After reading your replies, I have to accept what you said. I
don't want to comment anything about God. I felt outsiders will
think I'm not showing respect.
All the questions I asked points at how people interpret their
God. Practically speaking, you think what God is
and you say God is everything. I have no choice but to end further
discussions.
Pardon me being straightforward, what you said is sound
contradictory. For example, in 1, you said self is not permanent...
i thought all along self is permanent in Christianity... then
suddenly now it changed there is no permanent self because the
Bible say so.
In the earlier post you said the universe has a beginning, but
when i pose the question of permanence in my previous post, you
said God sustains it. Then my question of whether permanence is
valid or not becomes side-tracked. Conveniently.
I mentioned that it is the wisdom of our ancestors that provide
what we have today. Otherwise i think we don't even know how to
grow rice. But you attributed the wisdom or intelligence to the God
you mentioned. The counter-question you asked makes me wonder what
you mean, arguing back again why i felt regrettable.
If I were to tell my friends about this, they will think you damn
ungrateful lot 
The question you asked: how good is good? I really don't how to
reply. Is good quantitative...? Measurable or comparable..? Or even
perfect?
You have been cordial, but the replies shows that you don't
understand and tries to put God in the front picture, leaving us no
alternatives.
I got a sense of ill-will from you when i read the last paragraph.
Describing yourself as a soldier to lay down the weapon and fight
the enemies.
Anyway.... that's not the main point. I have already mentioned
debating fundamental difference in religions is pointless (in fact,
very early in this thread). No matter how much you bring in
Christian concepts is wasting your time and effort here. You can't
bring in Christian values to question emptiness, karma etc etc....
It doesn't fit!
1. Thanks for reading my replies. It is perfectly fine by me if you
choose to offer your comments. I am not easily offended by fair and
thought-out comments.
2. The fact that people have various views/interpretations about
God does not detract or negate the fact that objective truth about
God exists. Logically not all views are equally true.
3. What you saw as contradictory is really more of your
misunderstanding.Remember, a contradiction takes the form that A is
non-A at the same time in the same sense. The Bible does not teach
a permanent self in the sense that Buddhism says. Only God is
eternal, everything else is contingent upon God. The only
"permanent" self to speak of would be God Himself who is
self-existing and uncaused and the ground of all that exist.
4. Since the universe has a beginning, it cannot be permanent in
the Buddhist sense of having "inherent existence" of itself. The
universe is a contingent entity, brought into existence by an
eternal all powerful God. God, who is eternal, can sustain the
universe for as long as He wishes, even for all eternity. Again the
source of this sustenance is God.
5. You are mistaken if you think I am undermining the wisdom of
our forefathers. My point is that only God can explain why human
beings are intelligent. All other naturalistic explanations fall
flat as inadequate to account for what needs to be explained.
6. I am asking about the standard of good you use to call
something good. And yes, I was referring to moral perfection.
7. I am not so much putting God in the front picture as much as
putting God in the whole picture. Apart from God, nothing can be
explained. God's world must be seen through God's Word to be
understood and seen correctly.
8. The soldier analogy is just that, no ill will intended. The
Bible uses the metaphor of war, battle, soldier many
times.
9. I think the main point is to compare and contrast the two
religions in some ways, to see similarities and appreciate the
differences. Ultimately what we have are two worldviews, or ways of
looking at the world to make sense of the world we live in. They
are two fundamentally different worldviews. Logically
both cannot be true at the same time in the same
sense.