3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI don't know either - but I would be very surprised if Buddhists thought their sole responsibility was to themselves and they did not have a responsibility to help other human beings attain Nirvana.
I wouldn't know. Why don't you enlighten us?
Historically, Buddhism was the first major "evangelical" religion. Although it originated in India, it was a minor religion until King Ashoka converted to it in the 3rd cent. BC. During his reign, Ashoka despatched Buddhist missionaries (including his son and daughter) all over India and South-East Asia. Buddhism had become the major religion in these parts by the 4th or 5th cent. AD.
In the 7th cent., however traditional Hinduism struck back in India with the Bhakti movement (a monotheistic variant that emphasised personal devotion to God - not very different from the mendicant orders that rose in Europe in the 11th and 12th cent.). By the 12th cent., Buddhism had declined in India and Buddhist communities only existed in relatively small pockets of the Himalayas, where they continue to this day.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think it depends on how to you interpret Christianity and how you interpret Buddhism. I think it is possible depending on your interpretation of both. I have come across some Christian-Buddhists on a buddhism forum...
Is there anything about either of these that precludes one from practicing and believing the tenets of both? Can a good Chrisitan also practice Buddhism? Can a Buddhist believe in the triune God of the Bible?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerDoes this entail that cremated people cannot enter heaven?
While there is a better life to come, it is not a life separated from this world - Christians believe in the literal resurrection of the body.
Does it entail that amputees will still missing limbs in heaven?
Does it entail that birth defects will persist in heaven?
If not, then you're not dealing with literal bodily resurrection.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo. No. No.
Does this entail that cremated people cannot enter heaven?
Does it entail that amputees will still missing limbs in heaven?
Does it entail that birth defects will persist in heaven?
If not, then you're not dealing with literal resurrection.
Why not?
EDIT: Resurrection of the body means that you will be brought back from death to life - body and soul. It doesn't mean your resurrected body will be identical to your body as it was before death.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are claiming literal resurrection of the body, yet the body is not that which is resurrected.
No. No. No.
Why not?
That is, is the amputee's body resurrected? If so, it will still have a missing limb. If the body doesn't have a missing limb, it is a different body.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen don't sneak in the word "literal" if what you mean is something figurative, something beyond the plain meaning of the text.
Resurrection of the body means that you will be brought back from death to life - body and soul. It doesn't mean your resurrected body will be identical to your body as it was before death.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoes the amputee's body become a different body when his limb is amputated?
That is, is the amputee's body resurrected? If so, it will still have a missing limb. If the body doesn't have a missing limb, it is a different body.
If removal of the limb does not cause the body to become another body, why does addition of the limb do so?
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt does become a different body with removal and addition, characterized by the two bodies having a different number of limbs.
Does the amputee's body become a different body when his limb is amputated?
If removal of the limb does not cause the body to become another body, why does addition of the limb do so?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLook up the definition of "resurrection". The use of 'literal' here is correct.
Then don't sneak in the word "literal" if what you mean is something figurative, something beyond the plain meaning of the text.
A figurative resurrection of the body would be one where the body is non-corporeal, for instance, or where the body is "resurrected" in peoples memories etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerList all of the parts that constitute your body.
EDIT: Is it only with limbs, or with any part of the body that your argument holds?
Are you a fan of Heraclitus?
List all of the parts that constitute another, possibly the same, body.
If those lists are not identical, then the bodies are not identical, for they have a different constitution. Note that identical lists are a necessary but insufficient condition for identical bodies.
I don't know about Heraclitus.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSuppose I listed parts at the cellular level (X million neurons, Y million skin cells etc. with relative orientation) - would your assertion still hold?
List all of the parts that constitute your body.
List all of the parts that constitute another, possibly the same, body.
If those lists are not identical, then the bodies are not identical, for they have a different constitution. Note that identical lists are a necessary but insufficient condition for identical bodies.
I don't know about Heraclitus.
EDIT: Heraclitus - the chap who said "You can never step in the same river twice".
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, my assertion still holds. Note that those things would only be in the list if you considered them as constituent parts of the body. Regardless of what you put in the list, my assertion holds. It is a formal one, with no dependence on any particular notion of the body.
Suppose I listed parts at the cellular level (X million neurons, Y million skin cells etc. with relative orientation) - would your assertion still hold?
EDIT: Heraclitus - the chap who said "You can never step in the same river twice".