RELIGION....(part 2)

[dacs]

---

That is correct, because there is no only one Buddha.

How is that related to my question?Â* The context was you insist that Buddha knew of such things because he is 'enlightened', but I argue that such could be a product of reading and not of enlightenment (unless you also classify knowledge throught ordinary reading is 'enlightenment').

Again, there is no only one Buddha, you may think that the Buddha is a property of Sakyamuni, no, it is not. Sakyamuni was just the first historical Buddha.

Did I give you that impression?Â* I never said nor implied that the word 'Buddha' is a property of Sakyamuni.

perhaps you need to read more about quantum physics...

I asked for proof and this is your reply?Â* That is not so scientifically sound to me.

I don't have to explain the voluminous theory of relativity, you could always search it in the internet.

I thought you understand and can put it in your own words.

Even Quantum physics is beginning to attest the validity of Buddhism say for example below about the three truths taught in Buddhism:

Also, threefold truth, triple truth, or three perceptions of the truth. The truth of non-substantiality, the truth of temporary existence, and the truth of the Middle Way. The three integral aspects of the truth, or ultimate reality, formulated by T'ien-t'ai (538-597) in The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra and Great Concentration and Insight. The truth of non-substantiality means that phenomena have no existence of their own; their true nature is non-substantial, indefinable in terms of existence or nonexistence. The truth of temporary existence means that, although non-substantial, all things possess a temporary reality that is in constant flux. The truth of the Middle Way means that the true nature of phenomena is that they are neither non-substantial nor temporary, though they display attributes of both. The Middle Way is the essence of things that continues either in a manifest or a latent state. According to T'ien-t'ai's explanation, the Tripitaka teaching and the connecting teaching do not reveal the truth of the Middle Way and therefore lack the three truths. The specific teaching reveals the three truths but shows them as being separate from and independent of one another; that is, it does not teach that these three are inseparable aspects of all phenomena. This view is called the separation of the three truths. The perfect teaching views the three as an integral whole, each possessing all three within itself. This is called the unification of the three truths.

Do you know who Copernicus is?Â* He is a Catholic religious.Â* Science is never a threat to the Catholic religion if it is exercised in its proper context.Â* Ever asked yourself what give rise to the Gregorian calendar (replacing the Julian calendar)?

"[The Julian] calendar, which consisted of eleven months of 30 or 31 days and a 28-day February (extended to 29 days every fourth year), was actually quite accurate : it erred from the real solar calendar by only 11½ minutes a year. After centuries, though, even a small inaccuracy like this adds up. By the sixteenth century, it had put the Julian calendar behind the solar one by 10 days.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordered the advancement of the calendar by 10 days and introduced a new corrective device to curb further error : century years such as 1700 or 1800 would no longer be counted as leap years, unless they were (like 1600 or 2000) divisible by 400.Caesar's calendar, which consisted of eleven months of 30 or 31 days and a 28-day February (extended to 29 days every fourth year), was actually quite accurate: it erred from the real solar calendar by only 11½ minutes a year. After centuries, though, even a small inaccuracy like this adds up. By the sixteenth century, it had put the Julian calendar behind the solar one by 10 days. (from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/gregorian1.html)

The Catholic understanding of matter and substance is also compatible with science.

On May 19th, 1939, Albert Einstein, the great scientist of the atomic age, delivered a remarkable speech on "Science and Religion" in Princeton, New Je rsey, U.S.A. He said that "There is no conflict between science and religion, science asks what the world is, and religion asks what humankind and society should become." Einstein expressed this appreciation of Buddhism, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." Highly appreciative references to Buddhism were also made by philosophers, scientists, historians, psychologists and thinkers of modern age including H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, C.G. Jung, Erich Fromm etc.

Whatever Albert Einstein said about religion is inconsequential.Â* Bluntly, it is not his expertise.Â* If you quote him regarding physics, then he may be considered an authority in some aspects.

I'm not even saying that Buddhism is better than Christianity, did I?

Thank you.Â* That settles it.Â* There is no need learning having Buddhism as a religion because it is no better than Christianity.Â* Is that what you are saying?

That is your opinion. Saying like you really know Buddhism? Even though, I respect your opinion.

Mind if I tell you 'that is your opinion'?Â* Do you really know Catholic Christianity?Â* Even so, I respect your opinion but I totally disagree with it.

5. Buddhism Is Democratic and Free

How do you exercise democratic principles in Buddhism?

As what i have said in the first place, I am sharing my beliefs, you are the one thinking that I am making claims of the greatness of my beliefs. It's your thought, not mine. Regarding detachment, that was not the real intent of Buddhism, I'll give you some history of Buddhism:

Â* Â* Â*After Shakyamuni's death, the Buddhist Order experienced several schisms, and eventually 18 or 20 schools formed, each of which developed its own interpretation of the sutras. As time passed, the monks of these schools tended to withdraw more and more from the lay community, devoting themselves to the practice of monastic precepts and the writing of doctrinal treatises.
Â* Â* Â*Around the beginning of the first century of the Common Era, a new group of Buddhist believers emerged who were dissatisfied with what they saw as the self-complacency and monastic elitism of the earlier schools and aimed at the salvation of all people. They called their school of Buddhism Mahayana (great vehicle), meaning the teaching which can lead all people to enlightenment, and they criticized the earlier, traditional schools for seeking only personal enlightenment, labeling them Hinayana, or lesser vehicle. A Mahayana Buddhism arose as a reform movement seeking to restore the original spirit of Buddhism. The Lotus Sutra is one of the best known Mahayana Sutras. This is the Buddhism for all!

That is your opinion.Â* As to the other schools of Buddhism, they would also claim to have the truth of Buddhism.Â* Among Buddhists (as you have shown), there is also dissention

I don't want to say any particular on this matter, many may be hurt to accept the truth.

Why mention it in the first place if you are not prepared to lay down evidence of that claim?Â* That is bad, you know?

You will know...maybe not in this lifetime.

Ah, but this is the only lifetime I have.Â* In my next life, there will be no time.

Really? Good.

1 Thessalonians 5:21. Your claim is wrong then.

Good, 1 pizza for you...=)

Thanks. =)

Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today.Â* Please tell us who are these modern minds in the world today who consider Buddhism as the leading factor in their lives.Â* After you do so, I will give you a comparable list of Christian scholars yesterday and today who contribute significantly to the pool of knowledge in our world.

I have answered this already, please go back to my post.

If there is a problem with the language I used that make you Dacs jump into a conclusion that I claimed of the greatness of Buddhism, I deeply apologized. Good day!

Hey!Â* Hold on.Â* Read again your post:

Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today.

Is this not a claim?

[mannyamador]

Peter and the Papacy
http://www.catholic.com/library/Pete...the_Papacy.asp

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they
were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles
were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for
the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic
scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the
crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will
strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent
to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He
headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts
(Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to
Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ.
At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock"
(John 1:42). The startling thing was that -- aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew:
Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2 -- in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not
used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name
is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why
call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a
whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when
Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim
(2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths -- Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give
other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never
"Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ,
but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But
in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly
conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi"
(Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14.
The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500
feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near
the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that
fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that
the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being
singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and
John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

Promises to Peter

When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called
Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha
into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea
Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).
Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you
are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on
Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the
authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a
whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19).
In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate
had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city -- an honor that exists even
today, though its import is lost -- meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to
which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in
the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?"
(John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then
Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my
sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me
more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present
(John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last
time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to
have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when
you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who
Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer,
being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Who is the rock?

Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18).
Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to
what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as:
"You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators
wishing to avoid what follows from this -- namely the establishment of the papacy -- have suggested that the
word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s
profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper
noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The
truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car
is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

Another alternative

The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is
mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the
cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the
principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish;
but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible
foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18,
1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and
use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different
passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be
used in different senses.

Look at the Aramaic

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name
of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone,
while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at
that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note
that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are
Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not
confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the
same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra,
is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not
for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it,
and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the
words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large
rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars
admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into
Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with
endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock
was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In
the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough.
Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up
to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel;
if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really
was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain
of the papacy.

[Gwynhuever]

..it does not matter what is in the mind (intellect) ...God listens to what is in the heart....

[whiteoleander]

..it does not matter what is in the mind (intellect) ...God listens to what is in the heart....

for me , you're partly right . but the mind and the heart can be used by the devil against us .

don't you think we have to do our part to know what god your heart and mind is referring to ?

you know sometimes our heart and mind canÂ* mislead usÂ* though we are given free will and intellect , it doesnt mean what you choose is the right one . we have to always be on gaurd even if its a part of you that tells you ...

[Gwynhuever]

@whiteoleander....i understand what you mean....but it is very difficult to expound on my one liner...suffice to say that i believe God is within us...maglisod ko explain ug minubo bro...and i do not want to get tangled into the debate...so share2 lang ko ginagmay sigon sa akong personal experience...

[lightbringer]

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. -Isaiah 8:20 :mrgreen:

The Papacy and Priesthood

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.

[d_guy1024]

Hey Dacs,

Even through reading, you could be enlightened. And yes, I know Copernicus. I am not saying that Buddhism is better than Christianity nor the other way around, and yes, I claimed that Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today like Einstein, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, C.G. Jung, Erich Fromm etc. Still, I am not claiming this is appealling to you, or the classical physicist like Copernicus. =) ,\/,,

According to you: The Catholic understanding of matter and substance is also compatible with science.
--->"Everything in the universe is made up of essentially 2 things: matter and energy. It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass(matter) and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."
--->On the other hand, energy can be defined as the capacity for doing work. It may exist in a variety of forms and may be transformed from one type of energy to another. However, these energy transformations are constrained by a fundamental principle, the Conservation of Energy principle. One way to state this principle is "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed".

Does this enlighten you? Or I may tell you what's my point here? that your creationism concept is contrary to this one.

Regarding the democratic principles in Buddhism, Buddhism is nondogmatic, nor does it have any rules or tenets, you are the master of your self, but it doesn't mean that it is okay to lie, or to kill. In every cause that you made, there is always a corresponding effect. You take the consequence. =) This universal Law of causality is called Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and it is the Mystic Law, the natural principle governing the workings of life in the universe, the law to which all Buddhas are enlightened and the true aspect of our own lives. Nichiren, the founder of modern day Buddhism, the Buddhism for all, devoted great energy to encouraging his followers to muster profound faith that chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is a practice by which they can bring forth their inherent Buddha nature--strengthening their capacity for wisdom, courage, confidence, vitality and compassion--to successfully meet the challenges of daily life and establish a state of unshakable happiness in this world.

Well, if these would just create a violent dissension from you, then there is no point to continue this discussion. My point here is just to impart the timeless philosophy of Buddhism.

[d_guy1024]

MAINTAINING THE ALL-IMPORTANT RELIGIOUS SPIRIT
(Living Buddhism, January 2005, pp. 48-49)

It could be said that the enlightenment of ordinary people by means
of the true mutual possession of the Ten Worlds and the true three
thousand realms teaching implicit in "Life Span" represents the
heart of the Lotus Sutra and the essence of Buddhism, and at the
same time, the quintessential aim of religion.

In dialogues with noted thinkers and in lectures given around the
world, I have frequently emphasized the importance of "the religious
spirit" and of "the religion." The religious spirit refers to the
inner spiritual power to create courage from nihilism, hope from
despair; it is a spirit to look for this spiritual power in oneself
and others and in all universal phenomena. The religious spirit is
to believe that the power to overcome any hardship or deadlock lies
within us, and to take positive action to create new value. All
religions, one might say, were born from this innate human spirit.
The religious spirit of humanity could be described as the starting
point and wellspring of religion.

The Latter Day of the Law, the current era, is an age when people
become attached to the fleeting and ephemeral; are at the mercy of
greed, anger, and foolishness; and are divided by mistrust and
hatred. Nichiren also saw it as a time when religions would lose
sight of their essential religious spirit and become alienated from
people, an age when clerics would spend all their time quarreling
among themselves about the superiority of their teachings—which had
in reality become ossified, empty of meaning — and be ever more
obsessed with doctrinal minutiae. The Great Collection Sutra
describes the Latter Day as "an age of conflict when the pure Law
will become obscured and lost."

Nichiren Daishonin clearly felt that unless this fundamental
religious spirit was revived, neither the people nor the age could
be saved. This led him to delve into the depths of the Lotus Sutra
and therein find the true mutual possession and the true three
thousand realms teachings, which make it possible for us to open the
world of Buddhahood in our own lives. And that is why he could
ultimately establish the three thousand realms doctrine implicit in
the "Life Span" chapter as an actual practice whereby people could
grasp the eternity of their own lives and, through their actions,
bring their lives to shine with everlasting brilliance.

The religious spirit is to see the eternal and absolute in human
beings and to wish to make people's lives shine. Nichiren's Buddhism
of sowing, based on the supreme Law hidden in the depths of the
Lotus Sutra, is a teaching directly founded on this religious
spirit.

Josei Toda, the second Soka Gakkai president, said: "When all people
manifest the life-state of Buddhahood, that is to say, when they
reveal the supreme value of their character, there will be neither
war nor hunger in the world. There will be neither illness nor
poverty. Enabling all people to become Buddhas, elevating the
character of all people to something of supreme value — this is what
it means to carry out 'the Thus Come One's work' (Lotus Sutra, Ch
10, p. 163)."

Just as President Toda urged, we of the SGI, directly connected to
Nichiren Daishonin and giving free expression to the religious
spirit, have spread our humanistic religion, the Buddhism of the
people, throughout the world.

[lightbringer]

ØBuddha was not certain of his or your future.

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (I Jn 5:13 KJV)
ØBuddha did not teach a personal God.
"and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD." (Ezek 23:49 KJV)

ØBuddha always said "come and see.
rather than belief by faith, however, when he died no one could "come and see" but had to put their faith in him.Jesus came and said to believe by faith and then He rose from the dead for all to "come and see"!

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" (Rom 5:1 KJV)

[d_guy1024]

ØBuddha was not certain of his or your future.

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (I Jn 5:13 KJV)
ØBuddha did not teach a personal God.
"and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD." (Ezek 23:49 KJV)

ØBuddha always said "come and see.
rather than belief by faith, however, when he died no one could "come and see" but had to put their faith in him.Jesus came and said to believe by faith and then He rose from the dead for all to "come and see"!

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" (Rom 5:1 KJV)

I disagree with your comment that Buddha is not certain of his future, I can even be certain of my future by just looking at my present...Also with your "come and see" comment, the Buddha instructed his followers to rely on the Law, and not upon persons. This clearly state that he himself did not want his followers to worship him, instead, base your life on the Law, and you can perceive the unchanging true reality of your own life, and your environment, the living cosmos.

Regarding the verses that you've shared, thank you, I respect it.