Blood Sacrifice

last SG · 2013-01-20T16:32:12+00:00

If God exists, then God would have told us how to get right with Him. Surely this would have implications for your 8 fold path. Buddha did not claim to hear...

BroInChrist SG

Well, the fact that he was guided and influenced by the misguided notions of 'weaker' and 'stronger' races or the notion that their own race is the 'Aryan superior race' - that already proves my point that Hitler is guided by ignorance.

He may have good (or rather what he felt was good) intentions for his people and race and for the future of mankind. But it is guided by ignorance and lack of being able to extend compassion beyond his limited nationalistic and racial scope.

Hitler should be made accountable to his actions before a court of law, no doubt, but not necessarily because it is 'evil' or 'wrong' but because he was responsible for so many unwholesome actions such as the deaths of so many people and countless untold sufferings as a result of his actions driven by the mental afflictions of craving, aggression and delusion. The court of law's job is simply to ensure that law and order is enforced on the people. If no law and order is enforced, people will be free to commit crimes without deterrence.

Lastly I understand your point about God and God's judgement... I'm just saying this does not apply to Buddhist karma.

1. Regarding Hitler, my point was that he acted based on certain beliefs. In other words, beliefs can have terrible consequences. Wrong beliefs acted upon can be horrible consequences. You can of course say that he is ignorant of the truth but I think if you could put him on trial he would defend himself that he was acting on what science is telling him. He would deny he was ignorant and say that you are. The point is then not that he was ignorant, but that what he did was evil and wrong, regardless of his ignorance. He had no right to murder millions of people.

2. It is the police's job to enforce law and order. It is the court's job to determine if someone should be punished for doing wrong. The court exists to uphold the existing law and to judge cases based on existing laws. Hitler cannot be tried for unwholesome acts. If he is, then so should the US President when he authorised the dropping of the A-Bomb to end the war. No, the court rules the action as good or evil. I think the idea of wholesome or unwholesome does not enter the court's vocabulary in rendering a judgement.

3. In Buddhism, people are also being judged, but more by an impersonal law of karma, am I right?

BroInChrist SG

we explain it with 12 dependent origination.

With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise

With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises

With Consciousness as condition, Mind and Matter arise

With Mind and Matter as condition, Sense Gates arise

With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises

With Contact as condition, Feeling arises

With Feeling as condition, Craving arises

With Craving as condition, Clinging arises

With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises

With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises

With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

only the law of change is continuum(we try not to use eternal). even the Mind undergo change as it's not independent. even the change of emotion, or thoughts is a form of change. and u can say karma of wholesome and unwholesome is created after that of ignorance. but Buddha(s) who escape this do not have karma anymore nor will be affected by the law of change. it's neutral, as within good, there's bad and within bad there's good. so we can not say what's good or bad.

to ask who set it up is like asking who's the bachelor's wife. meaningless. or just say the mind set itself up. it's perfect in itself, hence what physic it manifest will also work properly without creating any chaos. like how a car should move, how a bird can fly and how all things fall into place etc.

Question then is, how does ignorance came about as a condition in the first place? Condition is if, then. It is still contingent upon something else. And why should ignorance be the starting condition?

The law of change seems to have its counterpart in the theory of evolution, which means change. But changes presupposes the existence of something. Something must exist in order for it to change. But if change is constant, then it would also require a start or point when it began to exist and change. God , on the other hand, does not change. His dealings with His creation may differ, but God never changes. He is always God. God who is perfect has no evil. He is morally pure and perfect. To say that there is bad within good is like saying there is impurity within the pure. It is self-contradictory.

It is not meaningless to ask who sets up the laws of karma, since by experience we know that laws require a law-giver. The bachelor's wife question is meaningless because it stems from a failure to note the very definition of bachelor itself. It is not the same situation here. How can the mind set itself up? It would have to exists prior to setting itself up, which is absurd. Better to say that the Mind has always existed. God has always existed. It is a divine Mind. How a car can move is because human intelligence was used to put parts and tools to get a machine. A bird can fly because God made it to fly, just like man make planes to fly. Which part of a plane flies? None. There are no flying parts in a plane. But put the parts together and you can get it to fly. The plane is a marvel of intelligent design, how much more so the common bird?

BroInChrist SG

1. Rain is not caused by a God, but by "natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc." Universe also has its cause, but by natural phenomena, and it is being explained by science as investigations advance, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCnvuKb0T7E

(p.s. I have to admit, I'm a bit of a fan of Michio Kaku, hehe)

2. No, of course Buddhists don't concede the necessity of a God, but points to the fallacy of the need to have only 'One God' even in the imaginary scenario that the world is created by intelligent being(s). But the very scenario itself is flawed as pointed out later.

3. No, we do not say a mind existed eternally, that would be the wrong view of eternalism or self. We say that the mind continuum has no beginning, but it is not an unchanging entity but a stream, arising and ceasing moment to moment, and then causing another mind moment to arise, like candle lighting up another candle ad infinitum.

1. Because God sets the laws of nature in place, so rain obeys the the laws of nature. In that sense we attribute rain to God. In fact, God can also send rain in response to man's prayers.

2. Why would you say that it is imaginary that the universe is created by an intelligent designer? And as noted, you have not shown that it is a fallacy. As mentioned, an omnipotent being is all that is necessary to get the job done, applying the principle of parsimony.

3. It begs the question that eternalism is wrong. If you say that the Mind exists and that it has no beginning, that is already saying that it is eternal and has always existed. You said it is a stream, but a stream of what? How can it be arising and ceasing moment to moment, which means it exists and then not exists? It's quite an incoherent thing. God, on the other hand, always existed. He never ceases to be God or ceases to exist. He never changes. God is the solely independent inherently existing entity which all other depends on.

BroInChrist SG

In the book I showed you, the problem of evil is also addressed:

The Problem of Evil

Perhaps the most potent argument against the existence of an all- powerful and all-loving God is the undeniable fact that there is so much pain and suffering in the world. If there really is a God of love who has unlimited power why doesn’t he put an end to all this evil? Christians try to answer this difficult question in several ways.

Firstly they will say that evil is caused by humans not God and that if only we would follow God’s commandments there would be no pain, evil or suffering. However, while it is true that evils such as war, rape, murder and exploitation can be blamed on humans, they can hardly be blamed for the millions who die each year in earthquakes, floods, epidemics and accidents, all of which are natural events. In fact, if the Bible is correct, the germs that cause hideous diseases like TB, polio, cholera, leprosy etc. and all the misery, deformity and suffering to which they give rise, were created by God before he created man (Gen. 1:11-12). So it is not correct to say that evil and suffering are caused by humankind.

Another way fundamentalist Christians will try to explain away evil is to say that it is God’s punishment for those who do not follow his commandments. However, this implies that terrible things only happen to bad people which are certainly not true. We often hear of painful sickness or disasters befalling good people including good Christians and likewise we often hear of really bad people who seem to have nothing but good fortune and success. So it cannot be said that suffering and evil are God’s way of punishing sinners.

Next, Christians will say that God allows evil to exist in the world because he wants to give us the freedom to choose good over evil and thereby be worthy of salvation. Evil, they will say, exists to test us. At first this seems to be a good explanation. If a man sees someone being beaten up by a bully he has a choice between turning away (doing wrong) or deciding to help the victim (doing right). If he decides to help then he has been tested and found good. However, as we have seen before, an all-knowing God must already know what choices a person will make so what is the point of testing us? Also, even if suffering and evil exist to test us couldn’t an all-loving God think of a less cruel and painful way to do this? Further, it seems rather unloving and unfair to allow pain to be inflicted on one person just so that another can have the opportunity to choose between good and evil.

Some fundamentalist and born again Christians will try to free God from responsibility for evil by saying that it was not created by him but by the Devil. This may be true but again if God is so loving why doesn’t he simply prevent the Devil from causing suffering and doing evil? And in any case, who created the Devil in the first place? Surely it was God. By this stage the Christian will start to get a bit desperate and shift the argument from logic to pragmatism. He will say that even though there is suffering in the world we can use it as an opportunity to develop courage and patience. This is undoubtedly true but it still does not explain why an all-loving God allows babies to die of cancer, innocent bystanders to be killed in accidents and leprosy victims to suffer deformity, misery and pain. In fact, the existence of so much pointless and unnecessary pain and suffering in the world is very strong evidence that there is no all-loving, all-powerful God.

The problem of evil is really a toothless argument.

Remember, if there is no God, there is no problem of evil. Apart from there being a God you cannot define good or evil because you have no moral absolute standard to judge.

If there is a God, then and only then can the "problem" of evil be raised. If so, then the problem of evil is not an argument against the existence of God.

Neither is the argument from evil an indictment on the omnipotence of God. God CAN stop evil right now. But God has His time table when this will all stop. Do not mistake God's choice to decide when to stop evil as His lack of ability to stop evil.

An Eternal Now SG

1. Again the better word is not conventional me or inherently me, but whether I am a contingent being or a necessary being. Other than God, everything else is contingent. Other than God, everything else is dependent on God, who is eternally self-existing and independent. Again this would be the Mind we both talked about.

2. There is no logical fallacy at all. Christians believe that the perfect creation was ruined by the Fall. But the fact of design is not negated. Look at yourself, you are a marvel of intricate design. Look at the eye, see how things work together to give you sight. To think that things just fall into place by itself or by some undirected natural processes is IMO a highly absurd proposition. Having the conditions for life just tells us what is necessary for life, it does not mean it is sufficient for life. Conditions are not causes. From nothing nothing comes. There are no conditions to speak of. God, however, is the cause of the universe. He doesn't need any conditions, He spoke and it happened. The idea of there being billions of planets is just pure speculation. We really don't know. But we do know that as far as we can see, only earth contains living things. And via the anthropic principle it has been shown that earth is unique, just like what the Bible says.

3/4. Sorry but you have not established any fallacy in my argument at all. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause. As mentioned, I am taking a macro view and taking the universe as a whole. So be it rain or snow or fire and what not that occurs in the universe, it is ultimately caused by the Being that caused the universe to exist and who sets the laws of nature to give us rain, snow, etc. I am saying that God is the ULTIMATE cause, not just about proximate causes.

5. Sure, if I put ants and food together I would have an ant colony. But this does not answer the question of wher the ants or food originated from. Like it or not, you will inevitably have to acknowledge a first cause. And endless chain of causes answers nothing. Besides, I think you have also conceded the existence of an eternal Mind, just that you have a different view of it. I believe it is a being called God but you think it is some sort of collective consciousness, am I right?

1. Yes I understand, but Buddhism has a totally different framework. We don't talk about a first cause, or creation, as if we are being created by someone. It is via causes and conditions that everything manifests.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that aging & death are self-made, that they are other-made, that they are both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — they arise spontaneously. However, from birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death." -

2. It is not at all an absurd proposition. It is however an absurd proposition that out of billions of planets, none of them could have the conditions for life. In fact evolution can only have happened to such an advanced level after 14 billion years of history in the universe (not 6000 years like some Christians believed)

The fact that there are billions of planets are not speculations at all - see http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/astronomers-billions-of-super-earths-in-habitable-zone-of-red-dwarf-stars/

Already, hundreds of earth sized planets are discovered, and they are still at a very early stage of discovering even more earth-sized planets, needless to speak of the countless larger, non-earth-sized planets.

There is therefore no reason to believe that we are alone - there are likely many other advanced civilizations out there.

3. and 4. Again, the so called 'laws of nature' are like u said, contingent upon the natural processes/phenomena itself, i.e. without h2o, without all the elements on earth coming together and forming a chain reaction, there would be no rain.

There are in fact rain in other planets even in our solar system, this is a scientific fact, but they do not necessarily rain h2o and their environment may be too hostile for life.

5. No, I do not concede an eternal unchanging mind or a collective consciousness. There is an experience that may be reified into an eternal unchanging mind or collective consciousness. However, deeper insights reveal that this luminous consciousness is always unique, without subject/object duality, but unique processes that flows on and on without a beginning. Each of us have unique minds though equally luminous and empty. Since each mindstream is everchanging and impermanent, without an independent unchanging core, it cannot be said to be substantially existing. But like a candle that lights another candle, the dream continues via cause and effect.

We do not teach first cause but beginningless stream of cause and effects.

An Eternal Now SG

3. In Buddhism, people are also being judged, but more by an impersonal law of karma, am I right?

1. Ignorant people will not know they are ignorant, otherwise they are not ignorant. What he did was out of unwholesome mental factors like craving, aggression and delusion that invaded his mind. His actions harmed and killed millions of people and there will be very negative karmic results for that.

2. Yes. It is the court's job to determine if someone should be punished for violating law, regardless of whether it is considered morally wrong. For example, if someone always have extramarital affairs and sex with prostitutes even though he/she is married, it is still legally considered 'OK' by law. Of course, on the grounds of morality or karma, it is not so 'wholesome' a thing to do. So basically, the law does not really care about 'evil'. It just follows rules and that is of foremost importance in the eyes of the law/court. Of course, the judge always weighs factors like whether the person is repentant, his intentions for committing the crime, whether he has committed crimes before or is a repeated offender, etc.

3. In Buddhism, people are not being judged, but the impersonal law of karma plays out like smoking leads to cancer doesn't require judgement.

An Eternal Now SG

The problem of evil is really a toothless argument.

Remember, if there is no God, there is no problem of evil. Apart from there being a God you cannot define good or evil because you have no moral absolute standard to judge.

If there is a God, then and only then can the "problem" of evil be raised. If so, then the problem of evil is not an argument against the existence of God.

Well precisely, if there is no God, there is no problem of evil. That is why in Buddhism there is no problem of evil. It is in Christianity that there is a problem of evil and I do not see a satisfactory solution or answer by them. If God has a choice to stop evil, and that he is compassionate, he should do it now. If you saw someone with clothes burning would you let them burn for 5 minutes before you save him?

An Eternal Now SG

1. Because God sets the laws of nature in place, so rain obeys the the laws of nature. In that sense we attribute rain to God. In fact, God can also send rain in response to man's prayers.

1. 2. as addressed above.

3. There is no 'mind that exists without beginning' but rather, the stream of mental arising and ceasing has happened without a beginning. There's a big difference there.

I.e. there is no one unchanging mind but Mind1, Mind2, Mind3, Mind4, each moment arising and ceasing as it arises and causing another moment to arises... this is how the psycho-physical aggregate arises and ceases moment to moment via causes and conditions.

sinweiy SG

i'm refering to physics and how things can work without creating chaos to existence. aerodynamics is behind how bird and plane fly. mind is perfect to manifest something that works, even if we use science to explain, it can fall into place, it obey "non-chaotic" order, nothing illogical. i am not refering to how animals come about for the moment. who sets up the laws of karma is also meanless because it stems from a failure to note the very definition of karma/change itself. it's change at work. if everything do not change, then all will be dead Still, there's no existence what so ever, god. if there's change, there's everything, ur god included. like i say the movement of the mind or the action of ur god is included in the change. an act is a form of change. it's absurd to speak of something before change. as there's nothing (hmm.. Tao De Jing, lol) no action equal no change. if god no change, then there's nothing to act upon. hence change supercede All existence.

to ask how does ignorance(or curiousity) came about as a condition in the first place? same as asking what came before god and why god created human in the first place? out of fun?

actually ignorance was not a problem originally. since we are originally enlightened. we are originally all in One, one in all. like the wave and ocean example. the ocean represent the whole, the wave represent the sub-units/'children'. the wave was already a part of ocean. if there's no ocean, there's no wave. if there's no wave, there's no ocean. the ocean created the wave. the wave also created the ocean. but the wave did not know it hence it was "ignorance". do wave need to return to ocean? no need. when one is Awake to this. Everything is already perfect in itself. Interconnected. might be hard for u to understand, u would rather understand stories.

i say within bad got good is simple. example, we know lying is bad. but if it's use to prevent a murder, then it's good. killing is bad, but for self defend or saving the lifes of ur family, is ok, good. good and bad has their usefulness. the advance mind see non-bias between the two. it see good as good, see bad as good too, hence it's always pure itself. of coz see good as good is easy, but to see bad as good is more difficult. things will always come in both good and bad. but the trick is to be at peace of mind. when there's bad, actually, it's helping to teach another to be good. if there's no bad, then Too good also no good. everything cannot go to the extreme. too extreme become bad already.

2009novice SG

In the book I showed you, the problem of evil is also addressed:

The Problem of Evil

oh... thanks for sharing... i think i read it before somewhere

2009novice SG

Hi Bic,

can you explain this part... i don't understand...

In fact, if the Bible is correct, the germs that cause hideous diseases like TB, polio, cholera, leprosy etc. and all the misery, deformity and suffering to which they give rise, were created by God before he created man (Gen. 1:11-12).

So God created virus, bacteria and bring suffering to us... is it true...? Why...?

2009novice SG

The problem of evil is really a toothless argument.

Remember, if there is no God, there is no problem of evil. Apart from there being a God you cannot define good or evil because you have no moral absolute standard to judge.

If there is a God, then and only then can the "problem" of evil be raised. If so, then the problem of evil is not an argument against the existence of God.

Why God has a time table...? Can you explain this too...?

2009novice SG

1. Because God sets the laws of nature in place, so rain obeys the the laws of nature. In that sense we attribute rain to God. In fact, God can also send rain in response to man's prayers.

God sending rain...? That means u refute the scientific fact of how rain is formed...?

Why God not distribute the rain evenly... so there is no drought or flood... deserts will vanish too

OK this "stream" that u think is incoherent can be observed and testable....

You go and find a quiet place .e.g. your study room

Sit down. Relax. Close your eyes... Now... observe your mind... did u notice random thoughts coming in non-stop...? That is the stream...Like a monkey swinging from tree to tree.

AEN do you agree?

BroInChrist SG

1. I understand that Buddhists don't (want to) talk about a first cause or consider it as irrelevant or unimportant compared to the present. But not wanting to talk about the past is not the same as denying anything about the past. And if you believe in causes and conditions that things manifest, why would that be a denial of God as cause of the universe? Can you clarify if the Buddha himself in his documented teachings explicitly DENIED there is a Creator God?

2. Indeed only if there is birth i.e. life can one talk about death. The precondition for death is life, or birth if you like. So what is the precondition for life? I submit that it is Life itself. Life begats life. Even in science we have the law of biogenesis, where life comes only from life.

3. The issue is not the conditions for life. As mentioned, having the conditions for life does not translate to having life. What is necessary conditions does not mean it is sufficient conditions. We have no evidence of life elsewhere, it is merely an article of faith, not a known fact. Which is why I consider this speculation. You may strongly believe there is life out there, but it is just strong faith, perhaps even wishful thinking.

4. The main reason that people believe there is life out there is simply because people believe in evolution. They reason that given billions of years life can evolve elsewhere just as it did on earth. But that's just a belief. There are good reasons to think that evolution is false.

5. To say that without H2O there would be no rain is a rather incoherent thing. Rain IS H2O. The issue is not about the conditions for rain, or the laws of nature. The question is what can account for the laws of nature themselves? Just to clarify, I am not disputing any known undisputed fact of the universe, I am saying that all these need to be accounted for in some ways. We can actually sum it all up at the level of the universe and ask, since the universe began to exist it must be contingent, so what is its cause? What is the best explanation?

6. But it seems you do teach an eternal but eternally changing stream of consciousness. You said you teach an endless streams of causes and effects. But this is incoherent if you think about it. You must have a first cause. Every effect requires a cause. You can even have causes that are also effects, but you can't have ALL causes being effects. It is illogical.

BroInChrist SG

1. Ignorance can only be dispelled by knowledge. But then it begs the question, how do you know the person who claims to have knowledge is not merely expressing ignorance as well? Hitler can turn around and accuse you of ignorance too, can't he?

2. I think your point about the law saying prostitution is OK is flawed. What is legal does not always translate to morally right. In many instances the legal law is far from catching up with the moral law. It's basically that sinful man always fail to live up to God's moral standard. Every law in existence is directly or indirectly founded on God's moral law.

3. Smoking causes cancer is a effect because of a law of nature, chemistry at work that interferes with our biology. But by saying that this is the same law that applies when one tells a lie or commits adultery is to confuse things, to commit the naturalistic fallacy. That which DESCRIBES what happens should not be confuse with that which PRESCRIBES what ought to be.

BroInChrist SG

1. Thank you for clarifying that in Buddhism there is no problem of evil because there is no such thing as evil, or good for that matter.

2. Yes, it is only in Christianity there there is a "problem" of evil. But it is not a problem at all because it FAILS to be an argument against the existence of God, since it can only be raised in a theistic context.

3. Your analogy of the person with burning clothes is a good one. In the Letter of Jude, the apostle encourages the Christian to save others by snatching them from the fire, referring to the need to preach the Gospel. All of us are in danger of hell fire, our lives are burning, so to speak. Only a fireman can save us, and this fireman is Christ who came through the fires to take us out. Perhaps I am wrong, but wouldn't Buddhism be saying that the one on fire try to save himself or die trying?

4. People see the problem of evil as a problem because they are entertaining wrong views of God or have failed to think clearly about what they are demanding. The question is not about God's ability, because God can surely stop evil right now. But have you thought deeply about what that would mean if God should decide to stop evil now? What outcome would most of us have when we face God in judgment? Consider the parable about the wheat and the tares. The enemy planted the tares which grew with the wheat. The solution is not to go in and destroy the tares, for you would also destroy the wheat. The solution would be to wait for harvest, and when that comes you can easily separate the wheat from the tares, and gather the tares for burning.

BroInChrist SG

to ask how does ignorance(or curiousity) came about as a condition in the first place? same as asking what came before god and why god created human in the first place? out of fun?

1. It is not that the laws of nature allows birds to fly. It is that birds are DESIGNED for flight. The laws of nature allows humans to fly too, but we cannot do so because we are not designed to fly. But we can make things that can overcome the law of gravity to allow us to fly. The issue is, what best account for the laws of nature? The fathers of modern science believe in a rational and orderly universe because they believe it was created by God.

2. If nothing exists then there is no change to talk about. To talk about the fact of change without addressing the existence of things on which change can work on is still an incomplete answer. Or perhaps it is an issue that is being sidestepped to avoid the conclusion that there is a Creator? It does not follow that if God exists then He must also be subject to change. Existence precedes change, but you have put it the other way round. Consider the belief in evolution. Why do evolution use the tactic of saying that abiogenesis is different from evolution? Only so because they can then ASSUME the existence of life, on which biological evolution (change) can logically and chronologically proceed.

3. If the original condition was not ignorance, then what was the condition giving rise to ignorance? If everything was perfect, then why imperfect come into the picture? Again wave and ocean not good example. Wave is caused by wind conditions blowing over the ocean. Wave is just effect of wind upon ocean.

4. The OT story of Joseph tells about how things work out for good eventually even after the brothers intended it for evil. The fact that the brothers sold Joseph as a slave is wrong, even if the end resulted in the salvation of the whole family of Israel. Similarly lying cannot be good in itself, even though the eventual effects may not be considered bad or evil. In a fallen world where a murderer ask you to tell him where your friend is, you will mislead him by telling him your friend went the other way. Why? Because you do not owe the truth to a murderer. (But if you hate your friend then maybe you may offer the murderer the truth!) The sanctity of life in this case overrides the presumption that one should tell the truth. But I note again that AEN said that the notion of good and evil does not exist in Buddhism.

BroInChrist SG

Hi Bic,

can you explain this part... i don't understand...

In Genesis 1, at the end of Creation week God said it was all "very good". Therefore all the hideous things you mentioned did not exist in the original Creation. All these came about as a result of the Fall.

BroInChrist SG

Why God has a time table...? Can you explain this too...?

That God has a "time-table" is just my using "skilful means" to communicate to you. God is timeless. But God can act in time, just as He can act in creation. From our human time-bound perspective, God has set a time when all things would be restored.

BroInChrist SG

God sending rain...? That means u refute the scientific fact of how rain is formed...?

Why God not distribute the rain evenly... so there is no drought or flood... deserts will vanish too

AEN do you agree?

When I say the President of the US send the atomic bomb, am I being unscientific or anti-science? Nope, I am only using it in the sense that the President authorised the detonation of the bomb, which was delivered by pilots on the bomber plane. Please understand the similar usage of the term "God sends the rain".

It is easy to ask why God not send this, or do that, or this, or that. You must understand that God is not your genie in the bottle, one who does your bidding or meet your demands. Such a genie in the bottle is not the Creator of the Universe. The same sun falls on the good and the wicked. The same sun ruins your food just as it makes food in plants. The issue is not about equality as you perceived it to be, the question is whether you can account for the very existence of things like the sun, the plants, the rain, the universe. We live in a fallen world, but that does not mean we live in a world where there is no God.

How do you know this stream of thoughts is not something I make up in my mind? It is still what I am perceiving in my mind. How do you know what I perceive is not conventional truths but ultimate truths?

« Previous Page Next Page »