Helios
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2008
- Messages
- 12
It's a Christian argument for a Buddhist conversion, and I consider it below.
Thank you for the links.
The last helps me understand greatly how an informed christian would view buddhism, though I took issue in a flaw in the documents understanding of "Buddhist sin".
The penultimate document, "I am a buddhist..." Was of the most interest to me. [I am not allowed to post the Link, but it can be found on the greetings thread].
However the document did not persuade me, which didn't surprise me, as the set statements of documents cannot answer a rebuttal or question. I was less interest in the proofs of the accuracy of th bible, as the ways they determined accuracy either failed to Fullfill my personal definitions, or were put into doubt from my previous experience.
This is partially due to my doubt of the accuracy of any old and largly translated document, and not specific to the source. I am much more concerned and curious to the sense and sensibly of the Christian position. And there were portions of The document which addressed this as best they could.
But they still did not persuade me, and I hope not to waste anyone's time by explaining why. As I mentioned earlier, the inability of the document to react to the reader made it certain in my mind that any inability of the document to persuade me is not proof o my inability to be persuaded.
After all, I am still here, and curious.
If it would be helpful to any who are interested in convincing me, here are my reactions to the document.
Where the document said that only Jesus of all teachers has resurrected his literal body, I felt as if the sources for this were contained only in the bible, and can't be traced back to any document that was written at the time of the occurence. Additionally, it is written that both Tammuz (a babylonian god) and Osiris (an egyptian god) also were bodily resurrected, not to mention Attis, Mithra, Ba'al, not to mention the story of Bodhidharma who is said not have bodily resurrected and began the school of buddhism I follow the closest, Zen.
Second, the description of the bible as historically accurate doesn't persuade me either, as they are not the only historical documents with a good pedigree of validity and also containing an outstanding supernatural claim.
More essential, however is that I do not believe that a fact in a book can transfer it's validity to all the other statements in that book. For example, if I were to write a book describing how I signed up for this forum, ending with an assertion that I live on the moon, even if you can proved I did sign up for this forum, it does not also prove that I live on the moon. While I am sure faith in the bible has a deeper reason behind it, this reason I cannot get behind.
When the document asserted that Christian ethics have a stronger foundation than buddhist ethics because they are founded on the personal character of god, I questioned the personal character of god. Please do not be offended, but I cannot take the bible's assertion that god is good on hearsay, and moreover, I cannot discount the number of things the bible describes god doing and saying that I find to be quite the opposite of good. To reply that I must be morally wrong, and trust that god would never do anything bad is circular logic, an assertion to believe that god is good that is based on the same statement (that god is good) that I am testing.
Also the documents assertion that, in buddhism, there is no difference between mistakes and karmic misdeeds I know to be erroneous, as a Buddhist myself.
Fourth, the argument based on desire is merely a philosophic disagreement on the nature of desire. I believe that for the document to convince me it would hae to break down why I belive desire to e as buddha states, and not as the bible states, and then would have to show me how my reasons and seeking are better met by the bibles definition of desire.
The fifth argument, about sin has questions about the buddhist position that I as a believer can answer. It does not convince me of any holes in the buddhist position.
I have not yet entrusted Christ as my savior, as I can't yet find a reason why I would need a savior, outside of the reasons given by the same source that claims I need a savior. In order for me to change my position, I would have to be pushed towards Christianity by an third party desire, need, or event.
Thank you for the links.
The last helps me understand greatly how an informed christian would view buddhism, though I took issue in a flaw in the documents understanding of "Buddhist sin".
The penultimate document, "I am a buddhist..." Was of the most interest to me. [I am not allowed to post the Link, but it can be found on the greetings thread].
However the document did not persuade me, which didn't surprise me, as the set statements of documents cannot answer a rebuttal or question. I was less interest in the proofs of the accuracy of th bible, as the ways they determined accuracy either failed to Fullfill my personal definitions, or were put into doubt from my previous experience.
This is partially due to my doubt of the accuracy of any old and largly translated document, and not specific to the source. I am much more concerned and curious to the sense and sensibly of the Christian position. And there were portions of The document which addressed this as best they could.
But they still did not persuade me, and I hope not to waste anyone's time by explaining why. As I mentioned earlier, the inability of the document to react to the reader made it certain in my mind that any inability of the document to persuade me is not proof o my inability to be persuaded.
After all, I am still here, and curious.
If it would be helpful to any who are interested in convincing me, here are my reactions to the document.
Where the document said that only Jesus of all teachers has resurrected his literal body, I felt as if the sources for this were contained only in the bible, and can't be traced back to any document that was written at the time of the occurence. Additionally, it is written that both Tammuz (a babylonian god) and Osiris (an egyptian god) also were bodily resurrected, not to mention Attis, Mithra, Ba'al, not to mention the story of Bodhidharma who is said not have bodily resurrected and began the school of buddhism I follow the closest, Zen.
Second, the description of the bible as historically accurate doesn't persuade me either, as they are not the only historical documents with a good pedigree of validity and also containing an outstanding supernatural claim.
More essential, however is that I do not believe that a fact in a book can transfer it's validity to all the other statements in that book. For example, if I were to write a book describing how I signed up for this forum, ending with an assertion that I live on the moon, even if you can proved I did sign up for this forum, it does not also prove that I live on the moon. While I am sure faith in the bible has a deeper reason behind it, this reason I cannot get behind.
When the document asserted that Christian ethics have a stronger foundation than buddhist ethics because they are founded on the personal character of god, I questioned the personal character of god. Please do not be offended, but I cannot take the bible's assertion that god is good on hearsay, and moreover, I cannot discount the number of things the bible describes god doing and saying that I find to be quite the opposite of good. To reply that I must be morally wrong, and trust that god would never do anything bad is circular logic, an assertion to believe that god is good that is based on the same statement (that god is good) that I am testing.
Also the documents assertion that, in buddhism, there is no difference between mistakes and karmic misdeeds I know to be erroneous, as a Buddhist myself.
Fourth, the argument based on desire is merely a philosophic disagreement on the nature of desire. I believe that for the document to convince me it would hae to break down why I belive desire to e as buddha states, and not as the bible states, and then would have to show me how my reasons and seeking are better met by the bibles definition of desire.
The fifth argument, about sin has questions about the buddhist position that I as a believer can answer. It does not convince me of any holes in the buddhist position.
I have not yet entrusted Christ as my savior, as I can't yet find a reason why I would need a savior, outside of the reasons given by the same source that claims I need a savior. In order for me to change my position, I would have to be pushed towards Christianity by an third party desire, need, or event.