn't reject our former religious practices, but has a certain freedom towards them so that they are not abolutized, so the only Absolute becomes The Absolute.
And on the other end of the spectrum which is an equally important is the separate sense, which is the 'I am' which Ken Wilber was speaking about, which begins to emerge in very early childhood, then becomes fully reflective and self-conscious in adolescence and so on. And this is the basic source of every human problem. It is the source of certainly every sin in the sense of 'missing the mark', because it is the separate self sense that opposes reality, and the Truth, and which creates our own 'self' and ultimately our own 'hell', if the 'self' we are developing goes to the extremes of selfishness as our experience and those of many others realize it's quite possible. So on one hand you have the basic oneness of everything that is in its Source, and the basic issue of separating ourselves from that Oneness which then means that we're separating ourselves from our True Self and everybody else and from the cosmos in varying degrees in which we sin, meaning to miss the mark, which is to fail to recognize the truth of the situation. So the separate self-sense is what all the religions is trying to cure as far as I can see, and all the consequences of that development which psychologically speaking have been researched in our times, and such things as the private or psychological unconscious, the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious... this whole world of motivation that we're not aware of is the fruit of the development of the separate self sense into energiy centers like the first three chakras of the Hindu scheme of things, which are trying to find happiness in the wrong place. We have designed happiness so that you cannot choose anything else. Even to choose evil is in the hope of finding happiness somehow there, or even to kill yourself is in hope of getting away from pain that is intolerable. So happiness is confused with the gratification of the instincts of child - security, power control, self-esteem and approval, and these grow into the false self and the ego, and so when you come to adult with this baggage of possessive attitudes towards yourself and the world and other people that can't possibly work in the adult life, but unfortunately you have to live with six billion other people who have the same problems. So it is no wonder there are social problems, because unless this radical problem is addressed, societies which are made up of a bunch of false selves is not going to do too well.
And hence to take the determination not to contribute to the messiness of the world by adding our own false selves projects to it is one of the greatest gifts you could give to humanity. And if enough people do this, then society will be transformed, and without it I don't think it can be. That's why religion, whatever it's forms are (and they are innumerous) is crucial because it is the only path, at least foreseeable path that leads most people to the experience of God. Now, other things can, like nature, or wonderful service of others, (inaudible), arts to some degree, but the holistic and concentrated ways that religion addresses the human problem are unmatched. But they also have to be gradually transceded, not by rejection, but by taking the steps in which we relate to God more and more maturely as we grow as human beings into adulthood. And love is certainly very crucial and motivating as to do so. And I suppose that's why the first commandment in the Judeo-Christian scheme of things is to Love the Lord your God with your WHOLE Mind, with your WHOLE Heart, with your WHOLE Soul, and with all your strength... it's impossible to do without contemplative prayer and the insights that that brings.
It is actually not the case. Mystics actually attempt to describe their experience in a very matter-of-fact way and many of them have profound understanding of the bible or their scriptures.
Yes, I do not deny that. In fact that is what I am saying - that Buddhism differs from all other religions due to its lack of talking about an 'ultimate substance'. Almost all religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc... all talk about an 'ultimate substance'.
But it is not that we do not experience the Ground, the Substance, it is that we also understand its empty (not nothingness, but interdependent origination - will not go too deeply into that) nature. I do not think I will go into this deeply here.
Yes I noticed this too. lol
So what is your advice to the Buddhist cretins ranting in EH?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
he is not sharing, he is condemning. he even ask a psedo ex buddhist and ridicule in front of his congregation. he very lucky, he got off very lightly, not even a fine.
thats not going to convince them
they got this perverted thinking rony is right just not doing it tactically
rony could pick a point or two from agogoboy or somebodyinsg about trolling singaporeans
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
So what is your advice to the Buddhist cretins ranting in EH?
Time is better spent elsewhere
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Time is better spent elsewhere
Ah you loser!
You talk the talk but cannot walk the talk.
The cretins don't listen to you.
-
obvious troll is obvious haha
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
obvious troll is obvious haha
Ah you liar!
Not qualified to comment!
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Ah you loser!
You talk the talk but cannot walk the talk.
The cretins don't listen to you.
The difference is... I'm not here to criticize Christianity unlike some others.
I doubt my posts fall under the category of 'ranting'
rant play_w2("R0042100") (r 
nt)
v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rantsv.intr.To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.v.tr.To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.n.1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: "The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy" (Daniel Okrent).3. Chiefly British Wild or uproarious merriment. -
Lmao, abit saddening when people are trying to explain things, trolls come....
-
troll is too polite a name for him. to call him a troll would even be an insult to trolls.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Oh yes, I am aware that the bible also said that God is 'loving, righteous and just'. However it does not contradict that God is also angry, jealous, takes vengeance (for the purpose of seeking justice or whatever reasons), etc.
It just means that God as depicted in OT is a personal God that has the full range (or much) of emotions that we do. We love others, but we sometimes also feel angry about others (for whatever reasons, maybe someone was really evil, etc), we also feel jealous sometimes, etc. Nobody including God (as depicted in OT) is angry or jealous all the time, those emotions arise out of a certain context.
I see, in that case I agree.
You see, if someone is already open to an alternative then he would be actively searching for the answers himself. It does not need someone to come to a forum to criticize their own faith. He will want to find out the truth of the matter regardless of whether anyone is criticizing him.
For example I mentioned about my Buddhist master turning into Christian based on his reading up of Buddhism. He used to criticize Buddhism a lot due to his utter lack of understanding of what Buddhism is about (he used to think of Buddhism as simply superstitions and a demonic religion). However he was informed that his approach is of little use and has in fact 'pissed off' people more than they actually change people or convert people. He was also challenged by his Uni professor to start writing a critique on Buddhism through his own studies and the professor will give him full support to do so, as that will be a more approachable way than insulting and denigrating the other religion without understanding.
But after finding out what Buddhism is about, he converted, but he did not do so because Buddhists are criticizing his Christian faith. He did so because he was open, he was willing to find out what the others are teaching, he was willing to question and examine.
If someone is already stuck to his own belief and unwilling to find out about other religion, then no amount of criticism will actually move a person.
That is why I say, helping 'potential people' is better than criticizing people who have already chosen their paths.
As I said, I am not saying that Christians are illogical or shun the use of logic.
I am saying that logic cannot possibly explain the entire workings of God, just like logic cannot explain the entire workings of the universe (what we understand is like only an infinitesimal speck of the vastness of the universe).
You haven't answer me, can you perfectly logically understand how God works? Yet you do have faith in Him right?
Let me quote something from my other moderator Thusness from a few years ago:
Faith is necessary because there is no certainty in knowledge. Even in exact science, no certainty is to be found. Of course certainty versus probable knowledge is a topic relating to Epistemology (the theory on Knowledge) but still, it is pivotal towards understanding why the need for faith at all. How science has led to the common misunderstanding that faith is not necessary is amazing but it is mostly due to the predictive nature of these scientific theories derived from thorough experimentation. This is, however, mainly due to the fact that the pool of data made available for the derivation of these theories does not go beyond our man-size world. As we know, Newtonian physics or classical science works well for a man-size world but not quite well in the macro and micro universe. Our ordinary experiences do not permit us to experience something having the mass of a star or traveling at half-speed of light, we presume that the entire universe must obey the laws of the man-size world. But when we are exposed to things not so ordinary, like traveling at a speed much faster then our ordinary experience of ‘speed’, we are lost because phenomena just don’t behave the way we expected it to be. The idea that time travel slower when they are approaching the speed of light and halt at speed of light is mind boggling. Similarly when scientists begin to deal with the universe of the outer space – the macro universe, they are dealing with much more massive objects than the man-size world, a billion times more. The idea that space curves and time halt at the speed of light came as a shocked to the classical scientists. This applies true when we deal with the micro universe of the quantum world. The world of the electrons does not comply with Newtonian nor Einstein theory. This includes the spooky non-local behavior of particles that AEN brought up in another thread. When Heisenberg introduced the ‘uncertainty’ principle, it is so weird that even Einstein rejected it and thus, Einstein famous remark -- “God does not play dice”. But “God does not play dice” is a belief system! I can’t remember where I read it but I could clearly recalled that even Stephen Hawking used phrases like “official dogma”, “deep emotional attachment to determinism” to describe scientists like Einstein. Stephen Hawking even went further to say that Einstein was doubly wrong when he said “God does not play dice”.
I will not dwell too deeply into it but the purpose is simply to illustrate that our knowledge is nothing certain nor absolute. Science is itself a belief system for us to better understand the phenomenon existence. It is its certainty in predictability within a prescribed environment that convinces us that faith is not necessary. It creates the impression of certainty and made a probable knowledge appears absolute but in actual case, science itself is a belief system and a great deal of faith (maybe good and rational faith in this case) is vested in science unknowingly............
...faith plays a vital role in our life and we are always investing faith in people, theories, concepts and belief systems unknowingly. Human is not just a rational being; to understand ourselves, we must also examine our emotional, mythical and psychological makeup.
To touch on what is ‘true’ and ‘right’ free of our belief systems is a philosophical question that I do not wish to get into. Coming into contact with Buddhism is more of coincidental. My deepening of faith in Buddha’s words came only as a result of practice. It is experiential and subjective. It is sort of ‘I know because I experience it.’..............
'Right' implies complying with a pre-determined set of criteria. I think we must be aware of the distinction between "right faith" and "right attitude towards faith". If a certain belief system has a criterion "that one should have full trust in God", then 'testing God' is not 'right faith'. A half-hearted devotion will deny the relationship as well as the experience with God. To a rationalist this approach may not be appealing, but to some sages, their wisdom have penetrated deep enough to understand the entirety of our psychological and spiritual makeup. I do not see it as wrong. It is a practice that will similarly yield religious experiences. One should not be afraid to be blind in total devotion. Nevertheless if such practices are understood wrongly or fall under the hands of unscrupulous religious leaders, it can be devastating.
On the other hand, I think "right attitude towards faith" do require us to question and check the basis of our belief systems. For the latter, it is the process of authentication that deepens the faith; however this can be quite challenging psychologically and dangerous too. It can lead one to a state of total confusion.
Both approaches are different in nature. In Buddhism there are different paths to suit different people, it is not a one and for all cases. It ‘staged’ one according to their suitability and developed the necessary conditions for us to progress further. Spirituality is not an easy journey, we will learn along the road.Hmm... don't think you get what I mean yet. What I am talking is the Truth that precedes belief system, and the Faith the precedes separate belief systems. Belief systems are many and they all contradict each other, even within a single religion the different denominations contradict each other as well. But what I am talking about goes deeper than that.
I think this video is good and explains what I mean especially the first 7:37 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04gdsFt_zDY
When you said that Christ is the only way to God, I will not refute that, but then the question is what exactly is the nature and substance of Christ. Most people are believing in their own image of what Christ is without any further experiential understanding. When you use your own conceptual understanding of what you perceive Christ to be to attempt to comprehend what Christ is, it will fail. No conceptual thought can capture Christ absolutely, it is only a limited pointer to the thing-in-itself. To know Christ, the egoic mind or the separate-self sense has to dissolve, and surrender to the direct experience of the Higher Power which you call Christ. It is not using thought to understand him, as my friend Thusness have said many years ago,
(partial excerpt from http://simpo.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=insight&action=display&thread=193)
...It is the current mode of thinking and understanding God that is at fault.
As long as Reality is concerned, it is the wrong tool to use.
Analysis is the way of comparison and measurement, it is dual.
The Luminous Light 'knows' not through analysis.
'Knowing' to the Mystic is not to make an object in mind and study it.
It is "knowing" through oneness, it is "knowing" through Beingness.
It is losing yourself and finding itself in otherness.
It is an entirely different art -- Merely reflecting and simply IS.
If we are resistant to the idea of dropping the 'How' and 'What',
then the path of faith and total submission towards God is preferred.
If we love God, do not analyse him, we are slaying him.
The mysterious gate is ever open in the HERE and NOW.
To experience in full, let go completely and leave not a trace of ourselves...This reminds me of a medieval Christian book 'The Cloud of Unknowing',
The book counsels a young student not to seek God through knowledge but through what the author speaks of as a "naked intent" and a "blind love." This is brought about by putting all thoughts except the love of God, under a "cloud of forgetting" and thereby piercing God's cloud of unknowing, with a "dart of longing love" from the heart.
Furthermore it is said in the bible:
20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
Anyway I understand that no amount of talking about this will convince you since you are deeply rooted into the belief system. But if you do have such a mystical experience or union, your perspective will change, as you begin to see that this truth and experiential insight is universal, since it is prior to all belief systems, all concepts, can be touched only directly through a direct means such as total submission to a higher power and dissolving the false ego or the separate self sense.. it is the direct experience of that One God (THAT from which everyone and everything arise and subsides from), not divided by our conceptual/egoic mind into 'my God' vs 'your God'.
As Father Thomas Keating said, Faith precedes belief systems, which means that Faith means the consent or surrender to the divine reality or to the Ultimate Reality or whatever name is in the different religion, before it is broken down into different belief systems which are bound to be influenced by the cultural conditioning of the person or the reformers who worked on that religion. So when Faith becomes contemplative, it begins to precede the Oneness behind all religions, before the experience of God is broken down into various belief sytems. You have to have some belief systems because we are human, as a starting point as I was trying to say, the faculties have to be organized around the faith, (inaudible), as a stepping stone or a conveyer belt to take us to a further level of relating to this mystery which is more direct, which doesn't reject our former religious practices, but has a certain freedom towards them so that they are not abolutized, so the only Absolute becomes The Absolute.
And on the other end of the spectrum which is an equally important is the separate sense, which is the 'I am' which Ken Wilber was speaking about, which begins to emerge in very early childhood, then becomes fully reflective and self-conscious in adolescence and so on. And this is the basic source of every human problem. It is the source of certainly every sin in the sense of 'missing the mark', because it is the separate self sense that opposes reality, and the Truth, and which creates our own 'self' and ultimately our own 'hell', if the 'self' we are developing goes to the extremes of selfishness as our experience and those of many others realize it's quite possible. So on one hand you have the basic oneness of everything that is in its Source, and the basic issue of separating ourselves from that Oneness which then means that we're separating ourselves from our True Self and everybody else and from the cosmos in varying degrees in which we sin, meaning to miss the mark, which is to fail to recognize the truth of the situation. So the separate self-sense is what all the religions is trying to cure as far as I can see, and all the consequences of that development which psychologically speaking have been researched in our times, and such things as the private or psychological unconscious, the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious... this whole world of motivation that we're not aware of is the fruit of the development of the separate self sense into energiy centers like the first three chakras of the Hindu scheme of things, which are trying to find happiness in the wrong place. We have designed happiness so that you cannot choose anything else. Even to choose evil is in the hope of finding happiness somehow there, or even to kill yourself is in hope of getting away from pain that is intolerable. So happiness is confused with the gratification of the instincts of child - security, power control, self-esteem and approval, and these grow into the false self and the ego, and so when you come to adult with this baggage of possessive attitudes towards yourself and the world and other people that can't possibly work in the adult life, but unfortunately you have to live with six billion other people who have the same problems. So it is no wonder there are social problems, because unless this radical problem is addressed, societies which are made up of a bunch of false selves is not going to do too well.
And hence to take the determination not to contribute to the messiness of the world by adding our own false selves projects to it is one of the greatest gifts you could give to humanity. And if enough people do this, then society will be transformed, and without it I don't think it can be. That's why religion, whatever it's forms are (and they are innumerous) is crucial because it is the only path, at least foreseeable path that leads most people to the experience of God. Now, other things can, like nature, or wonderful service of others, (inaudible), arts to some degree, but the holistic and concentrated ways that religion addresses the human problem are unmatched. But they also have to be gradually transceded, not by rejection, but by taking the steps in which we relate to God more and more maturely as we grow as human beings into adulthood. And love is certainly very crucial and motivating as to do so. And I suppose that's why the first commandment in the Judeo-Christian scheme of things is to Love the Lord your God with your WHOLE Mind, with your WHOLE Heart, with your WHOLE Soul, and with all your strength... it's impossible to do without contemplative prayer and the insights that that brings.
It is actually not the case. Mystics actually attempt to describe their experience in a very matter-of-fact way and many of them have profound understanding of the bible or their scriptures.
Secondly, faith that has support of logic is better than blind faith, but such faith is still based on a belief system, a belief, and beliefs still have room for doubts, because it is still on the realm of thought and there is no inner conviction.
True conviction arise when we submit totally to the higher power such that we feel we are being 'lived'. There will be no more doubts and conviction when it is born of direct experience. There is a direct certainty of that Being, or God, that is undeniable and undoubtable - even without thoughts. 'You' have dissolved into That.
There is completely no room for blind faith anymore at that time - because you so completely see the Truth of it.
Yes, I do not deny that. In fact that is what I am saying - that Buddhism differs from all other religions due to its lack of talking about an 'ultimate substance'. Almost all religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc... all talk about an 'ultimate substance'.
But it is not that we do not experience the Ground, the Substance, it is that we also understand its empty (not nothingness, but interdependent origination - will not go too deeply into that) nature. I do not think I will go into this deeply here.
Yes I noticed this too. lol
Yah we made up our mind but some buddhist here like rooney9 wanna critisize us.He should go spend his time doing his religious practises or go post at other forum.
Rooney9 seems to be another pastor rony Tan.