Buddhism (Pro) or Christianity (Con)

You aren't required to cite everything you get your ideas of arguments from because a lot of this debate is simply arguing our knowledge of the matter, but thank you for your diligence. Now, on with Round 4! 1. ) There is archeological [1], historical [2], scientific [3], and philosophical [4] evidence for the God of the Christian Bible and for Jesus Christ whom the Bible talks about. I don't want to make this a debate concerning the existence of a/the God, because this is supposed to be about the gist of the two religions, but we cannot just go and claim that there is zero evidence for a God. I can't leave that subject untouched and go on with the debate so here are four sources that you may look at for your amusement. I also must clear up some assumptions pro made early on, such as that I "claim 100% certainty in all areas of education that God is the cause of the universe," and although that is what I believe, I cannot fully prove this. Arguing the existence of God is a waste of time since no one can prove that God does not exist and no one (but God Himself) can prove that God does exist. The best that either side of this question can do is to present evidence supporting their position. So by showing those links I am presenting evidence that Christianity's Holy Book is accurate and that it's depictions of God is real. Source 5 is an interesting view on the evidence that the Bible, and the God of Bible, is true. If what I am arguing for is "God of the gaps," then what you are arguing for (Buddhism) is ignorance. You do not have a direct hypothesis of "god" or the beginning of matter/life whereas Christianity holds one specific truth that has yet to be disproved; you do not have any proof for any hypothesizes that your religion makes; nor do you attempt to find truth because you believe that every individual has his own ethics and veracity that you say are not universal. 2. ) I agree with you on what science it. But in the last round I was inquiring with you, Pro, if you agree on the two ways science is presented that I described previously. "Evolution is a theory that has enormous proof behind it. " Yet you provide no examples, no proof, and no explanation behind your assertion. This is because, as I said before, evolution is mainstream and you are only told that evolution has "enormous proof behind it. " If you were to look into it yourself, you would find how much evidence there is against it too, and technically, most theories made one century (for example) are usually disproved by the same scientists the next era. New knowledge brings on new interpretations of facts, and this is why Darwin's theory became what it is now even though Charles Darwin's stories were thought of as facts years after he published. [6] 3. ) "Buddhism offers many alternatives, while Christianity offers dogmatism and blind faith. " Two things that you haven't done before making this irrational proposition: shown how there can be "many alternatives" for "truth," and you also need to prove Christianity's truth wrong before calling what we believe "dogmatism. " Christians believe what the Bible says not because it makes sense (it doesn't always,) but because it hasn't been disproven and we believe it is God's Word. They are not true Christians if they haven't studied what they believed and compared the facts in order to see for themselves what they believe, and for this reason it is impetuous to make the claim that Christianity is dogmatism. John C. Lennox once said, "Faith is not a leap in the dark; it's the exact opposite. .. It's a commitment based on evidence. It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding discussion. " So I ask again, how can "truth" be what it really means if every individual has their own ways of interpreting it? Truth definition: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. ) "Con asserts that they are arguing for the side of Christianity. The debate here is not whether Buddhism can live up to the Christian worldview, but which, of the two, offers a "better" one. " I don't know if there is a misunderstanding but aren't I supposed to argue on the supposed to argue on the side of Christianity in order to debate? You are on the side for Buddhism, am I correct? 5. ) The original version of the word 'spirits' has the connotation of supernatural beings. Nowadays it is referred to usually as the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power. Christianity, because the belief is that God created us and loves us, usually alludes to that of the supernatural version of "spirits" but it is also tied in with the other definition (the inner being of a person such as emotions and the soul's temper). This is because Christians believe that all life, energy, and power truly comes from the Source, who is God, thus they turn to Him for those attributes. This is logical by the definition because Christ can be described as a "force within a person. " Buddhism, again, has no "truthful" or "false" way to undergo the elements I explained earlier because it is experimental and individual. A big difference between the two religions is that Buddhists don't focus on a "Source" per say or "god," instead they focus on earthy matters. Their "spirits" are not supernatural, normally. 6. ) "Christianity teaches that the only way to end suffering is to accept Jesus Christ as the son of God and savior, and to accept that there is a divine father in the heavens above. This is this is based on supernatural assertions. " But you are making assertions yourself by saying it is not true. Prove that God is not real, but you can't, because God is moving, unseen by human eyes yet his evidence is in nature; and still I cannot prove that God IS real because He is supernatural (and we are not). Christianity is based on the Bible. The Bible does not thrust the belief on you in any sort of way; it is your own job to evaluate it. But it has a certain belief, and there is strictly ONE version which cannot be bent or tampered with to make it different. The Bible itself says to defend your faith. [7] Gautama Buddha, the founder of what came to be known as Buddhism, lived in Northern India in the 6th century B. C. His personal name was Siddhartha, and family name Gotama. The name 'Buddha' was given to Him after He attained Enlightenment and realized the Truth. This is much more dogmatic than Jesus, who gave us all an invitation to the truth and did not brag, for lack of better term, about any supernatural powers. Jesus only advertised for salvation and true life, while Buddha said he was more "enlightened" than others. Buddha generally called Himself the Tathagata, while His followers called Him Bhagava, the Blessed One. Jesus called himself the "Son of God" and His followers "dischiples" which was not bragging in any way. The beginning of Buddhism all began with a boy's early life. If you think about it, it sounds a bit far-fetched. When comparing Jesus to Buddha we get interesting results. Buddha was born a prince who seemed to have everything. He had a luxurious upbringing and His family was of pure descent on both sides and he married a beautiful, rich woman. He was the heir to the throne, extremely handsome, inspiring trust, stately and gifted with great beauty of complexion and fine presence. Amidst all this, he got a "vision" (The Four Sights) and decided it was proof he knew the Truth and was "enlightened. " Jesus was born to simple, "poor," inexperienced parents in a manger for hay and grew up as a teacher, humble, yet clearly intelligent in terms of morality, religion, faith, life, and truth. He lived a tough life comparable to any human who troubles with emotion and everyday entanglements. Through it all, he remained faithful to his acclaimed Father God and fulfilled what he was sent to walk a human life to do: he was a Savior through the crucifixion which He is most known for. Jesus suffered to pay the price of our sins and to let us enter Heaven; Buddha died of old age after making people believe he was "Enlightened" by seemingly appealing and logical sayings of so-called truths. 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. " Deuteronomy proves nothing on Pro's side to show how Christians "get killed" if they question the truth. I question what any book says before I believe it and I also personally know many skeptical people who have become Christians. I realize Pro's definition of Karma and I agree. I don't agree that Karma is the ultimate reason for everything that happens, because I think God was the "cause" while creation (which led to sin and death) was the "effect. " 9. ) More Rebuttals "If you want to just practice Buddhism, meditate for a couple of minutes everyday, try to discipline your mind, be more kind and compassionate, and see if that works. If not, Buddhism is not for you. " In a nut shell, Pro says that Buddhism is just working to be nicer and gentler. That's what 'nirvana' is and it's what Buddha supposedly taught. Christianity teaches much more than virtues. There has not been any real refutations from Pro, however I enjoy hearing his arguments. In this round I explained how C is better and more plausible than B. I look forward to the final round! [1] . http://answersingenesis.org... [2] . http://www.desiringgod.org... [3] . http://www.godandscience.org... [4] . http://realtruth.org... [5] . http://www.believers.org... [6] . http://humansarefree.com... [7] . http://www.openbible.info...