And that would be something that would mesh quite nicely with scripture or the words of Jesus.

Well since Buddha came way before Christ, and taking into consideration what started all of this, how is that possible? The premise you've been defending is that there is no solely human-centric drive to be good without a personal God and Jesus.

Let me quote it exactly since it's in another thread.

I said:

What I hear you saying is that without your belief to hold you up, your life is worthless

and you quoted that and replied straight to it:

Pretty much. If this is all there is then this is indeed a sad state of affairs. What purpose does it serve? If this is all there is to the world then who cares if we're good or bad?

I have provided you with one who cared about whether he was good or bad. He came before Jesus. I offer this as substantiating evidence to my theory that a person can be good without knowing a personal god or acknowledging Jesus as his son.

I am still interested in your answer to another of my questions from the other thread. I shall quote it as well.

You surely admit there ARE examples of true believers that commit all manner of egregious acts on other humans as well as atheists that live clean lives relative to these believers, no?

Not quite Ock. When Jesus came he came in fulfillment of the OT scriptures. He was God in the flesh. Pretty much the NT is the OT revealed. ALL of the scripture Christ quoted came directly out of the OT, much of it from Moses who wrote in 1400 BC. That was WAY before Buddha walked this earth.

Besides. Christ created Buddha. He even said he was there before Abraham and we know Buddha wasn't before Abraham. So you didn't read what I gave you on deity afterall? How do you know that Buddha wasn't aware of the OT scriptures that was most certainly around when he lived?



I did answer this somewhere. Notice how you phrased it tho. Why not the other way around? Why not say there are examples of true believers that commit all manner of good and kind acts on other humans as well as atheists that live awful sinful lives relative to those believers?

It's your bias showing Ock.

But to answer you directly. Yes. I do believe that there are Christians who sin. Maybe even do something very wrong. I also do believe there are nice moral type of atheists out there. I have met both types of these people. But I will say that the true Christians that do these terrible awful things are not the majority and I will say that the atheists that are out that you describe there are not in the majority either. When we read of the murders and rapes and other atrocious crimes believe me they are not thinking of God while doing this. Most, if not all that we read about in the papers are not godly people. Most are atheists with no belief at all.

See it's like this Ock. When you become a Christian you are God centered. It's like Christ, as our example would say...."not my will but yours." An Atheiest doesn't have such a moral code. Since they don't believe in God, it would be quite normal for them to say "My will be done." It certainly isn't going to by "thy will."

You're a Buddhist thinking person and I'm a Christian Centered person and we are not going to agree on this Ock. Although I do see some crossover from Buddhism to Christianity that I can't deny. There are some good things there that we can agree on. But I believe it's truth mixed with error and I know who's behind it. And I'm not talking Buddha.

[quote]Yes Sodaiho I would respectfully disagree with you. Religionists maybe, Christians, no. Hitler for example was an extreme hater of the Jews. Some may say he was a Christian because he was brought up Catholic. Many Catholics did turn their backs on the suffering Jews. Some didn't. Those who helped the Jews (and many Christians did) are the true Christians. Those who were the anti-semites were NOT Christians. They couldn't be. I'd suggest you go back and look at all the Christians who did help the Jews during WWII.


Dear KFC, I have no wish to argue history with you, two thousand years not just a few decades. Here is link for you to read in depth as regards this topic.

WWW Link

And another:

WWW Link

And another:

WWW Link

Yes, you have pointed this out. The fact is, I do look past these episodes, but as most Jews I know, I am ever-vigilent. History has amply demonstrated that vigilence as regards Christians is warranted. I believe there are very good people who happen to be Christian. I also believe there are millions of Christians who behave badly. You would deny that they are true Christians. Perhaps. But is doesn't help the mission of the Church, does it, to have masses of followers attend on sunday and go about doing all manner of evil as they leave the Church steps?

I repeat what I said earlier and what Ock has been saying with penetrating clarity: good pre-exists Jesus of Nazareth.

Your argument that Jesus pre-exists everything is true, but then so did Buddha, you, I. As Jews, we believe God is the first and the last; as Buddhists, we hold that our Original Nature, what we call Buddha Nature, is the first and the last; they are the same. If you can get past your need to find refuge in a label, i.e., "Christian" then you will be able to realize the universal truths of all faiths. If you cannot you will remain stuck in the mud of what Buddhists call ignorance (the delusion of duality).

Be well.

No it doesn't and I agree. Some think they are fooling God with their saintly Sundays while reaping the devil's wages all week. It's one of my very big pet peeves. I would love to see more church discipline regarding these types of things. We are not doing what we should be doing in the churches. We have lost our way. I'm afraid tho that most churches nowadays are not anything like the early church wished them to be. For one thing, they are NOT following the mandates of scripture.



so doesn't bad with even more frequency. Have you ever read the Hebrew scriptures of the Kings and Judges? I think those books give a good history of what the world was like before Christ. There were a few good kings but the majority were not only bad, but evil. And Sodaiho they were all Jewish.



I believe Jesus when he said he was the truth, way and life. He proved it with his actions with eyewitness accounts, and unless someone can show me he lied or did not do what he said he did, I have no choice to follow the God who opened my eyes to this truth.

Lula posts:

Ock posts:

Sodaiho posts:

OCK posts:

OCK, which came first, God's definition of "right" and "Good" or Buddha's?

To do right for right's sake implies that right ought to be done. Why ought it to be done? Ought or must supposes some kind of law. All law derives its force from the right of the lawgiver. To do right for right's sake pushes us back to doing right for the sake of the SUpreme Author of all right. No one can do right for right's sake if he ignores God, for without God he cannot prove that what he thinks to be right IS right or has any binding force at all.

I did answer this somewhere. Notice how you phrased it tho. Why not the other way around? Why not say there are examples of true believers that commit all manner of good and kind acts on other humans as well as atheists that live awful sinful lives relative to those believers?

I was trying to make a point...one that keeps escaping you. And for now, I give up. I think I realize it's not a point you will allow yourself to even look at. That's fine - I'll leave it be.

Lula:

To do right for right's sake implies that right ought to be done.

Not necessarily. Once upon a time, doing what was "right" was a matter of survival of the species. If I pushed the food gatherer of my family off the cliff, we all get really hungry (for example). Some basic concepts of things that help our lives and things that hurt them can be learned strictly from experience. Even plain ole stub your toe pain teaches a version of right and wrong. The human brain is quite capable of expounding upon things that cause greater and lesser pain and suffering without intervention or existence of a deity. It's behavioral science.

OCK, which came first, God's definition of "right" and "Good" or Buddha's?

It's an irrational question. I do not have proof of any deity's existence and neither do you. I don't even necessarily believe all I read about the Buddha. To me it's just more ancient texts written by who knows who with who knows what agenda. I prefer Buddhism, however, because what I have read makes scientific naturalist sense to me (the explanations given for consciousness coming from the activation of the senses, for example.) I also like it because it doesn't proselytize.

KFC, same goes for the Christ creating Buddha statement. I'd love to discuss it further, but it's impossible. Your only points come from a book I don't believe is wholly true, and since at this point I find it impossible to unveil the veracity of it, I can't entertain it as a source of irrefutable truth in a discussion of this nature.

As far as reading what you gave me on deity, I did. And I didn't find what I was looking for - an explicit statement from Jesus saying "I am the son of God" or "I am divine." Don't get me wrong - the implication is clear, but those specific words aren't there. I was seeking this due to something I read that a Muslim wrote and was curious.

and unless someone can show me he lied or did not do what he said he did, I have no choice to follow the God who opened my eyes to this truth.

Ever heard of the Celestial Teapot? I googled it to quote for you>

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. ~Bertrand Russell

Ciao

Well, by all y'all's definitions concerning the world, Satan, and Christ himself, that should be enough. You say that Christ created everything, even the angels. Well, Buddha was a human, and if all humans were created by Christ, then Christ created Buddha. Maybe I misinterpreted something from previous conversations, but that's what I'm getting. Oh well.

Oh, Bertrand Russell...you just wanted space tea, you British philosopher, you.

That's a great quote, by the way.

~Zoo

Leauki posts: #26

KFC posts:

Christ does mention the Temple but as you say, KFC, not ever in reference to Him reguilding it.

He did predict the Temples demise though(in 70AD), St.Matt. 24:1-2,
"Jesus left the Temple and was going away, when his disciples came to show Him the buildings of the Temple. And He answering, said to them, "Do you see all these things (the Temple)? Amen, I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be destroyed."

Right after Christ cast the money changers from the Temple and the Jews asked Him why He did this. Christ spoke of raising "it" up (the Temple), "it" referred to His own Body as the Temple. When some Jews demanded a miracle of Christ as proof of His authority, He said, referring to His Body, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. St.John 2:19.

The Divinity of Christ is proved by His words, by His deeds, and by His prophecy.
1--In the Temple and in the presence of many leading Israelites, Christ distinctly declared Himself to be the Son of God, calling the Temple the house of His Father. If God be His Father, Hemust be God the Son.
2-- Christ proved His Divinity by the power and majesty of His righteous indignation when He drove the buyers and sellers from the Temple.
3--He showed His Divinity or more exactly, His omniscience, by distinctly foretelling that the Jews would kill Him (destroying the Temple of His body), and that He would raise His dead Body to life again on the 3rd day.

This was more plainly stated when the Scribes and the Pharisees requested a sign of His Messiahship. "...A sign (would be given) of Jonah the prophet, for even Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." St.Matt. 12:40.

I could go on....

  

OCK POSTS: #32

I posted a reply to this on the other thread as well...

No doubt, there are many without a belief in Christianity who give in their lives examples of moral conduct. It isn't new that a system of ethics can exist without a religion as in the case of Greek philosophers and rationalists while the ethics of Buddhism adapts or entwines themselves around the religion of the countries where it penetrates.


So, how do/why/what makes unbelievers distinguish good from evil, right from wrong? Where does there sense of moral obligation come from?

I would suggest that Someone implanted that understanding in us, the laws of physics can't. In doing good conduct, you are most probably answering your voice of conscience hardwired by God for your own good. In doing good, in not being a serial killer, thief or child rapist, in being honest,ethical, and moral, you are in practice applying God's commandment of love. Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute standards and Someone competent to set those standards. That Someone is God who is our Beginning and our Last End.

ASAXYGIRL POSTS:

I agree. We are hardwired with that something that is within ourselves. Everyone of us has a sense of right and wrong. We know interiorily when we are doing wrong. Something inside rebukes our conduct. We know we are going against an instinctive voice. It's the voice of conscience dictating to us a law we did not make and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other people know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, and condemning us afterward.

The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver. God alone could do this.