|
|

Sep 16th, 2003, 09:34 AM
My comments on Buddhism are pretty much based on a set of rules I have for all religions.
Let's take the the 5 most popular religions out there: If Judaism, on a historic level, was proven to be 100% correct, you couldn't argue with it. If there was a flood, the plagues, etc., then it would be true. You could argue the spiritual aspect all you want, but "realisticly" it could still happen.
Christanity could happen up until the crucifiction of Christ. When Christ was ressurected and those people saw him, then Christanity is proven correct. Historically and realistically, it would be the easiest to prove correct.
Islam could have a Mohammaed running around, but the angel part would be hard to prove based on "science".
Now, Hinduism? You couldn't prove that with science if you spent the rest of your days on it. There is no way in hell you could prove that someone was reincarnated into a cow or a junebug.
Take Buddhism now: If some guy went out right now who was a prep, saw a poor person and got shocked, climbed a tree, got "enlightened", saw some bums again and started preaching about how they shouldn't worry about being poor and just wait to enter the next life... you all would laugh your ass off at this clown right now. What makes it different because someone did it thousands of years ago? You can't prove enlightenment. You can't prove with any scientific or historical proof that he became enlightened.
You could prove the Jews recieved commandments and they had an ark and eyewitnesses could prove God spoke to them. If Christ rises from the dead, you ain't hatin on Jesus no more. You can't do that with Buddhism. It just cant happen.
|
|
|
|