Did Buddha claim to be a god & request to be worshiped? If not, will we see him in heaven?

[Grym]

@weller2
@PRmerger
@Kliska

Now you three have got me hooked.

Did Jesus or did he not explicitly claim to be God? In that case where in the Bible? Please so I can read it for myself?

Kindly
Victor

 

[Kliska]

@weller2
@PRmerger
@Kliska

Now you three have got me hooked.

Did Jesus or did he not explicitly claim to be God? In that case where in the Bible? Please so I can read it for myself?

Kindly
Victor

Already answered.

You may also want to check out this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=801379

Read the first 2 chapters of Revelation as well.

 

[Grym]

@Kliska

Thank you Kliska for the link and the reference. I think I understand this argument better now.
Interesting.

That being said. I do not think the below part of your answer is very informative one in a forum setting. Some might even considered it rude, given a friendly question from one who has no dog in this agument. .

Already answered.

Thanks again.
Peace!
/Victor

 

[Kliska]

@Kliska

Thank you Kliska for the link and the reference. I think I understand this argument better now.
Interesting.

That being said. I do not think the below part of your answer is very informative one in a forum setting. Some might even considered it rude, given a friendly question from one who has no dog in this agument. .

Thanks again.
Peace!
/Victor

Not meant t be rude, just don’t wanna reinvent the wheel . The other thread called something close to “Christ’s divinity” may also be of interest to you, as there were interaction and discussion with at least one Bahai and Muslim member as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

. Did Jesus or did he not explicitly claim to be God? In that case where in the Bible? Please so I can read it for myself?

Of course he did and a very large number of Christians worldwide accept this as the absolute objective truth.

Did Mohammed say he was the last prophet in the Quran? Of course not.

In fact at the transfiguration Jesus told His disciples to mention nothing. “Do not tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

And after His resurrection and from that time forward they indeed transmitted the oral tradition which wasn’t included in the Bible. Same as above with Mohammed and hadiths.

 

[Grym]

@Kliska
Okidoki! Will do. Thanks.

@GaryTaylor
Thanks.

I have one Catholic friend, one Jehovas Witness friend and one who is Protestant. I never fully understood this fission during my discussions with them.

It gives a new understanding to what they say.



Personally I like my Buddhist way of looking at it. Then there is no fission at all and both viewpoints corrolate. That is probably why I never understood there was a division on this point to begin with.

/Victor

 

[PRmerger]

@Kliska
Okidoki! Will do. Thanks.

@GaryTaylor
Thanks.

I have one Catholic friend, one Jehovas Witness friend and one who is Protestant. I never fully understood this fission during my discussions with them.

It gives a new understanding to what they say.



Personally I like my Buddhist way of looking at it. Then there is no fission at all and both viewpoints corrolate. That is probably why I never understood there was a division on this point to begin with.

/Victor

But why do you get to decide what is good and what is bad, Victor? You seem to be saying that division is bad, but that having contradictory viewpoints is fine.

I don’t understand that type of thinking.

 

[Grym]

But why do you get to decide what is good and what is bad, Victor?

We all decide what is good and bad in each single moment of our lives. Just like it seems you have decided for yourself you do not care much for my reasoning?
But I make no attempt at trying to decide what is good or bad for You or anyone else.

You seem to be saying that division is bad, but that having contradictory viewpoints is fine.

I don’t understand that type of thinking.

I do not like generalisations but if you are referring to this particular division I have not had the time to assess it yet. At a first glance though I think this distinction brings stress and much disatisfaction to the Christian Community?

Generally speaking though we all seek union with what is pleasent and disassociation from that which is unpleasent. So in some cases division is good and in some cases it is bad.

Having contradictory viewpoints and still being able to coexist is a necessary trait for any Society. The Dhamma is mostly such a live and let live type of philospy.

Also it might be like in the case of the photon. Sometimes it is viewed as an particle and sometimes as a wave. Still both ideas, though fundamentally different and seemingly opposing each other, still accurately describe the same thing.

Thus having a model that perfectly consolidates two seemingly opposing ideas is of course to preferr to unnecessary strife and conflict.

Do you not think? At least it floats my boat.

/Victor

 

[weller2]

Of course he did and a very large number of Christians worldwide accept this as the absolute objective truth.

May I ask for the verse number, preferrably from Mark which is the earliest source?

 

[weller2]

You didn’t answer the question. Did the Apostles/witnesses lie about the Resurrection?

No.

 

[GaryTaylor]

May I ask for the verse number, preferrably from Mark which is the earliest source?

Mark was sent to Alexandria. the same Church existing today, this could also be read in another thread existing here now. Point being as I have maintained the Church tradition isn’t confined to scripture as it preceded it. Which is why scripture clearly states it is part of the whole, its further reduced by cherry picked verse which as I maintain and is self evident, becomes pretext.

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen

Nevertheless chapter 13:26-27, 14:61-62, and 15:2

 

[GaryTaylor]

Having contradictory viewpoints and still being able to coexist is a necessary trait for any Society.

Its biblical and a fact in recorded history. Coexist still the issue, still have those who want to rule the world and everyone in it by subjecting them to their own belief. Its why Christianity was finally accepted as there was no co-existing otherwise, nor is there today.

 

[Grym]

Its biblical and a fact in recorded history. Coexist still the issue, still have those who want to rule the world and everyone in it by subjecting them to their own belief. Its why Christianity was finally accepted as there was no co-existing otherwise, nor is there today.

Slow down @GaryTaylor please. I did not really understand. Could you clarify please?

“their own belief” meaning some other belief than Christianity? As for an Example please?

Then at some point Christianity was accepted into Society to coexist with the said non Christian belief?

And finally you say Christianity is no longer coexisting anymore?

/Victor

 

[PRmerger]

No.

So they actually saw Jesus crucified, and saw him alive after 3 days, ate and conversed with him.

And then spread the gospel “He is risen!”

And they didn’t lie about this.

But Jesus did? Jesus lied? Jesus said that he died and he really didn’t?

Is that your position?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Slow down @GaryTaylor please. I did not really understand. Could you clarify please?

“their own belief” meaning some other belief than Christianity? As for an Example please?

Then at some point Christianity was accepted into Society to coexist with the said non Christian belief?

And finally you say Christianity is no longer coexisting anymore?

/Victor

In Christianity as we see in scripture, contradictory viewpoints have existed such as Corinth or with Paul and Peter. This also extends to others who do not believe at all what Christians believe and visa-versa, which often has led to no tolerance. Same situation for example with Buddhists or Islam etc. Further this creates an atmosphere for persecution.

Co-exist takes on different meanings often reflective of non tolerance instead of tolerance. For example in the Roman Empire. In this sense of non tolerance mankind has been on that path a very long time of non tolerance, its no doubt escalated to unprecedented heights today.

Buddhists believe they must abstain from killing, so do Christians and many others. This regardless of belief has to be the first principle which is correct tolerance. When the first principle of life is neglected than the sanctity of life in general is at risk. Its a matter of walking the walk, not talking the talk.

There has never been a period of peace in recorded history. Statistical average of war in recorded history is every 2-1/2 years. No reason to believe this will stop until we come back to accepting the first principle and in correct tolerance of all who do not believe what we do. The religions of the world have a major influence here and in fact are called to promote peace. Not peace through submission, man doesn’t submit to what he does not believe. Very much on the contrary.

The idea that one major religion will convert to another and be swallowed up to me is not feasible. Whats feasible is we together can change our words into love, then that love into truth which is self evident by peace and the sanctity of life.

 

[PRmerger]

We all decide what is good and bad in each single moment of our lives.

Well, the Catholic position is that we discern what is good and bad (which is a nuanced difference from “decide what is good and bad”), but essentially I say to the above.

But I make no attempt at trying to decide what is good or bad for You or anyone else.

If that is your position then you will stand by and watch a husband beat his wife since you can’t decide for her whether it’s good or bad to be beaten?

And will you stand by and watch when a 75 yr old elder in a church decides that his particular holy book says he must marry a 14 yr old virgin?

I do not like generalisations but if you are referring to this particular division I have not had the time to assess it yet. At a first glance though I think this distinction brings stress and much disatisfaction to the Christian Community?

Yes. Catholicism views doctrinal division as bad and doctrinal unity as good.

Incidentally, if I generalize, would you view that as bad?

Generally speaking though we all seek union with what is pleasent and disassociation from that which is unpleasent. So in some cases division is good and in some cases it is bad.

True.

Having contradictory viewpoints and still being able to coexist is a necessary trait for any Society

No Catholic ought to argue with that–we must co-exist with one another in peace, to be sure!

However, to say, “All viewpoints are correct! Except when I say that this particular viewpoint is incorrect” is to be a bit hypocritical.

The Dhamma is mostly such a live and let live type of philospy.

That can be a problem when there is cruelty and inhumanity in the world.

Also it might be like in the case of the photon. Sometimes it is viewed as an particle and sometimes as a wave. Still both ideas, though fundamentally different and seemingly opposing each other, still accurately describe the same thing.

That is not a correct explication of the law of non-contradiction.

In summary, it is: it is nonsensical to say, “Something is [A] and [not-A]” at the same time.

Thus, both these ideas could not be coherently argued: “A photon is a particle and not a particle at the same time.”

Now, it would be true to say, “Sometimes a photon is a wave. And sometimes it is a particle”.

But one could be a cogent thinker and propose, “A photon is a wave and it is not a wave at the same time.”

 

[Grym]

In Christianity as we see in scripture, contradictory viewpoints have existed such as Corinth or with Paul and Peter. This also extends to others who do not believe at all what Christians believe and visa-versa, which often has led to no tolerance. Same situation for example with Buddhists or Islam etc. Further this creates an atmosphere for persecution.

Co-exist takes on different meanings often reflective of non tolerance instead of tolerance. For example in the Roman Empire. In this sense of non tolerance mankind has been on that path a very long time of non tolerance, its no doubt escalated to unprecedented heights today.

Buddhists believe they must abstain from killing, so do Christians and many others. This regardless of belief has to be the first principle which is correct tolerance. When the first principle of life is neglected than the sanctity of life in general is at risk. Its a matter of walking the walk, not talking the talk.

There has never been a period of peace in recorded history. Statistical average of war in recorded history is every 2-1/2 years. No reason to believe this will stop until we come back to accepting the first principle and in correct tolerance of all who do not believe what we do. The religions of the world have a major influence here and in fact are called to promote peace. Not peace through submission, man doesn’t submit to what he does not believe. Very much on the contrary.

The idea that one major religion will convert to another and be swallowed up to me is not feasible. Whats feasible is we together can change our words into love, then that love into truth which is self evident by peace and the sanctity of life.

The current outlook is pretty bleak is it not? It is a tremendous task to bring peace to this world. Is it even possible theoretically? I have been toying with the idea to Outlaw War. But how to enforce such a law? Probably force would have to be used.

Is there any road to peace that is not paved in blood?

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Well, the Catholic position is that we discern what is good and bad (which is a nuanced difference from “decide what is good and bad”), but essentially I say to the above.

Well actually since Buddhism has its own absolute truth then I can sign up on “dicern”. The process is not arbitrary.

If that is your position then you will stand by and watch a husband beat his wife since you can’t decide for her whether it’s good or bad to be beaten?

And will you stand by and watch when a 75 yr old elder in a church decides that his particular holy book says he must marry a 14 yr old virgin?

To be perfectly honest I think I (we) do this every day? Just because it does not happen in front of your eyes does not mean that you do not know it happens somewhere and mostly we accept it by doing nothing in our lives to change these things.
This is something that gets me depressed most every day.

But no! Not if it happens in my neighbourhood no.

Yes. Catholicism views doctrinal division as bad and doctrinal unity as good.

Incidentally, if I generalize, would you view that as bad?

Buddhism expects people to consider the message in the old texts for themselves and to decide for themselves what path to follow. It is a very hands on philosofy where right understanding and right execution of cultivation yields the proper results. So the results of your actions will be your evaluation.

There are a lot of different traditions with their own doctrine. But all buddhists that I know will primarily focus on what we have in common rather than that which divides us. Not that we do not engage in arguments!

But actions that divides the Sangha (the body of Priests) is a unskillfull action whose karma will prevent you from reaching the Goal until that karma is spent and payed for in full. So is killing your parents or yourself or drawing the blood of a enlightened person.

However, to say, “All viewpoints are correct! Except when I say that thigs particular viewpoint is incorrect” is to be a bit hypocritical.

Yepp! Agreed!

That can be a problem when there is cruelty and inhumanity in the world.

You are right. Buddhists do not accept everything. But I think it is better to have some basis for morality and ethics than none!

That is one of the greates errors of Atheism. It leaves people without any grounding as how to dicern what is right and wrong, good or bad.

That is not a correct explication of the law of non-contradiction.

In summary, it is: it is nonsensical to say, “Something is [A] and [not-A]” at the same time.

Thus, both these ideas could not be coherently argued: “A photon is a particle and not a particle at the same time.”

Now, it would be true to say, “Sometimes a photon is a wave. And sometimes it is a particle”.

You are right! But only if you are dealing in binary logic or in binary evaluation. . Quntum mechanichs does not abide in the purly binary logical realm.

science.howstuffworks.com/light6.htm.

But one could be a cogent thinker and propose, “A photon is a wave and it is not a wave at the same time.”

Hmm. Are you testing me? .

The correct standing IMO on the particle-wave duality is to understand that both of these explanations are only models of the truth and not the truth itself.

Peace!
/Victor

 

[PRmerger]

But no! Not if it happens in my neighbourhood no.

Then you are not consistently applying your paradigm of “everyone gets to believe what he wants to believe”.

When you decide that something is immoral, then you step in.

But it appears that you do not allow others to do the same thing, if their decision for what is immoral differs from yours.

For example, if a Catholic steps up and says, “We do not believe that suicide is moral”, would you applaud our efforts?

Buddhism expects people to consider the message in the old texts for themselves and to decide for themselves what path to follow. It is a very hands on philosofy where right understanding and right execution of cultivation yields the proper results. So the results of your actions will be your evaluation.

And if a Buddhist reads the old texts and discerns that it is correct to enslave women, would that be ok?

 

[PRmerger]

You are right! But only if you are dealing in binary logic or in binary evaluation. . Quntum mechanichs does not abide in the purly binary logical realm.

So is it incorrect, then, to say that Quantum mechanics is a purely binary logical realm?

Or is that incorrect?

The correct standing IMO on the particle-wave duality is to understand that both of these explanations are only models of the truth and not the truth itself.

Peace!
/Victor

Is a photon both a wave and not a wave at the same time?