RELIGION....(part 2)

[Cardinal Bunal]

---

"For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!" (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123).

Of course they were in Rome! But they did not make it the place of primacy for the universal church of God, rather they went preaching the Word and most obviously, church planting.

As for Scripture attesting to Peter being the first exclusive bishop or vicar of Christ....

Look at Matthew 16: 18 in context of 1 Pet. 2: 4 - 8, and Eph. 2: 22
And as for the "keys", you need only to see Acts 2 and John 21 to understand.

Peter did NOT refer to himself as a vicar or primary bishop/pastor but rather as a fellow elder. - 1 Pet. 5: 1

;b

[dacs]

Instead of commenting, y not share ur own belief? Let me share mine as well, thanks amigos!

Thank you very much for sharing.

1. In many religions in the world except Buddhism, the ultimate head of the religion is always a God with supernatural power. This God is almighty, who knows the past and the future, and controls all beings in the universe. This God is worshipped by mankind. Only those who believe in this God can be saved and attain eternal happiness.

You are not speaking of Christianity, then. God - as Christians understand Him - did not, do not and will not control all beings. Christians believe that they are given free will and therefore responsible for their actions. Consequently, they believe of justice - if not of this world, then in the next.

Buddhism teaches that every man in the universe is his own lord, controls his own destiny, and is not controlled by any other man or any supernatural God. Sakyamuni attributed His own enlightenment, achievements and results to His own great efforts and wisdom.

You exchange one for the other. Does that make Buddhism any better? Not necessarily.

Your statement is not entirely true. In India alone, there are two different school of thought. One - the Northern school - subscribed to worshipping Buddha as supreme personal deity though at the same time adopting most of the degrading superstitions of Hinduism. The other - the Southern school - subscribed to adhering in great measure to the original teachings of Buddha. Each of these schools has their own canon of sacred writings. You should try to compare the quality of spirituality, depth of thought, variety of subject, and richness of expression of the Bible to that of the Buddhist sacred writings. I submit that the Bible is vastly superior in all aspects.

Control is a strong word. Do you consider 'influence' as synonymouos with 'control'? My objection to the statement above is the fact that Buddhist monastics and scholars actually study writings considered sactred bv other religions. They are therefore 'aided' by these writings to attain enlightenment. It was directly influenced by these writings.

Buddhism teaches that a person's luck or misfortune, success or failure is determined by that person's deeds - good or bad, and his efforts.

An infant who died in a painful and violent death is not really in control of his destiny. An excuse has to be made here. If the infant is 'is not controlled by any other man or any supernatural God', did he control his destiny of dying that way or is the infant not yet a person?

The Buddha can show him the way, but he has to do the work himself. In Buddhism, there is no superior being like God that is higher than all men. The Buddha was a man, and every man can become a Buddha.

Was there a time that there was no Buddha?

2. Buddhahood Is Attained, Not Born

Sakyamuni, like all of us, was an ordinary man. Through His wisdom and practice, He was enlightened and became a Buddha. Every man can follow Sakyamuni's footstep to practise Buddhism and become enlightened.

So, you consider Sakayumi's way as the only way to enlightenment? If there are other ways, why follow the way of Sakayumi?

"Buddha" is only a term we use to refer to a person who has been enlightened. it is like referring to someone who can "preach, teach and solve confusion" as "teacher". There is not only one teacher. Anyone can become a teacher, and there can be teachers everywhere. Similarly, Buddha does not refer to Sakyamuni only. Everyone can become a Buddha. There can be Buddhas everywhere, in this world, in another world, and in another universe.

from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm :

In Buddha's system, the all-god Brahma was entirely ignored. Buddha put abstruse speculation in the background, and, while not ignoring the value of right knowledge, insisted on the saving part of the will as the one thing needful. To obtain deliverance from birth, all forms of desire must be absolutely quenched, not only very wicked craving, but also the desire of such pleasures and comforts as are deemed innocent and lawful, the desire even to preserve one's conscious existence. It was through this extinction of every desire that cessation of misery was to be obtained. This state of absence of desire and pain was known as Nirvana (Nibbana). This word was not coined by Buddha, but in his teaching, it assumed a new shade of meaning. Nirvana means primarily a "blowing out", and hence the extinction of the fire of desire, ill-will, delusion, of all, in short, that binds the individual to rebirth and misery. It was in the living Buddhist saint a state of calm repose, of indifference to life and death, to pleasure and pain, a state of imperturbable tranquility, where the sense of freedom from the bonds of rebirth caused the discomforts as well as the joys of life to sink into insignance. But it was not till after death that Nirvana was realized in its completeness. Some scholars have so thought. And, indeed, if the psychological speculations found in the sacred books are part of Buddha's personal teaching, it is hard to see how he could have held anything else as the final end of man. But logical consistency is not to be looked for in an Indian mystic. If we may trust the sacred books, he expressly refused on several occasions to pronounce either on the existence or the non-existence of those who had entered into Nirvana, on the ground that it was irrelevant, not conducive to peace and enlightenment. His intimate disciples held the same view. A monk who interpreted Nirvana to mean annihilation was taken to task by an older monk, and convinced that he had no right to hold such an opinion, since the subject was wrapped in impenetrable mystery. The learned nun Khema gave a similar answer to the King of Kosala, who asked if the deceased Buddha was still in existence. Whether the Perfect One exists after death, whether he does not exist after death, whether he exists and at the same time does not exist after death, whether he neither exists nor does not exist after death, has not been revealed by Buddha. Since, then, the nature of Nirvana was too mysterious to be grasped by the Hindu mind, too subtle to be expressed in terms either of existence or of non-existence, it would be idle to attempt a positive solution of the question. It suffices to know that it meant a state of unconscious repose, an eternal sleep which knew no awakening. In this respect it was practically one with the ideal of the pantheistic Brahmin.

3. Buddhism Does Not Reject Other Religions

Most of the religions in the world only recognize their religion to be the only "truth faith", and reject other religions as "superstition."

Buddhism teaches that among all religions in the world, there is only difference in the complexity of the teachings, with very little difference in good or bad, right or wrong. Every religion which can exist in this world for over one thousand years must provide useful benefits to mankind, to be accepted and followed for such a long time. Otherwise, these religions would have been filtered by human wisdom and be discarded.

To attain Nirvana, you must detach yourself from this world. The state of absence of desire is Nirvana, right? If all Buddhists adhere strictly to this mantra, how can they provide useful benefit to mankind? The quest for Nirvana is a personal journey and not a social one. What is the benefit that Buddhism has given to the world?

In the 2500 years of the history of Buddhism, it has always existed peacefully with other religions, there has never been any incident in history where the spreading or preaching of Buddhism had created conflict with other religions resulting in bloodshed. Buddhism is truly a most tolerant, understanding or peaceful religion.

Remember that quarrel between two rival Buddhist sects two to four years ago? Those who are quarreling are actually Buddhist monks.

Buddhists are taught: "Do not only respect your own religion and snub other religions, you should also respect other religions. This way, besides helping your own religion to grow, you also fulfil your responsibility to other religions. Otherwise, while hurting other religions, you are hurting your own religion as well." This kind of tolerance and sincerity is one of the most treasured characteristics of Buddhism.

Here we differ again. Religion, for a Christian, is a way of binding back to God. To a Buddhist, religion is not a way of binding back to God. It cannot be because a Buddhist does not believe in a God. A Buddhist then is practically an atheist.

From the perspective of Buddhism, "true faith" has no country boundary, and it doe require the trademark of a religion. It does not belong to any one religion, or to any one person at any one time. The "true doctrine" preached h the Buddha is not His exclusive possession, the Buddha was simply one of the discoverer of the Truth. Just like Newton discovered the law gravity, he did not possess the law.

Here again lies another difference. Buddha is just a discoverer. Who made the one that was discovered? Don't you think that, if there is a law, there is a lawgiver?

That is why Buddhism teaches that all reasonable, and everlasting doctrines of any religion are also considered to be Buddhist principles, and many Buddhist principles are also part of the teachings of other religions.

Christians also believe that other religions possess certain truths because no system of beliefs will survive without some nuggets of truth.

"Love thy enemy" came from the Christian bible. Buddhism unquestionably recognizes this virtuous truth, and this saying is also stressed in a similar manner in the teachings of Buddhism. A number of the Christian Ten Commandments are also very similar to the five Precepts (rules) of Buddhism.

What about the detachment necessary for attaining Nirvana?

[dacs]

4. Buddhism Is Compatible with Science

There is no conflict between Buddhism and science, their mutual goal is to pursue "truth" and "fact". Many teachings of Buddhism are actually compatible with the modern science discoveries.

a. The Buddha said "Space has no end, and there are endless number of worlds." This means that the universe has no limit, and has an endless number of stars and planets.

You should read more. Many more men before Buddha observed the same thing. As Buddha was a learned person, he could easily have learned it from his studies.

It was only after Galileo started to observe stars with a telescope, that man has a more advance knowledge of astronomy. Man began to understand and accept that the earth is not the centre of the universe. The earth is only a small planet in this solar system, and the universe has an endless number of solar systems.

Over 2500 years ago, without a telescope, the Buddha told us about the endless space and countless number of stars, He was indeed an enlightened wise man to describe the truth about the great mysterious and overwhelming universe.

b. The Buddha also talked about endless lives in this world and other worlds. He pointed to a cup of water and said that there were eighty four thousand lives in the water (84,000 signifies a large quantity).

Today, scientists cannot deny the possibility of the existence of life in other stars or planets. Under a microscope, a cup of water has millions of micro living organisms. Over 2500 years ago when the Buddha was able to reveal such true fact without a microscope he certainly had amazing wisdom.

My advise again : Read more - especially the writings that dates back before 500 B.C. (way before Buddha was borne).

c. One Of the principles Of Buddhism states that nothing is unchangeable, substance can be destroyed and can be created.

This contradicted with scientific theories until Einstein's atomic theory E=MC2 proved that matter can be converted into energy (disappearance of substance) and matter can also be converted from energy (creation of substance).

Really? E = mc2 proved that? What Physics book did you get this information (and the corresponding interpretation of the equation)?

How do you define substance? I understand substance as always co-existing with matter. That is not your understanding, so I need to know your definition.

d. The Buddha once said that for the time it took him to finish a sermon on earth, thousands of years have passed in another world. This seemingly unbelievable tale did not seem so absurd any more after Einstein invented his Theory of Relativity.

Explain that, please.

In the history of mankind, science had been regarded as a threat to religious conceptions of man and the universe from the time of Galileo, Bruno and Copernicus who were instrumental in altering erroneous notions of the universe. The theory of evolution and modern phycology went against accepted principles of many religions dealing with man and his mind as recorded in their "sacred writings." However, basic principles of Buddhism are in harmony with the findings of science and not opposed to them in anyway.

Examples and corresponding proofs, please.

On May 19th, 1939, Albert Einstein, the great scientist of the atomic age, delivered a remarkable speech on "Science and Religion" in Princeton, New Je rsey, U.S.A. He said that "There is no conflict between science and religion, science asks what the world is, and religion asks what humankind and society should become." Einstein expressed this appreciation of Buddhism, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." Highly appreciative references to Buddhism were also made by philosophers, scientists, historians, psychologists and thinkers of modern age including H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, C.G. Jung, Erich Fromm etc.

If I quote more men and women of science who have only positive things to say about Christianity, will that prove that Christianity is better?

Science without morality spells destruction. Science plus religion like Buddhism can save the world and make it a happy place for people to live in. More importantly, Buddhism moves beyond the limitations of science.

Christianity does that much more than Buddhism.

5. Buddhism Is Democratic and Free

In other religions, the words spoken by the founder are "orders" that cannot be refused, and "gospel truth" that cannot be doubted. Anyone who doubts or does not follow the gospel will be "punished" by God. There were stories in other religion's "holy book" that men were punished severely by God because they did not follow God's orders.

In Buddhism scriptures, there is no record of any anger expressed by the Buddha. There was no punishment exercised by the Buddha. In the forty-five years of the Buddha's teaching life, He had always been kind, calm, and peaceful, to both good and bad people.

Good man, your Buddha. But what does that prove? By making claims of the greatness of your religion, you are not being true to your claim of detachment from worldly desires. How could we trust your words then?

The Buddha never forced His disciples to accept His teachings. He constantly encouraged them to doubt and to question. He said "small doubts result in small realization, only great doubts result in great realization, no doubt results in no realization."

In His last days, the Buddha said to His followers: "I never think of you as my students or my disciples, I am just one of you, being with you frequently. I never force anyone to listen to me, and I do not want anyone to obey me." How kind and touching!

How king and touching! --- Not so detached, are you?

People cannot be forced to accept true faith. They cannot be persuaded to accept what they do not understand, or what they do not like. That is politics, not religion.

Do you mean there are religion that does this? Who?

True faith will only flourish under democracy and total freedom. After careful thoughts and repeated differentiation, the spirit and value of a true faith will truly shine.

How did you know that? Enlightenment?

In Buddhism, the spirit of allowing and encouraging its disciples to freely doubt, question or even explore the teachings of the founder of the religion, is certainly unique amongst the world religions. Among all religions in the world, only Buddhism's founder and its scriptures are permitted to be doubted, discussed and explored and questioned. Buddhism welcome people with research spirit, independent character, and wisdom to study Buddhism.

Really? We Christians are told to probe everything. You missed that one.

Buddhism invites anyone to come and see for himself and permits him to accept only those facts, which agree with reason, logic and truth. It encourages the seeker of a new way to discard hearsay, blind faith, miracles and magic. Principles of Buddhism invite criticism and testing. Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today.

Catholics have that freedom and so much more.

Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today. Please tell us who are these modern minds in the world today who consider Buddhism as the leading factor in their lives. After you do so, I will give you a comparable list of Christian scholars yesterday and today who contribute significantly to the pool of knowledge in our world.

[d_guy1024]

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience,
which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be
Buddhism...." Albert Einstein.

There are other modern philosophers who expressed appreciation on Buddhism, i.e. Carl Jung.

But again, I would like to emphasize that religious strife should be avoided at all circumstances...

[d_guy1024]

Instead of commenting, y not share ur own belief? Let me share mine as well, thanks amigos!

Thank you very much for sharing.

You're welcome.

1. In many religions in the world except Buddhism, the ultimate head of the religion is always a God with supernatural power. This God is almighty, who knows the past and the future, and controls all beings in the universe. This God is worshipped by mankind. Only those who believe in this God can be saved and attain eternal happiness.

You are not speaking of Christianity, then.Â* God - as Christians understand Him - did not, do not and will not control all beings.Â* Christians believe that they are given free will and therefore responsible for their actions.Â* Consequently, they believe of justice - if not of this world, then in the next.

Yes, you're right.

Buddhism teaches that every man in the universe is his own lord, controls his own destiny, and is not controlled by any other man or any supernatural God. Sakyamuni attributed His own enlightenment, achievements and results to His own great efforts and wisdom.

You exchange one for the other.Â* Does that make Buddhism any better?Â* Not necessarily.

Your statement is not entirely true.Â* In India alone, there are two different school of thought.Â* One - the Northern school - subscribed to worshipping Buddha as supreme personal deity though at the same time adopting most of the degrading superstitions of Hinduism.Â* The other - the Southern school - subscribed to adhering in great measure to the original teachings of Buddha.Â* Each of these schools has their own canon of sacred writings.Â* You should try to compare the quality of spirituality, depth of thought, variety of subject, and richness of expression of the Bible to that of the Buddhist sacred writings.Â* I submit that the Bible is vastly superior in all aspects.

Control is a strong word.Â* Do you consider 'influence' as synonymouos with 'control'?Â* My objection to the statement above is the fact that Buddhist monastics and scholars actually study writings considered sactred bv other religions.Â* They are therefore 'aided' by these writings to attain enlightenment.Â* It was directly influenced by these writings.

Yes, some schools come to that point, worshipping the Buddha, because we human being tend to seek a personal saviour. But I am not speaking in behalf of the two sects you've mentioned, I am refering to Sakyamuni's original Buddhism who described his own enlightenment in the Lotus Sutra and whose final instruction is expressed in the Nirvana Sutra. The final instruction was to rely on the Law, and not upon persons. This mystic Law is the universal Law of cause and effect, which is the very essence of all phenomena, including life itself

Buddhism teaches that a person's luck or misfortune, success or failure is determined by that person's deeds - good or bad, and his efforts.

An infant who died in a painful and violent death is not really in control of his destiny.Â* An excuse has to be made here.Â* If the infant is 'is not controlled by any other man or any supernatural God', did he control his destiny of dying that way or is the infant not yet a person?

This is because you viewed life as linear, which commence from birth and ended to death. We believed that Life is just a cycle of birth and death, and the present is the manifestation of the actions created in the past, it could be not from this lifetime. Moreover, what will be in the future is determined on the actions created in the present.

The Buddha can show him the way, but he has to do the work himself. In Buddhism, there is no superior being like God that is higher than all men. The Buddha was a man, and every man can become a Buddha.

Was there a time that there was no Buddha?

We all inherently are Buddhas, we are just been deluded because of our past offenses or negative actions created in the past. Sakyamuni's teachings are just like any other teachings which is synonymously to purify our own Buddha nature.

2. Buddhahood Is Attained, Not Born

Sakyamuni, like all of us, was an ordinary man. Through His wisdom and practice, He was enlightened and became a Buddha. Every man can follow Sakyamuni's footstep to practise Buddhism and become enlightened.

So, you consider Sakayumi's way as the only way to enlightenment?Â* If there are other ways, why follow the way of Sakayumi?

I'm not saying that...please see item #3 of my previous post.

"Buddha" is only a term we use to refer to a person who has been enlightened. it is like referring to someone who can "preach, teach and solve confusion" as "teacher". There is not only one teacher. Anyone can become a teacher, and there can be teachers everywhere. Similarly, Buddha does not refer to Sakyamuni only. Everyone can become a Buddha. There can be Buddhas everywhere, in this world, in another world, and in another universe.

from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm :

In Buddha's system, the all-god Brahma was entirely ignored. Buddha put abstruse speculation in the background, and, while not ignoring the value of right knowledge, insisted on the saving part of the will as the one thing needful. To obtain deliverance from birth, all forms of desire must be absolutely quenched, not only very wicked craving, but also the desire of such pleasures and comforts as are deemed innocent and lawful, the desire even to preserve one's conscious existence. It was through this extinction of every desire that cessation of misery was to be obtained. This state of absence of desire and pain was known as Nirvana (Nibbana). This word was not coined by Buddha, but in his teaching, it assumed a new shade of meaning. Nirvana means primarily a "blowing out", and hence the extinction of the fire of desire, ill-will, delusion, of all, in short, that binds the individual to rebirth and misery. It was in the living Buddhist saint a state of calm repose, of indifference to life and death, to pleasure and pain, a state of imperturbable tranquility, where the sense of freedom from the bonds of rebirth caused the discomforts as well as the joys of life to sink into insignance. But it was not till after death that Nirvana was realized in its completeness. Some scholars have so thought. And, indeed, if the psychological speculations found in the sacred books are part of Buddha's personal teaching, it is hard to see how he could have held anything else as the final end of man. But logical consistency is not to be looked for in an Indian mystic. If we may trust the sacred books, he expressly refused on several occasions to pronounce either on the existence or the non-existence of those who had entered into Nirvana, on the ground that it was irrelevant, not conducive to peace and enlightenment. His intimate disciples held the same view. A monk who interpreted Nirvana to mean annihilation was taken to task by an older monk, and convinced that he had no right to hold such an opinion, since the subject was wrapped in impenetrable mystery. The learned nun Khema gave a similar answer to the King of Kosala, who asked if the deceased Buddha was still in existence. Whether the Perfect One exists after death, whether he does not exist after death, whether he exists and at the same time does not exist after death, whether he neither exists nor does not exist after death, has not been revealed by Buddha. Since, then, the nature of Nirvana was too mysterious to be grasped by the Hindu mind, too subtle to be expressed in terms either of existence or of non-existence, it would be idle to attempt a positive solution of the question. It suffices to know that it meant a state of unconscious repose, an eternal sleep which knew no awakening. In this respect it was practically one with the ideal of the pantheistic Brahmin.



This was the pre-Lotus Buddhism, which is categorized as Hinayana Buddhism, you may also checked the Mahayana Buddhism. But again there are still provisional Mahayana Schools. If you want to know the true Mahayana Buddhism, you may check this site: www.sgi.org

3. Buddhism Does Not Reject Other Religions

Most of the religions in the world only recognize their religion to be the only "truth faith", and reject other religions as "superstition."

Buddhism teaches that among all religions in the world, there is only difference in the complexity of the teachings, with very little difference in good or bad, right or wrong. Every religion which can exist in this world for over one thousand years must provide useful benefits to mankind, to be accepted and followed for such a long time. Otherwise, these religions would have been filtered by human wisdom and be discarded.

To attain Nirvana, you must detach yourself from this world.Â* The state of absence of desire is Nirvana, right?Â* If all Buddhists adhere strictly to this mantra, how can they provide useful benefit to mankind?Â* The quest for Nirvana is a personal journey and not a social one.Â* What is the benefit that Buddhism has given to the world?

Again, you are still refering to the Hinayana schools, which i think only one is left, the Zen, i'm not sure if it's Zen school...

In the 2500 years of the history of Buddhism, it has always existed peacefully with other religions, there has never been any incident in history where the spreading or preaching of Buddhism had created conflict with other religions resulting in bloodshed. Buddhism is truly a most tolerant, understanding or peaceful religion.

Remember that quarrel between two rival Buddhist sects two to four years ago?Â* Those who are quarreling are actually Buddhist monks.

What sects? Hope it did not resulted to any bloodshed as what others had been.

Buddhists are taught: "Do not only respect your own religion and snub other religions, you should also respect other religions. This way, besides helping your own religion to grow, you also fulfil your responsibility to other religions. Otherwise, while hurting other religions, you are hurting your own religion as well." This kind of tolerance and sincerity is one of the most treasured characteristics of Buddhism.

Here we differ again.Â* Religion, for a Christian, is a way of binding back to God.Â* To a Buddhist, religion is not a way of binding back to God.Â* It cannot be because a Buddhist does not believe in a God.Â* A Buddhist then is practically an atheist.

It's just that Buddhism had different view on your personal God.

From the perspective of Buddhism, "true faith" has no country boundary, and it doe require the trademark of a religion. It does not belong to any one religion, or to any one person at any one time. The "true doctrine" preached h the Buddha is not His exclusive possession, the Buddha was simply one of the discoverer of the Truth. Just like Newton discovered the law gravity, he did not possess the law.

Here again lies another difference.Â* Buddha is just a discoverer.Â* Who made the one that was discovered?Â* Don't you think that, if there is a law, there is a lawgiver?

Newton discovered the Law of Gravity, did he made it? Did he gave it to us? But we are enjoying it. The Law is a law, whether you believe it or not doesn't matter, if you jump from a tall building, you will not fly, you will definitely fall whether you believe in it or not. This kind of Law is very mystic.

That is why Buddhism teaches that all reasonable, and everlasting doctrines of any religion are also considered to be Buddhist principles, and many Buddhist principles are also part of the teachings of other religions.

Christians also believe that other religions possess certain truths because no system of beliefs will survive without some nuggets of truth.

Agreed.

"Love thy enemy" came from the Christian bible. Buddhism unquestionably recognizes this virtuous truth, and this saying is also stressed in a similar manner in the teachings of Buddhism. A number of the Christian Ten Commandments are also very similar to the five Precepts (rules) of Buddhism.

What about the detachment necessary for attaining Nirvana?

Again, the concept you are refering are from Hinayana Schools...

[d_guy1024]

I will attend to your other questions when I come back coz I'm running out of time...Good evening! =)

[mannyamador]

Of course they were in Rome! But they did not make it the place of primacy for the universal church of God, rather they went preaching the Word and most obviously, church planting.

You seem to have conveniently IGNORED the rest of the article which shows the primacy of the Church in Rome among the early Christians.
How so dishonestly selective of you!

Let me quote some of it again, where early Christians such as St. John, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus defer to the authority od the Church in Rome:

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church.
In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an
authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered
with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides
over charity... which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenaeus (180-200)
states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality,
every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this
[i. e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the
Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side.
(Adv. Haereses, III)

More historical evidence proving the primacy of the Church in Rome:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus,
succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians",
written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among
them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by
God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight
transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the
things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter
appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards
papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history,
before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself
a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the
matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one
explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's
minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

You also glossed over this point from my earlier post:

"To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary,
for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken
chain of successors."

All the earlier local churches founded by the Apostles ended or were wiped out, except that of Peter in Rome. Again, I quote:

Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite
patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The
Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St.
Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its
people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of
Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina,
erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very
name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now
claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by the
Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to
the See of Peter.

All of the later local churches, however, can draw a line of Apostolic succession in authority to the See of Peter in Rome. That is how formal authority was passed. Of course I understand why you chose to "overlook" this fact: YOUR church has NO UNBROKEN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. The Catholic Church, however, DOES.

As for Scripture attesting to Peter being the first exclusive bishop or vicar of Christ....

More of your WACKO PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS again? Oh please...

The link below is to an article that thoroughly demolishes your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the verses you cited.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

From where I quote the folliowing:

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the
Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to
leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the
charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine]
of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the
same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them
with a rod of iron".

So, when will you provide evidence for your false claims?

• I'm still waiting for that complete, accurate, and authoritative canon the pre-datews the Church Councils. Oh, perhaps you "misplaced" it?
  
  
• Or what about some verse to prove that the Bible is the sole, complete, rule of faith? You still haven't been able to provide even one verse that explicitly teaches that. Or did you "misplace" it too?

[Empress_Of_Drac]

ot: grabe ka tag as sa debate...dili nako carry ang mobasa...hehehehehe...

[mannyamador]

Apostolic Succession (Part 2)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

THE ANGLICAN CONTINUITY CLAIM

The continuity claim is brought forward by all sects, a fact showing how essential a note of the true Church Apostolicity is. The Anglican High-Church party asserts its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England, and through it with the Catholic Church of Christ. "At the Reformation we but washed our face" is a favourite Anglican saying; we have to show that in reality they washed off their head, and have been a truncated Church ever since. Etymologically, "to continue" means "to hold together". Continuity, therefore, denotes a successive existence without constitutional change, an advance in time of a thing in itself steady. Steady, not stationary, for the nature of a thing may be to grow, to develop on constitutional lines, thus constantly changing yet always the selfsame. This applies to all organisms starting from a germ, to all organizations starting from a few constitutional principles; it also applies to religious belief, which as Newman says, changes in order to remain the same. On the other hand, we speak of a "breach of continuity" whenever a constitutional change takes place. A Church enjoys continuity when it develops along the lines of its original constitution; it changes when it alters its constitution either social or doctrinal. But what is the constitution of the Church of Christ? The answer is as varied as the sects calling themselves Christian. Being persuaded that continuity with Christ is essential to their legitimate status, they have devised theories of the essentials of Christianity, and of a Christian Church, exactly suiting their own denomination. Most of the repudiatae Apostolic succession as a mark of the true Church; they glory in their separation. Our present controversy is not with such, but with the Anglicans who do pretend to continuity. We have points of contact only with the High-Churchmen, whose leanings toward antiquity and Catholicism place them midway between the Catholic and the Protestant pure and simple.

ENGLAND AND ROME

Of all the Churches now separated from Rome, none has a more distinctly Roman origin than the Church of England. It has often been claimed that St. Paul, or some other Apostle, evangelized the Britons. It is certain, however, that whenever Welsh annals mention the introduction of Christianity into the island, invariably they conduct the reader to Rome.

In the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 136) we read that "Pope Eleutherius received a letter from Lucius, King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his orders." The incident is told again and again by the Venerable Bede; it is found in the Book of Llandaff, as well as in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; it is accepted by French, Swiss, German chroniclers, together with the home authorities Fabius, Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, and Giraldus Cambrensis.

The Saxon invasion swept the British Church out of existence wherever it penetrated, and drove the British Christians to the western borders of the island, or across the sea into Armorica, now French Brittany. No attempt at converting their conquerors was ever made by the conquered. Rome once more stepped in. The missionaries sent by Gregory the Great converted and baptized King Ethelbert of Kent, with thousands of his subjects. In 597 Augustine was made Primate over all England, and his successors, down to the Reformation, have ever received from Rome the pallium, the symbol of super-episcopal authority. The Anglo-Saxon hierarchy was thoroughly Roman in its origin, in its faith and practice, in its obedience and affection; witness every page in Bede's "Ecclesiastical History". A like Roman spirit animated the nation. Among the saints recognized by the Church are twenty-three kings and sixty queens, princes, or princesses of the different Anglo-Saxon dynasties, reckoned from the seventh to the eleventh century. Ten of the Saxon kings made the journey to the tomb of St. Peter, and his successor, in Rome. Anglo-Saxon pilgrims formed quite a colony in proximity to the Vatican, where the local topography (Borgo, Sassia, Vicus Saxonum) still recalls their memory. There was an English school in Rome, founded by King Ine of Wessex and Pope Gregory II (715-731), and supported by the Romescot, or Peter's-pence, paid yearly by every Wessex family. The Romescot was made obligatory by Edward the Confessor, on every monastery and household in possession of land or cattle to the yearly value of thirty pence.

The Norman Conquest (1066) wrought no change in the religion of England. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1093-1109) testified to the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff in his writings (in Matthew 16) and by his acts. When pressed to surrender his right of appeal to Rome, he answered the king in court:

You wish me to swear never, on any account, to appeal in England to Blessed Peter or his Vicar; this, I say,
ought not to be commanded by you, who are a Christian, for to swear this is to abjure Blessed Peter; he
who abjures Blessed Peter undoubtedly abjures Christ, who made him Prince over his Church.

St. Thomas Becket shed his blood in defence of the liberties of the Church against the encroachments of the Norman king (1170). Grosseteste, in the thirteenth century, writes more forcibly on the Pope's authority over the whole Church than any other ancient English bishop, although he resisted an ill-advised appointment to a canonry made by the Pope. In the fourteen century Duns Scotus teaches at Oxford "that they are excommunicated as heretics who teach or hold anything different from what the Roman Church holds or teaches." In 1411 the English bishops at the Synod of London condemn Wycliffe's proposition "that it is not of necessity to salvation to hold that the Roman Church is supreme among the Churches." In 1535 Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, is put to death for upholding against Henry VIII the Pope's supremacy over the English Church. The most striking piece of evidence is the working of the oath taken by archbishops before entering into office: "I, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, from this hour forward, will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, to my Lord Pope Celestine, and his successors canonically succeeding...I will, saving my order, give aid to defend and to maintain against every man the primacy of the Roman Church and the royalty of St. Peter. I will visit the threshold of the Apostles every three years, either in person or by my deputy, unless I be absolved by apostolic dispensation...So help me God and these holy Gospels." (Wilkins, Concilia Angliae, II, 199).

Chief Justice Bracton (1260) lays down the civil law of this country thus: "It is to be noted concerning the jurisdiction of superior and inferior courts, that in the first place as the Lord Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over all in spirituals, so the king has, in the realm, in temporals." The line of demarcation between things spiritual and temporal is in many cases blurred and uncertain; the two powers often overlap, and conflicts are unavoidable. During five hundred years such conflicts were frequent. Their very recurrence, however, proves that England acknowledged the papal supremacy, for it requires two to make a quarrel. The complaint of one side was always that the other encroached upon its rights. Henry VIII himself, in 1533, still pleaded in the Roman Courts for a divorce. Had he succeeded, the supremacy of the Pope would not have found a more strenuous defender. It was only after his failure that he questioned the authority of the tribunal to which he had himself appealed. In 1534 he was, by Act of Parliament, made the Supreme Head of the English Church. The bishops, instead of swearing allegiance to the Pope, now swore allegiance to the King, without any saving clause. Blessed John Fisher was the only bishop who refused to take the new oath; his martyrdom is the first witness to the breach of continuity between the old English and the new Anglican Church. Heresy stepped in to widen the breach.

The Thirty-nine Articles teach the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, deny purgatory, reduce the seven sacraments to two, insist on the fallibility of the Church, establish the king's supremacy, and deny the pope's jurisdiction in England. Mass was abolished, and the Real Presence; the form of ordination was so altered to suit the new views on the priesthood that it became ineffective, and the succession of priests failed as well as the succession of bishops. (See ANGLICAN ORDERS.) Is it possible to imagine that the framers of such vital alternations thought of "continuing" the existing Church? When the hierarchical framework is destroyed, when the doctrinal foundation is removed, when every stone of the edifice is freely rearranged to suit individual tastes, then there is no continuity, but collapse. The old façade of Battle Abbey still stands, also parts of the outer wall, and one faces a stately, newish, comfortable mansion; green lawns and shrubs hide old foundations of church and cloisters; the monks' scriptorium and storerooms still stand to sadden the visitor's mood. Of the abbey of 1538, the abbey of 1906 only keeps the mask, the diminished sculptures and the stones--a fitting image of the old Church and the new.

PRESENT STAGE

Dr. James Gairdner, whose "History of the English Church in the 16th Century" lays bare the essentially Protestant spirit of the English Reformation, in a letter on "Continuity" (reproduced in the Tablet, 20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical to doctrinal ground. "If the country," he says, "still contained a community of Christians--that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel of salvation, men who still accepted the old creeds, and had no doubt Christ died to save them--then the Church of England remained the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as regards doctrine nothing was taken away except some doubtful scholastic propositions."

[d_guy1024]

Hi Dacs!

4. Buddhism Is Compatible with Science

There is no conflict between Buddhism and science, their mutual goal is to pursue "truth" and "fact". Many teachings of Buddhism are actually compatible with the modern science discoveries.

a. The Buddha said "Space has no end, and there are endless number of worlds." This means that the universe has no limit, and has an endless number of stars and planets.


You should read more.Â* Many more men before Buddha observed the same thing.Â* As Buddha was a learned person, he could easily have learned it from his studies.

That is correct, because there is no only one Buddha.

It was only after Galileo started to observe stars with a telescope, that man has a more advance knowledge of astronomy. Man began to understand and accept that the earth is not the centre of the universe. The earth is only a small planet in this solar system, and the universe has an endless number of solar systems.

Over 2500 years ago, without a telescope, the Buddha told us about the endless space and countless number of stars, He was indeed an enlightened wise man to describe the truth about the great mysterious and overwhelming universe.

b. The Buddha also talked about endless lives in this world and other worlds. He pointed to a cup of water and said that there were eighty four thousand lives in the water (84,000 signifies a large quantity).

Today, scientists cannot deny the possibility of the existence of life in other stars or planets. Under a microscope, a cup of water has millions of micro living organisms. Over 2500 years ago when the Buddha was able to reveal such true fact without a microscope he certainly had amazing wisdom.




My advise again : Read more - especially the writings that dates back before 500 B.C. (way before Buddha was borne).

Again, there is no only one Buddha, you may think that the Buddha is a property of Sakyamuni, no, it is not. Sakyamuni was just the first historical Buddha.

c. One Of the principles Of Buddhism states that nothing is unchangeable, substance can be destroyed and can be created.

This contradicted with scientific theories until Einstein's atomic theory E=MC2 proved that matter can be converted into energy (disappearance of substance) and matter can also be converted from energy (creation of substance).


Really?Â* E = mc2 proved that?Â* What Physics book did you get this information (and the corresponding interpretation of the equation)?

How do you define substance?Â* I understand substance as always co-existing with matter.Â* That is not your understanding, so I need to know your definition.

perhaps you need to read more about quantum physics...

d. The Buddha once said that for the time it took him to finish a sermon on earth, thousands of years have passed in another world. This seemingly unbelievable tale did not seem so absurd any more after Einstein invented his Theory of Relativity.


Explain that, please.

I don't have to explain the voluminous theory of relativity, you could always search it in the internet.

In the history of mankind, science had been regarded as a threat to religious conceptions of man and the universe from the time of Galileo, Bruno and Copernicus who were instrumental in altering erroneous notions of the universe. The theory of evolution and modern phycology went against accepted principles of many religions dealing with man and his mind as recorded in their "sacred writings." However, basic principles of Buddhism are in harmony with the findings of science and not opposed to them in anyway.

Examples and corresponding proofs, please.

Even Quantum physics is beginning to attest the validity of Buddhism say for example below about the three truths taught in Buddhism:
Also, threefold truth, triple truth, or three perceptions of the truth. The truth of non-substantiality, the truth of temporary existence, and the truth of the Middle Way. The three integral aspects of the truth, or ultimate reality, formulated by T'ien-t'ai (538-597) in The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra and Great Concentration and Insight. The truth of non-substantiality means that phenomena have no existence of their own; their true nature is non-substantial, indefinable in terms of existence or nonexistence. The truth of temporary existence means that, although non-substantial, all things possess a temporary reality that is in constant flux. The truth of the Middle Way means that the true nature of phenomena is that they are neither non-substantial nor temporary, though they display attributes of both. The Middle Way is the essence of things that continues either in a manifest or a latent state. According to T'ien-t'ai's explanation, the Tripitaka teaching and the connecting teaching do not reveal the truth of the Middle Way and therefore lack the three truths. The specific teaching reveals the three truths but shows them as being separate from and independent of one another; that is, it does not teach that these three are inseparable aspects of all phenomena. This view is called the separation of the three truths. The perfect teaching views the three as an integral whole, each possessing all three within itself. This is called the unification of the three truths.

On May 19th, 1939, Albert Einstein, the great scientist of the atomic age, delivered a remarkable speech on "Science and Religion" in Princeton, New Je rsey, U.S.A. He said that "There is no conflict between science and religion, science asks what the world is, and religion asks what humankind and society should become." Einstein expressed this appreciation of Buddhism, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." Highly appreciative references to Buddhism were also made by philosophers, scientists, historians, psychologists and thinkers of modern age including H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, C.G. Jung, Erich Fromm etc.

If I quote more men and women of science who have only positive things to say about Christianity, will that prove that Christianity is better?

I'm not even saying that Buddhism is better than Christianity, did I?

Science without morality spells destruction. Science plus religion like Buddhism can save the world and make it a happy place for people to live in. More importantly, Buddhism moves beyond the limitations of science.

Christianity does that much more than Buddhism.

That is your opinion. Saying like you really know Buddhism? Even though, I respect your opinion.

5. Buddhism Is Democratic and Free

In other religions, the words spoken by the founder are "orders" that cannot be refused, and "gospel truth" that cannot be doubted. Anyone who doubts or does not follow the gospel will be "punished" by God. There were stories in other religion's "holy book" that men were punished severely by God because they did not follow God's orders.

In Buddhism scriptures, there is no record of any anger expressed by the Buddha. There was no punishment exercised by the Buddha. In the forty-five years of the Buddha's teaching life, He had always been kind, calm, and peaceful, to both good and bad people.

Good man, your Buddha.Â* But what does that prove?Â* By making claims of the greatness of your religion, you are not being true to your claim of detachment from worldly desires.Â* How could we trust your words then?

As what i have said in the first place, I am sharing my beliefs, you are the one thinking that I am making claims of the greatness of my beliefs. It's your thought, not mine. Regarding detachment, that was not the real intent of Buddhism, I'll give you some history of Buddhism:

Â* Â* Â*After Shakyamuni's death, the Buddhist Order experienced several schisms, and eventually 18 or 20 schools formed, each of which developed its own interpretation of the sutras. As time passed, the monks of these schools tended to withdraw more and more from the lay community, devoting themselves to the practice of monastic precepts and the writing of doctrinal treatises.
Â* Â* Â*Around the beginning of the first century of the Common Era, a new group of Buddhist believers emerged who were dissatisfied with what they saw as the self-complacency and monastic elitism of the earlier schools and aimed at the salvation of all people. They called their school of Buddhism Mahayana (great vehicle), meaning the teaching which can lead all people to enlightenment, and they criticized the earlier, traditional schools for seeking only personal enlightenment, labeling them Hinayana, or lesser vehicle. A Mahayana Buddhism arose as a reform movement seeking to restore the original spirit of Buddhism. The Lotus Sutra is one of the best known Mahayana Sutras. This is the Buddhism for all!

The Buddha never forced His disciples to accept His teachings. He constantly encouraged them to doubt and to question. He said "small doubts result in small realization, only great doubts result in great realization, no doubt results in no realization."

In His last days, the Buddha said to His followers: "I never think of you as my students or my disciples, I am just one of you, being with you frequently. I never force anyone to listen to me, and I do not want anyone to obey me." How kind and touching!


How king and touching! --- Not so detached, are you?

Hmmm, you're just tackling this over and over...

People cannot be forced to accept true faith. They cannot be persuaded to accept what they do not understand, or what they do not like. That is politics, not religion.

Do you mean there are religion that does this?Â* Who?

I don't want to say any particular on this matter, many may be hurt to accept the truth.

True faith will only flourish under democracy and total freedom. After careful thoughts and repeated differentiation, the spirit and value of a true faith will truly shine.

How did you know that?Â* Enlightenment?

You will know...maybe not in this lifetime.

In Buddhism, the spirit of allowing and encouraging its disciples to freely doubt, question or even explore the teachings of the founder of the religion, is certainly unique amongst the world religions. Among all religions in the world, only Buddhism's founder and its scriptures are permitted to be doubted, discussed and explored and questioned. Buddhism welcome people with research spirit, independent character, and wisdom to study Buddhism.

Really?Â* We Christians are told to probe everything.Â* You missed that one.

Really? Good.

Buddhism invites anyone to come and see for himself and permits him to accept only those facts, which agree with reason, logic and truth. It encourages the seeker of a new way to discard hearsay, blind faith, miracles and magic. Principles of Buddhism invite criticism and testing. Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today.

Catholics have that freedom and so much more.


Good, 1 pizza for you...=)

Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today.Â* Please tell us who are these modern minds in the world today who consider Buddhism as the leading factor in their lives.Â* After you do so, I will give you a comparable list of Christian scholars yesterday and today who contribute significantly to the pool of knowledge in our world.

I have answered this already, please go back to my post.

If there is a problem with the language I used that make you Dacs jump into a conclusion that I claimed of the greatness of Buddhism, I deeply apologized. Good day!