Thursday, July 29, 2010

Apologetics 315: The Real Problem with Buddhism MP3 by Ellis Potter

I appreciate Brian Auten for posting this great lecture about Buddhism. I think it's worth listening to.

Apologetics 315: The Real Problem with Buddhism MP3 by Ellis Potter
Enhanced by Zemanta


  1. First, he believes in astrology, so most of what he says is suspect. But he actually makes a great case for “Religion as Wish Fulfillment”. He presupposes that because Christianity “perfectly” meets our human needs, so therefore it is true. He doesn’t consider the other side of the coin, that our needs actually gave rise to Christianity.

    You and the lecturer seem to share the hang up that there has to be metaphysical meaning in life for there to be practical meaning in life.

  2. Well, at least you listened to the lecture. Problem is that Ellis argues that Christianity fulfills our needs not our desires. Biblical Christianity is about what we need and one of the things it's clear about is that we do not really know what we need and God does. For example we would not know what sin is unless God revealed it and we did not know we needed a savior when Jesus came and saved us. So your critique dies.

    Also I don't think you understood his definition of "metaphysical" it's talking about the objective reality of what something is not what we think it is. And there are many Christians who think that there is some value in what the stars say. I'm not really into it but the Bible tells us the stars are for signs. Astrology in it's modern form is different. Biblically speaking its about trusting God not what stars tells you.

    What are you saying is the practical meaning of life?

  3. Marcus "needs not our desires"

    Same difference at the most basic level. I'm not saying that someone sat down TRIED to come up with a system (i.e. Monotheism/Judaism/Christianity), I'm suggesting it developed organically in response to our needs/desires.

    "What are you saying is the practical meaning of life?"

    Meaning as it relates to my life and the people I effect. Absolutely, 100% subjective. It's meaning that is very real to me, but doesn't exist objectively in the grand scheme of the universe.

  4. Ryan, can you prove how the Bible shows a progression of growing to meets needs and desires? I agree that the argument can be made against the church how many doctrines and dogmas have been changed but those things aren't Biblical to begin with.

    If your your life meaning is subjective then how does your life mean anything to anyone else? Why shouldn't a thief kill you to take your car if your life has no value to him? Would he be wrong? What about purpose? Why are you here? How do you validate your presence on earth taking resources that some one else could be using? Why do you matter?

    Even more we know that people commit crimes - kill and maim - and never go to jail, never legally prosecuted? How do their victims get justice? Does it even matter to you if they get justice or not?

  5. As always Marcus, you misunderstand me. I suspect human religion, of which the bible is just a small part, developed along those lines while people were living in caves. Although, you can see a portion or branch of the evolution of “god” as you read through the OT and into Paul’s letters. In the simplest terms, a pagan, polytheistic tribal sky god morphing into the “uncaused cause”. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that as the “bible” moved from a primitive pastoral cultural to the relatively technologically sophisticated cosmopolitan Roman Empire, the goal posts moved.

    “Why shouldn't a thief kill you to take your car if your life has no value to him?”

    Isn’t this a very real possibility in the world we live in? “Should” is subjective. Of course he shouldn’t because he’d likely get shot :)

    “How do their victims get justice?”

    Given your scenario, they don’t.

  6. No I understood you I just disagree. God's character and nature does not change from Genesis to Revelation - 1500 years of writings. If you disagree provide examples of what change.

    So you can imagine a scenario where should kill you and take everything you own when you did nothing against them? I can't. He shouldn't kill you because it's wrong not because he could get shot. He might get away with it.

    So it's okay with you for the downtrodden and mistreated to receive no justice or mercy?

  7. Marcus; you really have a problem putting words in peoples mouths and using leading questions. I don't think you are intentionally trying to be dishonest just to win gotcha points in an internet argument, but maybe you are. It's something you probably should work on, especially if you plan on prostylitizing in the wider world.

  8. Wow, Ryan. I'm not sure what you are accusing me of. I do ask leading questions because I want to know why you write the things you do. As for putting words in your mouth, I have done no such things. All I have done is point out the logical conclusion to your position and expect you back up your assertions. If you disagree with the conclusions drawn then explain why they are wrong conclusion.