3000 gods but only yours exists

[PRmerger]

Correct. A human consists of five parts: form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Only the first, form, is physical. The other four are non-physical.

Is this a truth you are asserting, rossum?

Another dogma that you permit yourself to have, while objecting to other religious dogma?

 

[PRmerger]

And the problem with the God hypothesis is that it doesn’t explain anything at all.

Q: What caused the universe?

A: God/the multiverse.

Q: What caused God/the multiverse?

A: Ermmm…

Both God and the multiverse are different versions of an uncaused cause. There is not a lot of difference between them in that sense.

rossum

God needs no cause because he had no beginning.

Only things that have a beginning need a cause.

 

[PRmerger]

That is the STEM universe of science.

Yes.

Both you and I accept that there is more to existence than the material STEM universe

Why do you think that STEM is material only?

How, in fact, can time be material? And space?

 

[Even_So]

We have morality written on the tablet of our hearts by GOD.

 

[rossum]

It’s very vague. What guidance is offered on more complex situations - such as defence of self or others? Is there more depth?

In total the Buddhist Tripitaka is many times the size of the Bible, so yes there is a great deal more depth available.

Do Buddhists eschew all alcohol?

Some do, others merely limit their intake. The word “intoxicants” includes other, non-medical, drugs as well.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Following up on that, do you believe there’s a being – or multiple beings for that matter – who’ve always existed?

No. In the Buddhist universe everything changes. Every living thing has a finite lifetime.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Is adultery, if it has no bad effects, neutral then?

Is adultery ok at the moment it occurs, because both parties are enjoying themselves immensely, and THEN, when (if) the respective spouses discover it?

Your “both parties” indicates that it would be wrong in that case. There are at least three parties involved, maybe four. If all parties to a marriage have agreed to an open marriage and the additional partner is within the ground rules for the open marriage, then there is no bad effect.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Is this a truth you are asserting, rossum?

Another dogma that you permit yourself to have, while objecting to other religious dogma?

If I am asked a question about Buddhism then I will give an answer from the standard Buddhist texts. If you don’t like the answer then you are free to ignore it.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God needs no cause because he had no beginning.

Only things that have a beginning need a cause.

The multiverse needs no cause because it had no beginning.

Only things that have a beginning need a cause.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why do you think that STEM is material only?

I was using “material” in the sense of “non-spiritual”. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So from a Buddhist point of view, killing one to save ten is okay?

It could be, depending on the situation. You might want to read analyses of the assassination of King Langdarma, which is a well known Buddhist case in point. See Compassionate Killing or Conflict Resolution? for one point of view.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In Buddhism you do evil you just are expected to do it no more or karma will get you.

Karma will get you. If you do it again then karma will get you again.

What if you don’t care?

Then you will keep on suffering, dying and being reborn until you do care. Buddhism is a universalist religion; everyone attains nirvana eventually.

Can we also be evil without getting our just desserts?

No. Karma is unavoidable. Karma does not forgive and karma is not arbitrary. If you do the crime then you do the time.

How does Buddhism explain fairness? GOD explains it clearly.

To a Buddhist, Christianity does not seem fair. Calvinists tell me that my actions have no effect for good or bad. God has already decided if I am going to heaven or hell and nothing I can do will change that inevitable fate. I do not see that as at all fair. Alternatively God might (or might not) forgive my sins, but that is God’s decision. Again that does not seem fair to me. In both cases there is a disconnect between my actions and the results of my actions. How can such a disconnect be fair?

So there is no guaranteed penalty for being evil?

In Christianity, no there isn’t. In Buddhism yes there is. Reward and punishment are both guaranteed in Buddhism. In Christianity God might, or might not, intervene and so there is no guarantee.

However, if we choose to follow GOD’s instructions, we have faith that we will be rewarded with eternal life

You are making a mistaken assumption here. To a Buddhist eternal life is eternal suffering, whether in one of the heavens or in one of the hells.

Consider, you are in a luxury five-star hotel room, being pampered with top-notch service. In the room next door your family is screaming in pain as they are being tortured. You can hear them suffering horribly. Are you happy? Of course not. All Christians and Buddhists love their neighbours. As long as even one neighbour is suffering in hell, how can you be happy in heaven?

Christianity guarantees evil will be punished to the fullest extent of the law and will no longer be tolerated. Does Buddhism give us anything to match this?

Christianity gives no such guarantee, as I pointed out above. Buddhism does give the guarantee. Karma does not forgive. Karma does not decide beforehand.

rossum

 

[Rau]

Your “both parties” indicates that it would be wrong in that case. There are at least three parties involved, maybe four. If all parties to a marriage have agreed to an open marriage and the additional partner is within the ground rules for the open marriage, then there is no bad effect.

rossum

That may be debatable. No “acknowledged” bad effect may be more accurate.

 

[Rau]

It could be, depending on the situation. You might want to read analyses of the assassination of King Langdarma, which is a well known Buddhist case in point. See Compassionate Killing or Conflict Resolution? for one point of view.

rossum

It could be in Catholic theology too. Unless the “one” is innocent, and the killing is intentional. Then the act is murder and always unacceptable.

 

[PRmerger]

Your “both parties” indicates that it would be wrong in that case.

Really? How is it wrong if no one is hurt? In fact, at the moment the adultery is occurring both parties are experiencing great happiness and pleasure.

So that would make adultery actually a *good *action, no?

 

[PRmerger]

If I am asked a question about Buddhism then I will give an answer from the standard Buddhist texts. If you don’t like the answer then you are free to ignore it.

rossum

The bolded part is a nonsequitur, rossum.

At any rate, it does appear as if even you don’t believe your tagline “there is no absolute truth”.

You actually have been asserting many, many absolute truths here.

How odd.

 

[PRmerger]

The multiverse needs no cause because it had no beginning.

Only things that have a beginning need a cause.

rossum

Sure. If there is evidence for the multiverse, I’ll consider it.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Following up on that, do you believe there’s a being – or multiple beings for that matter – who’ve always existed?

Yes, that’s basically what I figured.

What’s odd, though, is that I remember hearing or reading, many years ago, the Buddhism was (somehow) similar to Hinduism.

 

[808Catholic]

The multiverse needs no cause because it had no beginning.

Only things that have a beginning need a cause.

rossum

Yet there is no evidence of a multiverse.

 

[808Catholic]

If I am asked a question about Buddhism then I will give an answer from the standard Buddhist texts. If you don’t like the answer then you are free to ignore it.

rossum

As Christians are free to ignore you opinions about Christianity.