One can't prove that God but science makes God unnecessary

last SG · 2013-01-24T10:27:08+00:00

So were you taught or equipped to handle questions asked about the Christian faith? When you had questions how did you deal with them? like said, long forgot...

BroInChrist SG

that's what i said, cannot. imagination is another thing.

indeed logic is in Buddhism too. we said when we plant an apple seed, you only can get an apple tree, no other type of fruit tree. reap what u planted. another example is no matter how you cook sand, u cannot get cooked rice. i think possibility has it's limit. squared circle is one kind of geometry logic. married bachelor is word logic(?). things like shrinking the entire universe into a mustard seed as an example was written in our text, even when we think it's not possible.

I do not think you would succeed in imagining a squared circle either. Anyway, as the Bible says, God created living things to reproduce after their kinds. This is why you do not get an orange fron an apple tree. This is also why evolution is false. All this is by God's divine design. Nothing is left to undirected natural causes.

sinweiy SG

"evolution" from Lucy to modern man to us is okay. Bacteria to 'evolve'/mutate up the life chain is far fetch. "evolution" that is related to reincarnation is of another sort. to Buddhism and hinduism, there is reincarnation from one body to the next body, be it human or animal etc. like how one consciousness reborn into lower or higher lifeform. but for now reincarnation can only be proven by deep meditation and or a bit with hypnosis(?). it was not a Buddha's founded concept but a norm then for yogis.

Steveyboy SG

except to Buddhism and hinduism, there is reincarnation from one body to the next body, be it human or animal etc. but for now reincarnation can only be proven by deep meditation and or a bit with hypnosis(?). it was not a Buddha's founded concept but a norm then for yogis.

@Sinweiy & @BroInChrist

Well, it looks like Christianity is incompatible with current scientific thinking. Buddhism talks nothing about evolution as far as I know but it does accept that there are other worlds with other beings and that we have been reincarnating for a long, long time, even before this planet was even formed yet.

BroInChrist SG

1. Problem is, there is no evidence to show that Lucy was a transitional missing link between ape and man. See http://creation.com/lucy-isnt-the-missing-link

2. You would be surprised that bacteria evolving to man is what is being taught as fact to school children! Darwin said that life may have begun in a warm little pond. That's a nice way of calling pondscum.

3. Urrm....correct me if I am wrong but I think Buddha did not teach reincarnation.

BroInChrist SG

@Sinweiy & @BroInChrist

Christianity is not incompatible with current scientific thinking, it is only incompatible with popularly accepted "scientific" thinking on the subject of origins. The Bible's focus is on earth. I believe life exists only on earth, and thus far the evidence is fully consistent with the Bible.

Steveyboy SG

1. Problem is, there is no evidence to show that Lucy was a transitional missing link between ape and man. See http://creation.com/lucy-isnt-the-missing-link

3. Urrm....correct me if I am wrong but I think Buddha did not teach reincarnation.

Even the link is not proven between ape and man, it doesn't mean that it is not a baseless theory. The theory of evolution has many implications and is the basis for many other branch sciences like Genetics and so forth. So, you cannot dispel the entire theory of evolution just because there is no direct link between ape and man.

The Buddha taught reincarnation via his teachings on karma. Anyway, there is already a pervalent belief system on reincarnation in ancient indian society. However, he redefine reasons for getting out of the vicious cycle of death and rebirth. The Hindus believe it is so that they get to become one with their God(s). Buddha was a revolutionary teacher who taught in minute detail, the reasons of what compells us to take uncontrollable rebirths and why and how to get out of this cyclic existence. He taught on many levels to suit the audience of different listeners. These became the major schools of Buddhism that exists today.

sinweiy SG

1. Problem is, there is no evidence to show that Lucy was a transitional missing link between ape and man. See http://creation.com/lucy-isnt-the-missing-link

3. Urrm....correct me if I am wrong but I think Buddha did not teach reincarnation.

?brother, are u confused? did i sound like i agreed that human came from ape?. the missing link i already know and mentioned to u. or are u supporting me or thought i disagreed. funny.

reincarnation no need to teach. people in India already knew during that time. rebirth is what Buddha redefined the meaning since He taught selflessness or not soul. rebirth is every moment. now we also discovered that the cells of our body undergo an entire change every 7 years. however i do came across a school from zazen that reject reincarnation. they had jump the gun into going straight into Enlightenment, as when one is rid of karma, there's no more rebirth. they stress on emptiness a lot. no this, no that, no rebirth etc.

BroInChrist SG

?brother, are u confused? did i sound like i agreed that human came from ape?. the missing link i already know and mentioned to u. or are u supporting me or thought i disagreed. funny.

You said Lucy evolving to man is OK, but Lucy is an ape. So I am not confused, but are you?

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

So you are agreeing that Buddha did not teach reincarnation and in fact rejected it? And what does the knowledge that our cells can renew and repair themselves (again this testify to an intelligent designer) have anything to do with rebirth?

sinweiy SG

You said Lucy evolving to man is OK, but Lucy is an ape. So I am not confused, but are you?

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

oh, no wonder, from a documentry i saw, they say Lucy where more 2 legged and non-ape like, so i was thinking that Lucy was more human like compare to the four legged(?) ape. but what ever, i also not interested, if she is ape-like, then we skip this to the next that is more human-like. as long as i agreed that there's still a missing link and a little change/mutation/"evolving" in body/bone structure/skin color is ok due to location and different habits. yes?

Buddha never teach yes, but also never rejected reincarnation, as there's still karma. karma is the cause of reincarnation. so long as one has not reached an arahat stage, they still undergo endless reincarnation. rebirth is more like becoming again, stream of consciousness, cycles in nature, continuum. nothing is fixed unchanging. hinduism thought that their god was unchanging, but Buddha said no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

dunno, rejecting reincarnation in some zazen school is a skill in mean(?) to directly jump into a higher level. though if jump wrongly, can result into nullism.

An Eternal Now SG

No traditional Zen schools reject rebirth.

Only some modernist nihilist American "Buddhist".

They are plain nihilists... shouldn't be called Buddhist at all.

sinweiy SG

No traditional Zen schools reject rebirth.

Only some modernist nihilist American "Buddhist".

They are plain nihilists... shouldn't be called Buddhist at all.

yea.

BroInChrist SG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

dunno, rejecting reincarnation in some zazen school is a skill in mean(?) to directly jump into a higher level. though if jump wrongly, can result into nullism.

That's the problem with evolution. The evidence is so scanty that evolutionists are desperate to make a big issue out of a few pieces of bones. It makes for a great story with lots of money in it. It will usually last for a while so that they can milk it for a while. And then when it is finally revealed as just an ape, they call it still a relative of humans and look for the next thing to hype on.

So if Buddha never teach reincarnation, yet you claimed that he never rejected reincarnation, then wouldn't your belief in reincarnation be a belief resting on silence?

sinweiy SG

So if Buddha never teach reincarnation, yet you claimed that he never rejected reincarnation, then wouldn't your belief in reincarnation be a belief resting on silence?

because we have the Jataka stories of Buddha's past lifes practicing as a bodhisattva to bag reality of reincarnation. we also don't reject karma in the conventional truth. Buddhas/bodhiattvas can come and go in a form of "rebirth" into samsara to help sentient beings attained enlightenment.

lovepoptarts SG

science and all that evolution shit is unneccessary!

i hate science

BroInChrist SG

Reincarnation would require the existence of "self", so wouldn't that be contrary to Buddha's teachings?

http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm

http://www.yellowrobe.com/teachings/rebirth/192-an-explanation-of-rebirth.html?start=2

BroInChrist SG

science and all that evolution shit is unneccessary!

i hate science

I love science. But I am not a scientist. ; )

sinweiy SG

Reincarnation would require the existence of "self", so wouldn't that be contrary to Buddha's teachings?

http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm

http://www.yellowrobe.com/teachings/rebirth/192-an-explanation-of-rebirth.html?start=2

good links! explained it.

often you see, we neither attached to either. we reject nullism and eternalism. thought u read:

Emptiness and Existence

http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/465175

BroInChrist SG

often you see, we neither attached to either. we reject nullism and eternalism. thought u read:

Emptiness and Existence

http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/465175

Yes, I did read that. But I also see inconsistencies. On one hand it seems there is a rejection of both, yet again it is often spoken as though both are also believed in some sense, but then explained away as conventional truths?

sinweiy SG

quite common, as we, all and all reject extremism. moreover Buddha achieved Enlightenment through moderation. sentient beings are attached to conventional truths, hence He need to use it to teach, leading them into the Ultimate truth. it's skillful means.

BroInChrist SG

Which is precisely my point, that inconsistent and even self-refuting statements are being made, and then excused or rationalised away as "conventional truths".

« Previous Page Next Page »