Buddist on Catholic answers?

[rossum]

since the creator created time, is it really reasonable to speak of “before” creation.

Then there was no “creation”. Since the cause always comes before the effect, then if there is no time then there cannot be cause and effect, hence no creator and creation. Without time we cannot tell which one existed before the other, and so we cannot tell if A created B or if B created A.

rossum

 

[eddie_too]

rossum,

i am the same human being i was ten years ago and twenty years ago and at conception.

it is true that i have more memory, life experiences, knowledge and understanding but i am still the person who possesses those memories, etc.

even if i lost some of those memories, it would still be me who lost them.

i 100% disagree with the idea that i am not the same person i was earlier in my life.

it is I who gained new memories not some other person.

every second i gain new experiences. do you really believe that every second you are someone else? how many of you would there be if that were true?

 

[eddie_too]

cause and effect is part of creation.

prior to creation there was no such thing.

 

[Grym]

Again I am assuming you are resopnding to the last post (my post)

nibbana is a logical concept, in what way is it logical to believe in reincarnation?

I think I explained that*** reincarnation belief is not required*** to become an Awakened being. Which is the goal of the Dhamma also called Nibbana.

since you neither accept nor reject the concept of creation, how is it that you feel free to comment on its reasonableness?

Eeer Where did I comment on that? Please show me the quote. Thanks.

But all the same it seems much more logical to believe in an Universe we cannot see the beginning of instead of an 5000 year old one given all the evidence procured by scientists and thier methods today.

**But this is pretty periferical to the Dhamma and does not at all impede on its logical nature whatever may be the case with the universe.
**

also, creation having a beginning is far more logical than the concept of infinite regression.

I couldnt say. I have no preference.

creation having a beginning carries with it the implication that it is not eternal.

if it has a beginning, then at some point it did not exist. ergo, all of creation is finite.

yet, logic tells us that infinity necessarily exists.

Buddhism postulate that all things except Nibbana has a beginning a middle and an end.
So I think we agree on this.

Kindly
Victor

 

[Grym]

Buddhism postulate that all things except Nibbana has a beginning a middle and an end.
So I think we agree on this.

Except the part where you say that logic imply that the universe is infinite? Am I correct?

Why does it do that?

 

[rossum]

i am the same human being i was ten years ago and twenty years ago and at conception.

Then baptism is unimportant. You were unbaptised at conception. You were unbaptised at birth. You are baptised now. Since you are the same human being, then baptism has had no effect on you and not made any difference. If you were saved at conception then you are saved now. If you were unsaved at conception then you are unsaved now. Baptism has not caused any change.

it is true that i have more memory, life experiences, knowledge and understanding but i am still the person who possesses those memories, etc.

We disagree. Memory is part of you. Those memories are not part of anyone else, they can only be part of you.

even if i lost some of those memories, it would still be me who lost them.

And you would be different after your loss.

i 100% disagree with the idea that i am not the same person i was earlier in my life.

Goo goo ga, WAAAHH!

it is I who gained new memories not some other person.

You inherited those memories from a different person – an earlier version of you.

every second i gain new experiences. do you really believe that every second you are someone else?

You are beginning to understand. The Buddhist analysis of a human being is very different from the Christian analysis. For a Buddhist change is omnipresent. Change is essential, otherwise there can be no change from unsaved to saved or from unenlightened to enlightened. If you cannot change then you might as well be a Calvinist.

We are not a single person, but a long chain of persons with each earlier person conditioning the subsequent person. The same happens between the last moment of the previous life and the first moment of the next life.

rossum

 

[eddie_too]

that i am a different person from one moment to the next makes no sense to me.

it defies my experience of reality.

that i change over time i agree. that such change makes me someone else, i disagree.

 

[Grym]

that i am a different person from one moment to the next makes no sense to me.

it defies my experience of reality.

that i change over time i agree. that such change makes me someone else, i disagree.

Alright. Then what part of you would you say is the real you?

Your hands your feet? Your head?

Keep in mind that during every 10 years approximately the body replaces alla its cells except for those in the neural cortex. (To my limited knowleadge)

So what part of you is the you that does not change?

/Victor

 

[eddie_too]

my soul.

 

[Grym]

my soul.

Who created your soul and when?

What happens to your soul after death? What is your belief/faith?

EDIT: What is the nature of your soul? Can it perceive this world? Can it react to this world? Or it seperated from this world?

 

[eddie_too]

Perfect Being created my soul at the moment of my conception.

because my soul gives me free will, at the moment of my death i face judgment for my decisions throughout my life.

after judgment, my soul exists as that judgment renders my existence.

the judgment either confirms my commitment to Perfect Being or it confirms my rejection of Perfect Being. this commitment or rejection is determined by the state of my being at the moment my soul departs my body.

as a catholic, i believe that i have both an intellect and a free will. i possess these two faculties, intellect and free will, through my human soul.

as a catholic, i believe that human beings are the only physical creatures that possess both an intellect and a free will.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Buddhist concept of ahimsa (total non-violence) is morally far superior than just ‘Thou shalt not murder’.

All religions state that such actions like killing, have negative consequences - whether the consequences are ‘eternal’ or not is debatable.

Is it really better? Having been there (as a follower of Buddhism for a few years) I found the Buddhist attitude towards killing to be very self-centred, in fact Buddhism in general seems inherently self-centred with the prime concern being ones own karma with little regard to others.

Take killing for example. A Buddhist is not supposed to kill another creature, but it is OK to get someone else to do the killing for you.

While I was a Buddhist, I had a pest problem with rats. I tried to humanely trap them, but to no avail. The only option seemed to be extermination and I was concerned as I was not supposed to do this as I would be killing another creature. I contacted a well respected monk who I had met before and he told me to get a pest control company to kill them and that it was OK so long as I didn’t lay the traps or bait myself, that it would not affect my karma if I got someone else to do it. He said that the monks in Thai monasteries have the monasteries fumigated and this even kills dogs that live in the monastery, and that it’s OK because they get someone else to do it for them.

So it’s OK to employ someone else to kill another creature on your behalf and let them take the negative effects on their karma, just so long as you don’t physically do it yourself. Presumably the same would apply to hiring a hitman?

Despite appearing to be altruistic in nature, Buddhism struck me as being inherently selfish. A case of, “So long as my karma’s OK, that’s all that matters”. Caring for one’s fellow man only seems important in Buddhism if it positively affects ones own karma, as a tool to enhance one’s own karma. Buddhism is very interesting, very intellectual, appeals very much to logic, but it lacks the selfless giving which is at the core of Christianity. The care for ones fellow man, not because of any reward, but just for its own sake, is where Christianity is far superior to Buddhism.

 

[rossum]

my soul.

Your soul changes as well. If you are to have any hope of salvation then your soul has to change from unsaved at birth to (potentially) saved after baptism. Without change there is no hope for the salvation of your soul.

Alternatively, if every soul is unchangeably saved at conception, then Christianity is utterly pointless.

An unchanging soul destroys religion.

rossum

 

[eddie_too]

i already said that if by reincarnation you mean the growth and develpment of individual human beings until their deaths then i agree.

if you mean by reincarnation that this growth and development results in the same soul being given to a new mortal body, than i disagree.

there is absolutely no reason to believe that the soul a human being possesses throughout their lives will someday have a new MORTAL body.

 

[openmind77]

Is it really better? Having been there (as a follower of Buddhism for a few years) I found the Buddhist attitude towards killing to be very self-centred, in fact Buddhism in general seems inherently self-centred with the prime concern being ones own karma with little regard to others.

Take killing for example. A Buddhist is not supposed to kill another creature, but it is OK to get someone else to do the killing for you.

While I was a Buddhist, I had a pest problem with rats. I tried to humanely trap them, but to no avail. The only option seemed to be extermination and I was concerned as I was not supposed to do this as I would be killing another creature. I contacted a well respected monk who I had met before and he told me to get a pest control company to kill them and that it was OK so long as I didn’t lay the traps or bait myself, that it would not affect my karma if I got someone else to do it. He said that the monks in Thai monasteries have the monasteries fumigated and this even kills dogs that live in the monastery, and that it’s OK because they get someone else to do it for them.

So it’s OK to employ someone else to kill another creature on your behalf and let them take the negative effects on their karma, just so long as you don’t physically do it yourself. Presumably the same would apply to hiring a hitman?

Despite appearing to be altruistic in nature, Buddhism struck me as being inherently selfish. A case of, “So long as my karma’s OK, that’s all that matters”. Caring for one’s fellow man only seems important in Buddhism if it positively affects ones own karma, as a tool to enhance one’s own karma. Buddhism is very interesting, very intellectual, appeals very much to logic, but it lacks the selfless giving which is at the core of Christianity. The care for ones fellow man, not because of any reward, but just for its own sake, is where Christianity is far superior to Buddhism.

I am not sure what you are saying - getting someone else to kill rats is worse than killing them yourself?

Buddhist concept of ahimsa (total non-violence) obviously goes far beyond ‘Thou shalt not murder’. Too call this concept selfish is ridiculous. The examples you give are about getting rid of pests or maybe killing for food. But Buddhism would never suggest killing (or asking someone else to kill) any creature for sport - Christianity however would not have a problem with that (although I am sure Jesus would). I don’t think Buddha ever preached that we should be compassionate because it was good for our karma.

But I don’t think we should compare the two religions in order to decide which one is superior. Like I said before Buddhism is appropriate for intellectuals who understand abstract concepts, Christianity is more appropriate for the average person.

As is clear from the discussion in this thread, the Buddha’s teaching that we should not waste time on speculating about how the Universe was created or who is the Creator or whether it is the soul which reincarnates, but spend our time on understanding the Four Noble Truths and following the Eight Fold Path is too abstract and intellectual for most people to handle. For such people Christianity is a far better choice.

 

[eddie_too]

openmind77

your post seems to say that truth is irrelevant to human life. it as though you are saying, whatever turns your crank is sufficient reason to embrace a lifestyle.

i may be misinterpreting your intent, but that is what i got out of your post.

 

[Grym]

Your soul changes as well. If you are to have any hope of salvation then your soul has to change from unsaved at birth to (potentially) saved after baptism. Without change there is no hope for the salvation of your soul.

Alternatively, if every soul is unchangeably saved at conception, then Christianity is utterly pointless.

An unchanging soul destroys religion.

rossum

This was the conclusion I was building up to too.. I agree.

Thus it is totally illogical that the soul does not change. If it cannot then leading a Christian life is as Rossum says pointless.

This is one of the refutations the Buddha Gotama made of this viewpoint more than 2500 years ago.

/Victor

 

[eddie_too]

what a red herring, whoever claimed the soul does not change.

when i explained that the soul is the source of a human beings intellect and free will, how do you conclude that i am saying the soul does not change?

who besides rossum and gryn have ever wrote that the soul does not change.

use of this phrase “the soul does not change” is a classic red herring introduced by those who wish to discredit the thoughts and ideas of those with whom they disagree.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am not sure what you are saying - getting someone else to kill rats is worse than killing them yourself?

Buddhist concept of ahimsa (total non-violence) obviously goes far beyond ‘Thou shalt not murder’. Too call this concept selfish is ridiculous. The examples you give are about getting rid of pests or maybe killing for food.

No. Buddhists believe that to kill anotheer creature has a negative effect on one’s karma. I was advised, by a very emminent Buddhist monk, that it would be better for me to get someone else to kill the rats, so as to avoid the negative karmic effects on me. So it’s OK to have someone else take the rap for something on my behalf?

But I don’t think we should compare the two religions in order to decide which one is superior. Like I said before Buddhism is appropriate for intellectuals who understand abstract concepts, Christianity is more appropriate for the average person.

You are wrong. Religion is not an intellectual pastime, religion is about truth. Truth is absolute.

but spend our time on understanding the Four Noble Truths and following the Eight Fold Path is too abstract and intellectual for most people to handle. For such people Christianity is a far better choice.

The four noble truths and the eight-fold path are really not that difficult to grasp. Buddhism really is not so complex. However it is an inherently self-centred belief system, it’s all about one’s own karma, and one’s own search for enlightenment. It is a belief system where compassionate acts are driven by self interest.In fact love for one’s fellow man is ultimately seen as an attachment to be broken free from. At the core of Christianity is Love, at the core of Buddhism is self-interest.

 

[Grym]

Is it really better? Having been there (as a follower of Buddhism for a few years) I found the Buddhist attitude towards killing to be very self-centred, in fact Buddhism in general seems inherently self-centred with the prime concern being ones own karma with little regard to others.

Take killing for example. A Buddhist is not supposed to kill another creature, but it is OK to get someone else to do the killing for you.

While I was a Buddhist, I had a pest problem with rats. I tried to humanely trap them, but to no avail. The only option seemed to be extermination and I was concerned as I was not supposed to do this as I would be killing another creature. I contacted a well respected monk who I had met before and he told me to get a pest control company to kill them and that it was OK so long as I didn’t lay the traps or bait myself, that it would not affect my karma if I got someone else to do it. He said that the monks in Thai monasteries have the monasteries fumigated and this even kills dogs that live in the monastery, and that it’s OK because they get someone else to do it for them.

So it’s OK to employ someone else to kill another creature on your behalf and let them take the negative effects on their karma, just so long as you don’t physically do it yourself. Presumably the same would apply to hiring a hitman?

Despite appearing to be altruistic in nature, Buddhism struck me as being inherently selfish. A case of, “So long as my karma’s OK, that’s all that matters”. Caring for one’s fellow man only seems important in Buddhism if it positively affects ones own karma, as a tool to enhance one’s own karma. Buddhism is very interesting, very intellectual, appeals very much to logic, but it lacks the selfless giving which is at the core of Christianity. The care for ones fellow man, not because of any reward, but just for its own sake, is where Christianity is far superior to Buddhism.

By the same logical deduction you make here then It is fair to judge the entire Catholic Community by the deeds of 400 perverted childmolesting priests?

I think not.

:tsktsk:

We are all human. Buddhism does not make you “perfect” just by looking at it. It shows a path to a better Way

But just as with Christianity people has to live the Way daily to have results and not just go to church on sundays.

If there are 10 million Buddhists or 10 million Christians doing the wrong thing it is still the wrong thing to do. Right?

/Victor