Beyond Belief

[banchang]

I found this book in the internet I wonder if anyone here has read it? and has any views on it?

My Webpage

[bankei]

I purchased it many years ago. It is actually written by an Australian monk who was supposedly worried about his being associated with such a book.

From memory, the book provides ample evidence from the bible of all the 'bad' things about Christianity as well as arguments against the existance God etc. A handy little summary for when the evangelists come knocking.

Bankei

[sabaijai]

Impressive, thanks for the link.

[LaoPo]

I purchased it many years ago.

It is actually written by an Australian monk who was supposedly worried about his being associated with such a book.

From memory, the book provides ample evidence from the bible of all the 'bad' things about Christianity as well as arguments against the existance God etc. A handy little summary for when the evangelists come knocking.

Bankei

I've read your sentence a few times but I'm still puzzled what you mean, since it makes no sense to me.

LaoPo

[robitusson]

Just had a glance at the chapter on Buddhism as a "logical" alternative.

Then it explains how Buddhists believe in rebirth, hel_l, heaven and a belief in the Transcendent (enlightenment).

Surely an open inter-faith dialogue is a much more enlightened approach to take rather than comparing the supposed faults of one religion to the positives of another. Rather petty imo.

[tropo]

After reading Chapter 2:Christian Arguments

for God's Existence

Here's an example of his lack of logic:

"Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim."

And another good one:

"Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn't rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God"

So the author who is arguing against Christianity knew nothing about the fall of man and the earth's subsequent falling from perfection after the "deadly sin" which is the basic foundation of Christianity, Good and Evil.

The author has never read, nor comprehended the Bible or Christianity, so there's not much point reading further. He can't argue against something he knows nothing about. His arguments become even more absurd and illogical in subsequent chapters.

My suggestion, don't waste your time.

Next please!

Edited November 5, 2006 by tropo

[suegha]

I have been keeping an eye on this thread to see how it progresses. I now feel I should comment on the chapter ‘Facts and fiction in the life of Jesus’.

It’s always difficult to know how best to respond to this sort of thing. There are so many sweeping statements and false logic in what’s written there. I’ve just picked out some examples below to illustrate that there are different ways to view these things…

Firstly a few points worthy of note. It is never valid to use the expression all Christians, just as it is never valid to say all Buddhists.

Secondly, when commenting on the gospels remember that the writers were contemporary; they would have read each others writings. Also, why would all the gospels say exactly the same thing? They were written for different readers and at different times, so obviously their detail will differ. The difference in detail never has contradiction when read in context. Also, verses should never be read in isolation.

The writer sites Isa 9.6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.” Saying that this has not happened. He’s quite correct, this has not yet been fulfilled. He omits the promise of Jesus return to the earth when this prophesy will be fulfilled and Jesus will bear these titles.

He also says that Jesus father was not David. This shows a lack of understanding on the Hebraism ‘father’ meaning ancestor. In fact some translations use the word ‘ancestor’. He links this to his ‘contradiction’ in the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke. No contradiction, Mathew states Joseph’s geneology and Luke states Mary’s geneology. So yes, David was both the ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ ancestor of Jesus. This is also borne out by Luke 1, where the angel Gabriel informs Mary of her impending birth, verses 32 and 33 of Luke, 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." And again, yet to be fulfilled at the return of Jesus. And yes, Joseph was also told in a dream (after he knew of Mary’s pregnancy).

The prophesy regarding the ‘not a bone will be broken’ also shows a total lack of understanding of crucifixion. Breaking the legs of those being crucified was not an act of cruelty, but an act of kindness. Death would happen very quickly when the legs were broken, as crucifixion caused death by asphyxiation. However, Jesus bled to death as he was a blood sacrifice. Also they did not hammer the nails through the metacarpals but through the ankle, separating, not breaking, the leg bone from the ankle bone. If the bone was broken the person being crucified would not be able to push up and prolong their pain which was the object of crucifixion.

Few people actually believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday. The Sabbath being referred to was a ‘special’ Sabbath. In the Jewish calendar there are about 12 such Sabbaths. This was a special Passover Sabbath ie an extra Sabbath day before the ‘normal’ Sabbath day. Jesus was most likely crucified on Thursday, start counting with the Thursday and 3 days and 3 nights makes perfect sense.

I feel I must comment on the reference made to Matthew 16.28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." This is where the writer says that it was not fulfilled – keep reading, chapter 17, the very next verses, detail the vision of the Kingdom shown to Peter, James and John where Jesus was transfigured before them, appearing with both Moses and Elijah. Ironically the author states that Christians are guilty of quoting individual verses and yet does so himself.

Lastly, regarding the cleansing of the temple. The author states that there is a contradiction (one gospel says this happened at the start of his ministry, and one at the end). No contradiction, there were two cleansings – one at the start, one at the end. Read the detail for yourself…

That’s all I’ll say for brevity. However, if anyone’s interested (in general, or in any of the specific so called contradictions, please pm me).

[bankei]

I purchased it many years ago.

It is actually written by an Australian monk who was supposedly worried about his being associated with such a book.

From memory, the book provides ample evidence from the bible of all the 'bad' things about Christianity as well as arguments against the existance God etc. A handy little summary for when the evangelists come knocking.

Bankei

I've read your sentence a few times but I'm still puzzled what you mean, since it makes no sense to me.

LaoPo

Hi - Which sentance are you talking about? Probably the 2nd?

There are many 'bad' things in Christianity - this book points many of them out. It also has arguments against the existance of a God.

Bankei

[bankei]

After reading Chapter 2:Christian Arguments

for God's Existence

Here's an example of his lack of logic:

"Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim."

And another good one:

"Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn't rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God"

So the author who is arguing against Christianity knew nothing about the fall of man and the earth's subsequent falling from perfection after the "deadly sin" which is the basic foundation of Christianity, Good and Evil.

The author has never read, nor comprehended the Bible or Christianity, so there's not much point reading further. He can't argue against something he knows nothing about. His arguments become even more absurd and illogical in subsequent chapters.

My suggestion, don't waste your time.

Next please!

Hello Tropo

I agree it is probably a waste of time reading this book, there are better ones out there arguing against Christianity.

I have never been a Christian, so am not sure why you think the above passages are illogical.

The first one is about a God being able to design such a complex universe. Now I see, I suppose this is illogial as if there was a God, God could design it all itself, and not need helpers.

The second one is about the universe not being perfectly designed. Surely if there was a God, then God would be perfect (Otherwise not God), and therefore the universe would be prefect. Unless God deliberately put in flaws to cause suffering. Then you have a cruel God. I cannot see why this is illogical.

Are you saying that man fell from perfection due to a deadly sin? Was this "Adam" eating the apple? If God designed the universe, why was man able to sin?

Regards

Bankei

[TokyoT]

Being a lowly earth walker I have yet to stubble across a religion/faith that seems logical to me. Then again being a being with rather limited cognitive ability what do I know?

Here I sit posting on a web board with my aluminum foil hat, and bag of reeses pieces waiting for the builders of the pyramids to come back…… phone home.

[longway]

After reading Chapter 2:Christian Arguments

for God's Existence

Here's an example of his lack of logic:

"Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim."

And another good one:

"Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn't rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God"

So the author who is arguing against Christianity knew nothing about the fall of man and the earth's subsequent falling from perfection after the "deadly sin" which is the basic foundation of Christianity, Good and Evil.

The author has never read, nor comprehended the Bible or Christianity, so there's not much point reading further. He can't argue against something he knows nothing about. His arguments become even more absurd and illogical in subsequent chapters.

My suggestion, don't waste your time.

Next please!

Hello Tropo

I agree it is probably a waste of time reading this book, there are better ones out there arguing against Christianity.

I have never been a Christian, so am not sure why you think the above passages are illogical.

The first one is about a God being able to design such a complex universe. Now I see, I suppose this is illogial as if there was a God, God could design it all itself, and not need helpers.

The second one is about the universe not being perfectly designed. Surely if there was a God, then God would be perfect (Otherwise not God), and therefore the universe would be prefect. Unless God deliberately put in flaws to cause suffering. Then you have a cruel God. I cannot see why this is illogical.

Are you saying that man fell from perfection due to a deadly sin? Was this "Adam" eating the apple? If God designed the universe, why was man able to sin?

Regards

Bankei

kind of related to this perfect universe concept. have you come accross the book '6 numbers'. it shows that if any of these numbers quantifying the strength and amount various atomic and cosmic forces and matter was off by even tiniest (and i mean tiny, like 0.00etc1 in some cases) it would mean that life could not exist in this universe.

either we are incredibly 'lucky?' to be here or there is a deeper underlying cause. or maybe just an infinite number of unviverses.

i guess depending on your beliefs you can take the universe as being designed by a god, pure chance, or evidence of the fundamental interdependence of everything.

this post is that buddhist related, but the point i am trying to make is that we all inerprept the same phenomena in different ways depending on our mental priorities, if we even care at all.

btw suegha, i just cannot buy into the christian thing in anyway. it just seems too dated in its ideas.

[sabaijai]

It is never valid to use the expression all Christians, just as it is never valid to say all Buddhists.

Good point.

Being a lowly earth walker I have yet to stubble across a religion/faith that seems logical to me.

True. But there is a cline of logic, with some belief systems appearing to be more logical than others. And the relative differences in degree along that cline help define the aesthetic choices believers make when choosing a belief system/religion. Some like it more mystical, some less, etc. Christianity has always struck me as a very mystical religion, so it's difficult to argue logically for or against it.

I found the text interesting and provocative but perhaps the topic is a bit beyond the scope of a forum intended to be relevant to Buddhism?

[lannarebirth]

Just had a glance at the chapter on Buddhism as a "logical" alternative.

Then it explains how Buddhists believe in rebirth, hel_l, heaven and a belief in the Transcendent (enlightenment).

Surely an open inter-faith dialogue is a much more enlightened approach to take rather than comparing the supposed faults of one religion to the positives of another. Rather petty imo.

I agree. Surely enlightened people take the approach of exploring what is common among differing views. I found this a very good read and along those lines:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0767903439...233#reader-link

[sabaijai]

I don't see how, upon reading De Silva's carefully written critique, one can characterise the arguments as 'petty'. In the book's introduction the author makes an effort to explain his objectives, which are anything but trivial.

Introduction

Excerpt:

Some Buddhists may object to a book like this, believing that such a gentle and tolerant religion as Buddhism should refrain from criticizing other religions. This is certainly not what the Buddha himself taught. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta he said that his disciples should be able to "Teach the Dhamma, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen." Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood, so that we can be in a better position to choose between "the two and sixty contending sects." Criticism of another religion only becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. I hope I have avoided doing this.

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfold fear." --Thomas Jefferson

[PeaceBlondie]

I don't venture into this forum on Buddhism because I'm a Christian. Of course, this critical book by a Buddhist about the Christian faith is notable for its ....sorry to say...perhaps superficial or not.....well, suegha expressed my opinion well. Every point made in the early part of the book is explainable as a false understanding of Christianity or of the Bible. I'm sure I'd make similar mistakes about Buddhism or of Buddha.

As a pacifist Christian, I'd rather make peace than argue which religion is true.

[tropo]

The second one is about the universe not being perfectly designed. Surely if there was a God, then God would be perfect (Otherwise not God), and therefore the universe would be prefect. Unless God deliberately put in flaws to cause suffering. Then you have a cruel God. I cannot see why this is illogical.

Are you saying that man fell from perfection due to a deadly sin? Was this "Adam" eating the apple? If God designed the universe, why was man able to sin?

Regards

Bankei

Hi Bankei,

I mentioned that paragraph because by the way he explained it, he missed the entire concept of Christianity, Jesus, Good and Evil and the very reason for the creation of Earth in "the Beginning".

If the author of that book wishes to portray Christianity as a false religion, then he should understand it first. I would never even begin to criticize another religion unless I was well aware of all its teachings and had a thorough understanding of what the religion stood for.

I'll try to make this explanation as brief as possible as it's a very difficult concept to explain and I've never written it down before. Excuse my very raw effort.

Before God created the Earth, he created the universe which was perfect.

All his created beings were perfect (we call them Angels in Heaven) in a robotic sense, but they had free will.

There was one final stage of creation that would take some time to perfect.

God had to perfect created beings with free will. This was something that required more than just waving a wand and creating automatons. That would be easy, but hardly perfection.

Already one of Heaven's higher Angels, Lucifer had rebelled as a result of having free will.

Solution:

Create Earth with different beings (non-spirit beings) ie. Man.

Give Man free will to choose.

Allow Lucifer limited contact with Man ie. One tree in the garden of Eden.

Educate Man as to the consequences of his choices. ie. the result of eating one fruit over another.

Show Man and all other beings in the Universe (spirit beings = angels) what will happen if a course of action contrarary to God's will (laws of the Universe) is taken.

Give Man a reward (eternal life) for making the right choices.

After many thousands of years, destroy the consequences of going against God's will (laws of the universe).

Result:

A perfect being with free will who understands the consequences of his actions.

To explain what a perfect being with free will is compared to an imperfect one, let me use this crude illustration.

An imperfect being could be likened to a baby that injures himself in the course of his day. ie. putting his hands on a hot stove or playing with dangerous objects that he doesn't understand.

A perfect being is one that does not cause personal injury and understands the consequences of all his actions.

In a wide sense, the Universe IS God and God IS the Universe. All observed physical laws (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces) are the laws of the Universe. Any actions against the physical laws will have consequences (reactions).

A major stumbling block for many Christians and non-Christians alike are "The Ten Commandments" of God. They are nothing more than God's way of explaining to Man the laws of the Universe. The Ten Commandments offer the ONLY solution for man to be able to survive in our universe.

Taking actions contrarary to His Commandments will have consequences. They're not always obvious to us, as the consequences are often very subtle or seem non-existant at the start. Every action taken against any commandment will set off a chain reaction of distruction.

One of the major problems in understanding God is that we are trying to understand God from a limited perspective. Nearly all people seem to underestimate God. The author of the book discussed in this thread even thinks that God needs help.

Let me illustrate perspective in the sense that I'm using it.

If we are standing in a postion on the Earth and look around us, we will see a certain universe around us, a universe probably limited to a few miles square miles or so.

If we elevate ourselves a distance from the ground, our universe expands.

At a certain distance from the ground, we discover the Earth is not flat, but round.

If we continue our elevation through the atmosphere and above Earth and start travelling through space, we learn more and more about where we are, and who we are in the Universe.

In my opinion, we have not travelled far enough outside our little Universe to be able to fully understand God or Creation.

Sorry Bankei, this went on a little longer than anticipated.

Regards,

Tropo.

[Mr Jones]

I forget who said it, either Lennon or Stalin, “If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth”.

St Francis of Xavier or some place, give me the child and at 7 I will give you the man.

Religion, all of them is all to do with control of the masses, oh yes and screwing as much money as possible out of the masses.

There is a plaque outside the Liverpool catholic cathedral, “built by the poor of Liverpool” why couldn’t the rich of Liverpool build the place?

[tropo]

I forget who said it, either Lennon or Stalin, “If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth”.

St Francis of Xavier or some place, give me the child and at 7 I will give you the man.

Religion, all of them is all to do with control of the masses, oh yes and screwing as much money as possible out of the masses.

There is a plaque outside the Liverpool catholic cathedral, “built by the poor of Liverpool” why couldn’t the rich of Liverpool build the place?

If you need to quote people, get it right. John Lennon was a singer, Vladimir Lenin was apparently the one guilty of perpetuating that lie.

Maybe you missed this one: "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." -Franklin D. Roosevelt

It's incredible that you bring a mass murderer's (Lenin killed 10's of millions) opinion (one you cannot even spell) into a civil discussion about Christianity vs Buddhism. How appropriate.

It's totally false of course, because the truth is the truth. A lie cannot become truth. People might be brainwashed into thinking a lie is truth, but it doesn't convert to truth.

This discussion has nothing to do with religion in a broad sense, but specifically an author's view of Christianity from a Buddhist's perspective.

What is religion anyway? It's any set of beliefs regarding life and death and the world around us, and your atheistic beliefs are as much a religion as Christianity or Buddhism.

You're a product of Communism and Evolutionism perpetuated by your hero "Lennon", or was it Stalin? Controlling the masses was the key to this "religion".

Edited November 6, 2006 by tropo

[suegha]

Religion, all of them is all to do with control of the masses, oh yes and screwing as much money as possible out of the masses.

Have to say mr Jones, normally I enjoy your posts but the above shows an unhealthy prejusice. All of them?

My religion has no control, nor desire to control the masses. It also has never tried to 'screw' money out of me ar any other member. So, clearly it's not All!

[sabaijai]

It seems we are descending into accusation and acrimony, and going beyond the scope of this forum branch. Topic closed.