Archive for March, 2010

Evidence of Evolution

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

There has been no evidence of macro evolution where we have creatures evolving into other creatures.

Even Darwin in his book on the origin of species by means of natural selection affirms this by stating that there was no proof that one species has changed  into another nor could he affirm that if these changes did take place that it would even be beneficial which according to him was the groundwork for his own theory.

This could not even be verified by leading evolutionary thinkers who had come from various scientific backgrounds in order to discuss the mechanism of speciation in Rome of 1981.

Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard, who attended this convention explained that they had no idea what happens genetically during speciation and concluded by saying that this was a damning statement but nevertheless it’s the truth.

Some people have a creative gift to produce colorful animation through the imaginative arts of their faith which depicts how things may have randomly come together from our past. There are also the prophets of  paleontology who are specialized in studying the remains of fossilized bones and are characterized by the scientific community as the gurus of piecing together the past accidents of chance.

When these charismatic individuals present their Hollywood production to their  world wide congregations then there evolves just another religious order which has joined  together the theoretical philosopher  and the faith artist on the basis of their supposed truth and then preached from the pulpit of the textbook as an exact or a precise science. Yet at the heart of this religious movement of naturalistic philosophy is an atheistic agenda which tries to convert unsuspecting souls into trusting them with their PhD of expertise and at best what they have to offer their laity is a doctrine of speculation but in reality they are attempting to brainwash others into their cult of academic dishonesty.

To take the skeletal remains of an extinct animal and piece them together is one thing but to project a whole line of thought on how they fit in the picture of one species replacing another is preposterous. What science can prove is that animals have achieved slight variations within species and that through entropy that older forms of life died and became extinct. What they can’t prove is that newer forms of life evolved from the means of natural selection by achieving some form of superior being as a different or improved species.

Also just because there are similarities between species doesn’t necessitate evolution either but all it ascertains is the common element that animals are designed for a common atmosphere on earth with a common food chain of certain basic chemicals.

This theory of evolution has certain large gaps in the synapses of its thoughts which has led a society into a mindless revolution of evolution in which man has attempted to replace God with science fiction.

 

 

How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism

 

 


Frances Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (N.Y. : Appleton & Co., 1898), Vol.11, pg.210 (Darwin’s letter to G. Benham, May 22, 1863).

Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February 1983, p.78

Leon E. Long, Geology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974) pg.172

Zen Buddhism

Sunday, March 21st, 2010

Zen which is imported from Japan has become a faddish religion in the West in which there are several hundred thousands of believers just in the U.S. alone.

This form of Buddhism claims to trace its heritage back to the Buddha but in reality it is  a divergence and rebirth from the traditional forms of Buddhism so much so that if the Buddha himself were alive today he would have had a difficult time discerning the aggregates of this new form of religious being.

This resultant impermanence to Buddhist philosophy is just a further evolutionary development towards a narcissistic outlook which has attracted many of its followers especially those from America and even Hollywood who already subscribe to this form of lifestyle and have gotten into the backseat of this vehicle of faith in order to enjoy the proverbial pleasure ride of reaching enlightenment or Satori.

Within Zen, subjectivism and mysticism are the order of religious behavior without any set of rituals or sacred text to follow.

Works is replaced by meditation and enlightenment can be achieved in the here and now.

The danger to Zen is that it has picked the thorny rose of moral relativism which appears to be a beautiful form of self expression yet in essence it is a prospect which could lead to a sense of lawlessness, chaos, and finally anarchy.

Zen also follows it own directions and depends upon intuition as a means to chart ones course which leads people in various directions as to which way to turn whether to the right or the wrong. In the end this kind of philosophy could lead one down a collision course since there are no traffic rules to follow except for the guidance of the master’s who want to be in control of the wheel.

Also this philosophy doesn’t necessitate a sense of social responsibility either because this form of atheistic belief has no supreme moral law code or lawgiver to govern the hearts of society which is like driving a vehicle without brakes down a crowded street of pedestrians. We have seen this kind of godless and recklessness behavior before which had heralded its propaganda as the final solution by leaving a holocaust of victims in its wake.

What was advocated as forms of humanism and altruism were perpetrated through the realms of communism and socialism which ironically led to the sociopathic slaughter of millions who disregarded the inherent value and sanctity of human life in this disillusionment of idealism.

I wrote a blog on this of which you may find of interest at

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2009/10/21/religion-causes-bloodshed/

Though Zen Buddhism has not been guilty of these extreme crimes it is nevertheless theoretically plausible that if left to itself that nothing would necessitate a restraint based on the outcome of its final destination.

That’s because Zen is rebellious against governing authorities as it has no concept of sin as violating others but rather it sees the individual as the supreme authority that has the right and potential of self deification as the Buddha mind.

Though this religion is centered on the self it is nonetheless social as it unavoidably interfaces with society.

So would you really want a whole world order that was controlled and influenced by the precepts of the Zen spirit?

Personally I am zenical of any cultish movement that is egocentric and self governed and whose main objective is focused on the meditation of personal fulfillment.

So I would encourage you to contemplate and reevaluate your position regarding this philosophical system by looking beyond the conceptual views of this movement towards the rationale field of objective truth.

In the meanwhile I would like to offer you a challenge to muse about the scripture which according to 2 Timothy 3:15 states that it is through meditating on the word of God that  makes one wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

How to know God

Zen Buddhist Resources

English Articles on Zen 

Buddhist Resources

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Kenneth Samples on reasons to believe

links.christreformed.org/realaudio/A20090116-OtherFaces.mp3

 

Christian Research Institute

www.equip.org/categories

 

Four Spiritual Laws

 

Jesus Film

 

New Testament/Bible

 

Audio Bible

The Dalai Lama

Monday, March 15th, 2010

The Dalai Lama has achieved respect from the worldwide community at large but that does not necessitate the truthfulness of his beliefs or teachings.

The Dalai Lama is a man and though he has achieved a renowned spiritual status as well as a Nobel peace prize he still remains a mere mortal who needs direction and guidance.

Some have given him the honorary title as a god-king and refer to him as holy Lord.

Yet his own testimony does not bear witness to the reality of these supposed tiles and traits.

For instance he claims that he has never done a miracle nor has he ever seen one done and even his top aid Tewnzin Taklha denies that he has magical powers. When questioned on whether or not he was sinless or perfect he laughed exclaiming “nonsense”.

In his autobiography he claims that he struggles in controlling his temper and on several interviews he states that he struggles with lust.

Also concerning his views he doesn’t see it as absolutely necessary to convert to Buddhism nor is he an advocate of Buddhism being the one universal religion. He claims this because Buddhism has contradictions in its own philosophical teaching which in essence will not be completely satisfactory in all of its views. So therefore he declares that Buddhism isn’t necessarily the best for everyone but rather it comes down to the matter on whether or not it works for you.

The Dalai Lama also is skeptical of Buddhist astrology and cosmology and therefore does not accept all Buddhist teaching.

He also stated that he believes that the Buddha taught Tibetan Buddhism which could not be possible due to the contrast of this type of Buddhism versus the oldest forms of Buddhism.

On interview he also admitted that Jesus was a fully enlightened being but I wonder how we can reconcile this statement since Jesus teachings are so radically different from those of the Buddha who lived just a few centuries before His time. Yet if Jesus is sharing with us truth then shouldn’t Buddhist’s equally consider the teachings of Christ?

Also for a religious organization which promotes a sense of spirituality it has had it share of scandalous teachers and organizations.

Like the sarin gas poisonings done by the Aum Shinrikyo movement whose guru leader was Asahara Shoko whom was originally endorsed by the Dalai Lama but was later renounced due to the group’s actions.

Also there is Hon-Ming Chen who is the leader of Chen Tao or the “True Way” who claimed that God would reveal himself on television and then a few days later to the whole world which of course never came to pass.

Other leaders within this religious movement have exercised sexual abuse, alcoholism, and even suicide. Also along with these gurus are those who through their Hollywood personality have endorsed the corruption of their screen acting profession which conflicts and violates the five principles of Buddhist thought.

In addition to his there are Buddhist extremists that are persecuting Christians which is a violation to their “do no harm” policy.

Though Buddhism may be respected as a world religion its shortcoming among its philosophy and leaders call to question the credibility of this movement. I would caution those who would be considering a devotional life as a Buddhist to seriously consider the reality behind this religious façade. For those who are apart of the movement already I would just like to encourage  you to reconsider your position on this matter by considering Jesus whom Thich Nhat Hanh endorses and the Dalai Lama himself acclaims  as being the fully enlightened one whose honorary title bears the name “Light of the World.”

John 8:12 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

 

How to know God

Tibetan Buddhism Resources

Tibetan Buddhism


“Reprinted by permission.  “(Nelson’s Illustrated Guide to Religions), James A. Beverley, 2009,Thomas Nelson Inc. Nashville, Tennessee.  All rights reserved.”

Buddha the Enlightened One

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

For some the Buddha is a god but practically speaking Siddhartha Gautama or Siddhattha Gotama was an atheist and therefore he didn’t view himself as a deity. For those, like the Buddha, who take a position as an atheist or agnostic I would challenge you to consider several of the cosmological and teleological arguments which I have already put forth in my previous posts.

Atheist and Agnostic

If we can conclude that God does exist then we should look towards Him as gaining the right understanding and thought in guiding our lives instead of the gurus and the Buddha.

Also for those who give honor to the Buddha how do they know that his sayings have been perfectly preserved since his words were not put into print until 400 years after his death? This would give plenty of time for oral tradition to embellish the content of his teaching which leaves the door open to stories of mythological proportions. Also as far as what has been attributed to his sayings he supposedly taught that if a person finds no value to certain aspects of his teaching then they are to disregard it. So how can a person who claims to have truth not affirm himself in an objective manner?

In addition to this Buddha’s teachings have resulted in forming many different schools of thought and various sects which hold to contradictory views.

Perhaps this is because there are discrepancies that are found among these varied and voluminous resources therefore making it difficult if not impossible to reconcile these differences within the texts.

Then again I wonder if even the Buddha himself would even recognize all the script which is credited to his authorship.

Anyway the question resonates was the Buddha really enlightened or awakened? How does he or anybody else know whether or not they have objectively reached or achieved this state of being and by what means does a person measure this phenomena of spiritual aptitude? To claim enlightenment could be an illusion of enlightenment as there is no criteria in which to standardize this spiritual condition.

Even the Buddha himself could not describe or define such elated terms as nirvana except to say what it is not. If the awakened one could not define the ultimate destiny in his enlightenment then how can a person be for sure that this is an actual state of being or becoming?

Is it possible that this religious worldview is only a lie or a deception which has resulted in wasting precious lives through a pessimistic and nihilistic philosophy of snuffing out a person’s own desire for life rather than pursuing the illuminating joy of celebrating the gift of living?

In reality desire can never be extinguished anyway and even the monks who are committed more to an monastic lifestyle of spiritual discipline still have a desire to uphold the precepts of the four noble truths and walk the noble eight-fold path in order to achieve the desirous state of nirvana.

This philosophy of denying oneself may go along with Buddhistic thought but practically are these people living out their life based on these principles?

Also how can a person prove such ideas as anicca/anitya or anatta/anatman? In the final analysis is this just nonsensical religious jargon and words or is this reality? Is all of life to be interpreted as just an illusory realm of shifting shadows without any concept of stability and permanence? Again are Buddhists living up to these ideals and does this rightly represent their day to day life?

In moving on to responding towards the emphasis of avoiding suffering this philosophy is part of the negative equation to the content of hedonism which strives to maximize pleasure while minimizing or avoiding pain.

In regards to the aspect of pain and suffering this concept can only be realized if there exists the antithetical elements of pleasure and goodness otherwise we have nothing to relate to as what is termed as pain and suffering. So if a degree of goodness and happiness can be achieved wouldn’t it be admirable rather than avoidable to see the glass as half full instead of half empty? Shouldn’t we desire to embrace the positive aspect of living rather than avoiding desire altogether? Just because life is filled with obstacles does this mean that it is better to admit defeat and avoid running the race or would it be more beneficial to take the challenge and leap over these hurdles in life? You know sometimes beautiful things can come forth from suffering but if a person avoids this experience then how honorable is it to retreat in life? We have seen the likes of heroes whom we have admired in laying down their lives for the benefit of others such as what Jesus did in suffering through His death on the cross. This was done on behalf of mankind in which he bore the penalty of our sin and guilt in order to release us from the curse of eternal suffering by meriting on our behalf the perpetual bliss of a heavenly kingdom.

I understand and agree that pain and suffering is an evil that is a part of this existence and world but it shouldn’t be avoided by checking out or escaping this reality which does nothing to solve the problem of ridding ourselves and our world of such mayhem. It is better to center our energies and efforts on building hospitals for the infirmed and food banks/shelters for the poverty stricken and orphanages for our abandoned young rather than to take a passive approach in action towards those who have found themselves in such unfortunate circumstances.

Also living in a monastery does not solve the problems of human suffering and isolation is more of a defensive posture versus a progressive approach in handling these issues.

Christianity has taken the position and the lead in making great efforts in providing humanitarian aid to better the lives of others by easing the discomfort of the destitute and suffering rather than taking the attitude that helping others is a contribution to the evil of increasing others Tanha/Trsna (desire ) or somehow reason that these people are really suffering anyway due to some fatalistic realm of karmic retribution.

Suffering may be an enemy but ironically by snuffing out desire this will only lead to more suffering the likes of which Buddhism is trying to escape.

Another irony to the emphasis of this philosophy is that the Buddha who sought out the source of suffering and how to eliminate it was a perpetrator of causing pain himself and his actions were contradictory to his mission as he abandoned his own family including his wife and child by creating a hardship for them in order to pursue his quest.

In my final analysis Buddhism in its most simplistic form appears to be egocentric and selfish because even though it may uphold to a basic moral code of treating others with respect it does so out of a self interest of solving their own personal problem of suffering as a way of meriting something for their own benefit, namely nirvana.

So if the ultimate goal and motivation for the Buddhist is to remove ones own suffering then morality in interaction with others is seen as only a means to achieve the end.

Yet Jesus had another approach to humanity in which he unselfishly came to serve rather than to be served in giving his life as a ransom for many.

Finally according to Buddhist thought the concepts of accountability or judgment comes through the system of karma and rebirth.

This seems like such an oxymoron for me to believe that such a respected spiritual leader as the Dalai Lama is in exile or that the rape of the Tibetan Buddhist nuns by the communist Chinese resulted by some type of karma from a previous life.

Also I am wondering how does this system of retribution become manageable for an atheist who would deny a supreme being and yet who else could orchestrate such a system of belief? After all someone must determine and evaluate this elaborate system of works in order to obtain some form of orderly system. This would take an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being which is definably God himself to oversee such an incomprehensible matter and so how can the existence of  God be denied?

In addition to this if nirvana is the ultimate achievement and final destiny in absolving oneself from this endless repetition of rebirths then how can one be absolutely sure of this realm of being?

Has anybody ever checked out of nirvana and come back to tell their story? Is this a real experience or are they depending upon blind faith? I did a blog on the after life or near death experiences which you might find helpful and interesting.

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2009/10/29/is-hell-real/

In response to Buddhist philosophy I would like to offer an alternative view which speaks of Jesus as the Light of the world and the One who illuminates every man’s path and if we trust Him as both Lord and Savior He will ultimately lead us out of this world of suffering not by the rigors of self effort into some kind of esoteric state of consciousness but rather in securing for us an eternal destiny of heavenly bliss.

I came into a relationship with Jesus over 20 years ago and He has radically transformed my life and filled me with a desire for living rather than inspiring me to despise my temporary abode of existence.

If you like you can read about my testimony at:

jesusandjews.com/wordpress/my-personal-testimony-with-jesus/

Also another point of objection is that whatever Buddhism has achieved academically it has done so through the school of Hindu thought.

Buddha may have strayed from Hinduism but nevertheless he was born, lived, and died a Hindu and therefore Buddhism though genetically altered bears a striking resemblance to its mother religion of Hinduism.

Again the bo tree of Buddhism is firmly rooted in Hinduism in which it has taken nourishment from as a vital support structure in maintaining Buddhism’s visibility as a religious institution.

In other words, though there are variances in beliefs between these two religious cultures, Buddhism wouldn’t exist without the guidance of the Indian guru’s and therefore it lacks  originality having it origins not in the Buddha to which it takes its name but rather its identity comes mainly from another source.

So do you want to put all your stolen eggs in the three baskets of Buddhistic teaching or would you entrust yourself into the protective hands of a loving and benevolent God who desired you and created you so you might have life and life more abundantly?

In conclusion this argument isn’t about who has the best philosophy or cultural expression but it is about seeking truth and allowing the truth to lead us down the path towards the inevitable. Christ came to light every man’s path but if the only light that you have is really just darkness then how will you find your way.

Yet the bible encourages us that God’s words are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.

Finally I hope that my rhetoric isn’t misunderstood as just a violation of right speech and though my words may appear hard I do have a motivation of genuine concern which compels me to labor my point in seeking the benefit of others. Again I am sorry if I have come across disrespectfully or have offended you needlessly I just don’t know how to say these things in a soft manner and yet communicate effectively the seriousness of these critical concepts.

Also I do believe as the Buddhist that there is an accountability system of right and wrong. These ideals are hard wired in the main frame of our existence in which God communicates truth to our inward parts so that we instinctively know that there are consequences and judgments to our life decisions and this is respectable when Buddhism minimally acknowledges that but to work out someway of appeasing the conscious through the self effort of religious practice is only a counterfeit behavior to the reality of having a personal relationship with the One who is able to remove the burden of guilt that humanity tries so hard to extinguish by self effort.

In closing I would just ask you to simply consider as an invitation to taste and see that the Lord is good and to open your heart to explore the person and work of Jesus.

Lastly I would like to leave you with a scripture which was uttered by Jesus in Matthew 11:28-30 28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

 

 

How to know God

Buddhist Resources

English Articles on Theravada Buddhism

 

 

Copyright permission by Bridge-Logos “The School of Biblical Evangelism”