• Subscribe to Crisis

    • June 21, 2012

    The Dalai Lama, The Pope, and Creation

    by Michael Baruzzini

    lama

    The Dalai Lama has been awarded this year’s Templeton Prize, an annual honor given by the Templeton Foundation to a figure who, according to the foundation’s website, “has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” In practice, the Prize has gone frequently to thinkers who have investigated the interaction between science and religion. The Dalai Lama, as spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, has also concerned himself with this topic, and has released just this year his newest book, The Universe in a Single Atom, which investigates, in light of each other, Buddhist thought and modern science. While Catholics can certainly laud the Dalai Lama for his affirmation that the materialistic view of things falls short, they should also look at his Buddhist philosophy with some serious reservations. If the Dalai Lama is right in affirming a dimension to reality beyond that known by science, just what that dimension is remains a serious question.

    Beyond the complex world of nature, Buddhism asserts a fundamental “nothingness.”  Buddhist thought sees as illusory all distinction between beings.  As the Dalai Lama writes in The Universe in a Single Atom, “According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is untenable. All things and events, whether material, mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence.”  Recognizing this illusion is important, claims the Dalai Lama, because such division is the cause of suffering. Invoking the central Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, the Dalai Lama writes: “…Nagarjuna argues that grasping at the independent existence of things leads to affliction, which in turn gives rise to a chain of destructive actions, reactions and suffering.”  In addition to these moral concerns, the Dalai Lama bases his appreciation for modern science, physics in particular, in this Buddhist concept of negation.  “To a Mahayana Buddhist exposed to Nagarjuna’s thought, there is an unmistakable resonance between the notion of emptiness and the new physics.  If on the quantum level, matter is revealed to be less solid and definable than it appears, then it seems to me that science is coming closer to the Buddhist contemplative insights of emptiness and interdependence.”

    In contrast to this emphasis on illusion and negation, the fundamental Catholic doctrine is that of Creation. The notion of Creation overcomes the Buddhist objections to the idea of separation by insisting on a real dependence of creature on Creator, but also by allowing for the goodness of created beings as works of the Creator to shine forth and be declared “good.” Buddhism sees separation as an illusion to be overcome; Catholicism sees separation as the basis for the unity of love. Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, contrasted the notions thusly in his early book, Introduction to Christianity: “When God is understood …as sheer negation with respect to everything that appears real to us, then there is no positive relationship between “God” and the world. Then the world has to be overcome as a source of suffering, but it can no longer be shaped…” For Christians, however, the pope writes that, “The world is not just maya, appearance, which we must ultimately leave behind. It is not merely the endless wheel of sufferings, from which we must try to escape. It is something positive. It is good, despite all the evil in it and despite all the sorrow, and it is good to live in it.”

    This notion of real creation is the basis for the Christian approach to science. In contrast to the Dalai Lama’s assertion that science is in keeping with Buddhist thought, the late Father Stanley Jaki, also a Templeton recipient, dedicated himself to research showing that, science is a product of distinctly Christian thought. While the Dalai Lama is right to assert that absolute separation precludes the sort of causal interaction seen in science, his insistence on the illusion of independence raises philosophical problems of its own: just how is that changing illusions can exist, and causality can be real, if everything is really just the same? Catholic philosophy, as exemplified by Saint Thomas Aquinas, accepts a certain analogous unity of being, but also insists on the real differences of essence. Things are not so radically separated that they cannot interact; but they are really separate things, with their own being – a being that exists derived from the ultimate Being of God. In recognizing this fundamental reasoned order of nature, the world becomes open to the investigation of science.

    Central to the arguments of Buddhism, however, is the question of suffering. As the Dalai Lama notes, suffering can be understood in terms of separation. Yet it does not follow, says the Church, that the solution is therefore to deny or oppose separation. Indeed, the puzzle of Creation can only be solved by love. Love is willing the good, and affirming the goodness of the other. If there is no other, how is love possible? G. K. Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, graphically emphasized this distinction between Creation and the Eastern conception of negation: “The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him.  …No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him.”

    For Christians, Creation is the risk that is necessary for love. Christians believe that the separation that can cause suffering is also the separation that is necessary for the love to which God calls all men. Pope Benedict said in his most recent Easter Vigil homily,  “…God created the world as a space for knowledge and truth, as a space for encounter and freedom, as a space for good and for love.” Along with the Dalai Lama, Christians can assert that the methods of science do not exhaust our knowledge of reality, but against the philosophy of Buddhism, Christians believe that the Creation is willed and intended by God and is good, a place to be redeemed with love, not an illusion to be overcome.

    Tagged as: Buddhism, Suffering

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Print this   |   Share this

    By Michael Baruzzini

    Michael Baruzzini is a science writer and editor in Tennessee. His blog on science and Catholicism may be found at www.deepsoftime.com.

    More from Crisis

    • Pingback: The Dalai Lama, The Pope, and Creation | Catholic Canada

    • Pingback: The Dalai Lama, the Pope, and Creation | The Deeps of Time

    • poetcomic1

      “Buddhist meditation is a form of spiritual self-abuse.”
                                    -Cardinal Ratzinger (better known now as Pope Benedict XVI

      • avalpert

        Well the pope should be very familiar with forms of abuse

        • Tchrgabe

          Avalpert, your attempt of humor at the expense of Pope Benedict is not appreciated, refrain from smearing the Pope’s good name, because right your the asshole.

          • avalpert

            I suppose as an asshole I am exactly the type of target you and the pope are hunting for

            • mally el

              Don’t delude yourself. Nobody is hunting you.

              • avalpert

                Just my hole?

        • mally el

          Yes, he is aware. It saddens him and he has done more than anyody else to stop it.

      • Tyler

        Because a Catholic leader would know anything about a Buddhist practice right?

    • charles allan

      I will follow the Genesis account rather than Buddhist confusion

      • avalpert

        So you prefer the confusion of Genesis then?

        • Proteios

          How cute. We have a troll in the midst.

          • avalpert

            Weren’t they created on the fourth day?

      • Tyler

        What confusion are you mentioning? Buddhists do not have a Creation Story because to ASSUME what happened to make Life, the Universe, and Everything is a recurring arrogance in human thought. Buddhists are completely open to reasoning, fact, and scientific discovery, whereas the entirety of Genesis can be belittled and likened to a mere child’s bedtime story (like any Creation Myth). That’s why we call them myths. Religions existed amidst the Norse and the Greeks, and like everything else, either died or changed with time. They believed in their stories and their gods with the same fervor and belief you do now (running on the same amount of facts/proof, NONE). Impermanence is a Buddhist concept, that can be proven from mere observation of worldly phenomena, yep sounds like “confusion” to me. A talking snake, an omnipotent being taking six days and getting TIRED to create the universe, and God deliberately putting a forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden and knowing what would happen only to kick Adam and Eve out MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

        • porch

          Your welcome to bow down to the lama as a god – I will not be doing it.
          All worship to anyone but God is sacrificing to devils. Birds can talk and some can read the alphabet – it is no problem for Satan to inhabit a snake and undermine God’s word. He uses exactly the same tactic today – undermining God’s word – you have fallen for it.

          • Tyler

            So you’re saying the serpent was a talking devil-bird. And the Dalai Lama is not viewed as a god. At least not to Western Buddhists. What have you been smoking, jeez! Now you’re very clearly just trying to synthesize some insulting comments and remarks. It’s really quite sad. And how do you know that your God is just another devil? See, now we’ve got some epistemological problems here, that I’m sure you’re dying to give me some ambiguous reasons to believe you in your attempts to prove me wrong. Hard facts please. No? Well it was a nice gesture anyways. P.S. The Bible isn’t a source of evidence for your arguments. Which Bible would you be referring to? Some copies of the original Bibles have wildly different tellings of the exact same biblical stories. Yep, that sounds like strong historical proof alright.

    • hombre111

      Excellent! Thought provoking.

    • charles allan

      Thankfully for the Dalai  the plane he flew in was made of more than one atom

    • charles allan

      There is no confusion in Genesis – which tells us how the universe began from nothing

      • avalpert

        Yes no confusion at all in an account that has fruiting trees grow before the sun exists.

        • Duh

          God said let there be light well before the fruiting trees.

          • avalpert

            He also did before he created the heavens - doesn’t seem to be referring to the light from the sun that feeds the trees on earth now does it? Of course not, if it had he wouldn’t have needed to make Ha’Maor Hagodel (the sun) on the fourth day.

            Genesis is so confused when read as a literal account that even you, in arguing that it isn’t, is confused by it.

            • Tyler

              And of course the Christians (being so much smarter than everyone else EVER) will have us believe (force us if they have their way) that the entire universe is only a few thousand years old. There is history from ancient civilizations that predates the Christians’ estimated span of years the universe has been around. But I suppose the Devil did it to lead us astray, right?

              • porch

                The universe is about 6000 yrs old.The evidence is that the universe is young : there is no evidence of any civilisation preceding the genesis account – it is a priori reasoning and guesswork. Carbon 14 is found in diamonds coal and oil which is supposedly impossible – it should have disappeared around 50,000yrs.
                Lava 30 years old from Mt St Helens was K-AR dated at millions of years which shows how idiotic radiometric dating is. Absurd dates of hundreds of millions of years were assigned to lava only a few hundred to only a few thousand years old.
                Dino tendons and soft flesh have been found in 70 million yr old sediment.
                Instead of rejecting the long time scales scientists are now wondering how on earth dino meat can survive for 70 million yrs.

                • Tyler

                  If you can prove the Universe is 6000 years old, despite archeological findings that say otherwise, I’ll believe you. Until then, stop making absolute comments like “the universe is 6000 years old”. Notice i didn’t leave an exact date? It’s because I can’t say (neither can you) with any permanent degree of accuracy what the universe’s age is.

    • Pingback: The Dalai Lama, The Pope, and Creation - Christian Forums

    • Nate

      First, “The Universe in a Single Atom” was first published in 2006. By no means is it the Dalai Lama’s newest book. How did the author of this post make such an egregious error? 

      With all due respect, I suspect it’s related to his very obvious ignorance both of the Dalai Lama and of Buddhism. My freshmen Intro to Asian Religions students could pick this essay’s comments about Buddhism apart. Just as an example, the fact that what Buddhists call in technical terms “emptiness” isn’t “nothingness” is something we cover in the first two weeks. If the author of this essay had actually read, say, “The Universe in a Single Atom,” or any other of the books by the Dalai Lama in English, he’d be in a much, much better position to compare and contrast Catholic Christianity and Buddhism. As it is, he’s put together a ridiculous straw man and then beaten “him” up…bravo! 

      • duh

        Nate,
        I agree. As I was reading this I was rather disappointed at the lack of depth this article showed. This article had no interest in researching and understanding the distinctions. 

      • Tyler

        You’re absolutely right! Catholics are making terrible assumptions about a religion they are attempting to disprove. Of course they want to make it look bad. This is an unforgivable arrogance that exists only to make Catholics believe they are more correct than another religious faith, which is dead wrong. I’m tired of hearing only bad things about Christians. Jesus Christ would be throwing a fit if he knew what is going on here.

    • Pingback: Feast of St. John the Baptist Gregory Burke Vatican Director of Communications | Big Pulpit

    • charles allan

      “.. fruiting trees grow before the sun exists”  – so?   light was created before the sun – why should these things be beyond the Almighty.   Which came first the seed of the tree or the tree – how would a tree know it needed a seed – how would a chicken know it needed an egg ?   The Genesis account was not written by human reasoning which would always say the sun came first.

      • avalpert

        Actually, we know the sun came first – learn some astronomy. Beyond that, you may also want to learn how plants grow – it might help you understand why the sun would be needed for that. 

        That it says the sun didn’t come first is a pretty good indication it was written by (well at least for) humna reasoning which at the time held various creation mythologies that bear no relation to what we now know to be the actual order and timeline. Which of course is the point, people who still look to creation myths from thousands of years ago for their understanding of the origin of the world are a confused lot.

      • Tyler

        The subatomic particles, the atoms, the gaseous cosmic clouds, the stars, the galaxies, the planets, the increasingly complex molecules, the proteins, the assembly of biological materials, and procreation and evolution of those materials, the lifeform in question. All in that rough order. By the way, if evolution is nonsense, then where the hell do all of these dog breeds keep coming from? Mankind has eugenically-guided the steady change of genetic information over time via breeding dogs to possess desired characteristics. It’s basically a guided, fast-forwarded form of evolution. According to your theory of how we got here, God would have to have been actively Creating these unique and wildly-varied dog breeds that existed within specific dates in human history as they appear. Which even you would agree is disprovable nonsense (you’d have to or you’d be lying against obvious fact). No theories, no hypotheses, no what-ifs, just a big, fat fact. Science wins again.

        • porch

          Not even evolutionists would say that dog breeds are evidence thereof – they are STILL – DOGS.
          The characteristics come from the existing DNA code of the two dogs which came off the ark and led to all the dog species- such as wolves , coyotes , dingos etc.
          You say dog breeding is fast forward evolution but the dog is not evolving into say a porpoise or a flying creature – sorry but they are still dogs – no new genetic dna code has been added.
          The first part of your post is pure speculation and has no evidence whatsoever.

          • Tyler

            May I ask what you know, if anything, about Advanced Biology? I’ve taken a college course on Biology, and will be taking another one shortly. Unless you have a kind professor of biology, or even a biologist to speak with, your argument is clearly not based on a knowledge of biology. Therefore, the argument is over. And the dog-thing, is just to demonstrate to you the wildly-varying ability of even a small amount of DNA to change an animals appearance and behavior. Your whole “dogs have the same dna” nonsense is cute, but a poor effort to refute me. Chimpanzees alone possess 97-98% of the exact same genetic information we humans do. Do we look anything like those hairy, sometimes violent apes? Nope. Some similarities in anatomy here and there, even behavior, but pretty much different through-and-through. Next you’ll be telling me that chimpanzees evolved from humans after the ark. Bah!!!

            • Tyler

              For reference, mice have 70% of the DNA humans share. Food for thought.

            • porch

              Its not about looks – you share over 50% DNA with a banana – do you look like a banana. You have about 70% of your genes in common with jellyfish
              do you look like a jellyfish.

    • charles allan

      That’s what I said – it is not the light from the sun.
      The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

      • Tyler

        “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the
        Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot
        understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” That sounds like a cheap, lazy way of saying “LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU,” which in and of itself is cheap and lazy. YES, I use reason and look for facts before a state anything as “truth” because I’m just some dumb infidel that isn’t filled with the invisible spirit of your very obviously imaginary friend (whom you claim to believe in because…nope, I got nothing). Please use reasons for believing in God, and not just lame excuses like spirits and nonsense.

    • charles allan

      We don’t now know anything – all the scientific apparatus cannot create one single atom – not one.  Ist law of thermodynamics – matter cannot be created or destroyed.  Who would make
      a plant – who would make it to grow ?

      • avalpert

        Well, this is wrong on many levels – but confusion will do that to you. First, you might want to research the Casimir effect. 

        The foolish accept things that they are told come from the spirit of god because they are foolishness in general. They are spiritually trite and easily led into an abyss that lacks reason and morality. They don’t know anything for their entire basis of knowledge is mere foolishness…

        • ReadtheCatechism

          Science cannot describe how matter/energy came to be – not even the Casimir effect describes this. The Casimir effect presumes energy exists and does not explain how this energy came to be.  As you should know energy and mass are related (E=M*c squared) – so presuming the existence of energy is essentially equivalent to presuming the existence of matter.  (To Avalpert specifically: You shouldn’t be so quick to mock especially since you didn’t even understand the question posed.  Creation is about how matter/energy came to be – not how energy matter interacts once it came into existence.)

          • avalpert

            The Casimir effect involves energy coming into existence from nothing (all be it for very short periods of time) – it is essentially a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. While it alone does not explain the initiation of the universe it does demonstrate that energy can come to be from nothing – and provides another piece in the puzzle of what actually happened at point 0.

            • ReadtheCatechism

               A vacuum is not nothing – energy in a vacuum is thought to
              be exceedingly large.  Virtual particles –
              or even normal particles generated in a vacuum could be conversion of this energy
              into mass without violating the first law of thermodynamics.  String theory suggests other dimensions could
              be yet another possible explanation.  Recall the recent scientific experiments that
              incorrectly suggested light-speed was not the fastest – I suspect any theory that
              ‘debunks’ the first law of thermodynamics will be similarly short-lived. 

              The topic of creation is even more universal and goes back
              to how anything – time and space and energy/matter – including vacuums – came
              to be.  The biblical account of creation
              is an allegory – with the message that time and space and energy and matter
              were originally created out of nothing by God. 
              It does require faith, but so does any other explanation.

          • Tyler

            This is coming from a person who actively refutes science. I’m supposed to believe you know anything about quantum mechanical effects at the subatomic level. You think mankind was made from dust for crying out loud.

    • charles allan

      If you had even a schoolboys knowledge of time and chance and of the most basic cell you would realise that nothing can create itself even in 4 billion years in a muddy pool .   I  would say the entire basis of knowledge for spontaneous creation without a creator is based on fantasy and blind faith since there is not a shred of evidence.

    • ReadtheCatechism

      Beautiful article.

      Here are some Catechism quotes that go along with it…

      “…God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life.” – Catechism 760

      “Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator.   The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” – Catechism 338

    • charles allan

      Gravity cannot be observed although we know it exists.  This “energy” must have been created. 

      • Tyler

        Gravity is the acceleration caused by the gravitational force. It is not an energy. And just because something exists at all, does not mean or indicate within any degree of accuracy that a Creator is or was involved. You continue to make the mistake of jumping to conclusions without any form of reason or fact. It is one thing to believe in something, it is another entirely to “fill in the gaps” when imagining the reasons for things at an ontological basis. The universe could have just as easily existed from an emanation from another cosmic source, existed indefinitely, or more likely, exists from a cause or source that may forever remain unknown. Just because we (humanity) do not know something doesn’t give anyone the right to say “ahah, it exists, therefore there must be a God”, and call it with the uttermost arrogance “revelation” or “Truth”.

        • porch

          The laws of gravity must have had a creator – saying they come from another “cosmic source” does not solve the creation problem. It is you who is trying to fill in the gaps by your own vain speculations. The universe is filled with God’s laws
          which he divinely created.

          • Tyler

            You assert a specific creator. You are making stuff up.

          • Tyler

            There you go with that “must” again. What do you know the universe “must” have had. Were you there at the beginning, because I sure wasn’t, and if you were there and saw what happened, that sure would answer quite a few questions. We can ONLY speculate until we come across hard evidence that can provide a LOGICAL answer. A “creator” is just playing with an anthropomorphic concept that has since been discredited as scientists continue to sift through new discoveries about the Universe. A source of the Universe is necessary, but an active and strangely “human-like”, or anthropomorphic creator is jumping to massive and unconcrete conclusions.

        • porch

          Force or energy ? you are just playing with words

          • Tyler

            No, I’m not. Do some research, force and energy are different. And gravity is an acceleration. Go back to school and then we can chat.

    • Tyler

      According to the same book you read and consider “truth”, I should stone a man for picking up sticks on a holy day (the Sabbath), consider women property of their fathers or husbands, approve of slavery, and consider the reason for my existence at all to spend the entirety of my days repenting to a seemingly apathetic (even cruel) God who paradoxically hates me for being in sin (existing at all) and loves me for loving Him and shunning anyone who doesn’t. The Bible (the book you want everyone to read and follow) also tells me not to kill anyone according to God’s Sixth Commandment. So why is it God not only kills people in the Biblical stories, but orders other people to do so as well? It doesn’t make sense. If I kill a “heretic” because God orders me to via revelation and/or through the Bible, or refrain from murder/killing and violence because God told me not to murder or be violent in the Bible, I am at either extreme both committing a heresy and fulfilling God’s will. Am I the only one who sees any problem with this, or are you Christians going to tell me that “God works in mysterious ways”, or that I’m not filled with God’s Holy Spirit, or that I’m lying, or that I’m the son of Satan, or that I’m confused, or that the fossil record was created by the Devil, or that the Bible is a historical account (it’s provably not historically accurate). What say you?

    • porch

      The
      Jewish nation were chosen by God and were taught his laws from
      childhood. God promised that following his laws would give his
      children abundant life on earth and eternal happiness in heaven – on
      the other hand he knew that breaking his laws would produce disaster
      on earth and would prevent entry into heaven since God cannot allow
      sin (rebellion to his laws) in his presence. All his laws are good
      and God said they were easy to keep.

      God
      gave us a conscience to enable us to keep his laws – either to do
      good or evil.

      A
      rebellion had already happened in heaven when Satan decided in his
      pride to declare himself God and took 2/3 rds of the angels with him.
      Satan then convinced Eve then Adam to rebel and brought a
      curse on the human race.

      The
      man collecting sticks on the day God had given him rest was in open
      rebellion – he knew the law.

      The
      rest of the nations at this time were sacrificing their children to
      false Gods , killing and eating each other and committing thousands
      of sins and offences against God’s creation.

      It
      got so bad that God destroyed humanity with a global flood – the
      clear evidence of which

      is
      in the flood sediments which are exactly as you would expect if this
      event had happened.

      The
      husbands body belongs to his wife and the wife’s body belongs to her
      husband – they were commanded to be faithful to one another – which
      is great – would you like your wife to be unfaithful to you ?

      The
      Jews were commanded to kill certain tribes because they had reached
      depravity and were sacrificing (burning them alive) their own
      children to Molech etc after 500 years of warnings from God given in
      his mercy. God told them this must be done so that the Jews
      would not be contaminated with the sins of these people – the Jews
      disobeyed and after a period of time they adopted the same evil ways.
      God said the evil of these nations was in their seed ( I
      presume this means their DNA). God’s commandments still stand -
      dont murder.

      The
      bible has never been proven wrong – impossible if it was not written
      by God.

      If
      you first believe that God exists – read the gospels of good news &
      NT letters ,the Bible and accept the offer of eternal life – that
      Jesus (God in the flesh) took the punishment for your sins -repent of
      your sins and confess them to God – and then be baptised with water
      and the Holy Spirit (this is a must). The Holy Spirit will then
      cleanse you of all iniquity and unrighteousness and tell you what to
      do. This takes humility the opposite of pride.

      Belief
      is the start but is not enough – you must walk in faith and love- and
      give up all fleshly desires. TV on 15 hours a day
      intruding into our family nearly destroyed our walk with God.
      I also fell for the tricks of the devil and filled my life with
      useless clutter – the devil loves to use up your time on earthly
      rubbish. Another mistake I made was not getting baptised – I though
      my knowledge and belief was enough – dont try to live in your own
      strength.

      • Tyler

        First of all, you did not refute my statement on the obvious paradox of murder in the Bible, all you said was the man picking up sticks knew the law. And if the Great Flood did indeed kill of the entire human population of Earth (with the exception of Noah and his family), the “flood sediments” would have to be EVERYWHERE. The fact that God and his loyal angels being rebelled against by Satan is also illogical, if indeed God is omnipotent. And the statement “THE bible has never been proven wrong…” is obviously an opinionated remark, because I can spend a couple conversations with you discussing and reciting scripture from the Bible that proves ITSELF wrong. Come back and speak when you actually have FACTUAL evidence (either historical or scientific) to base your argument on, not just religious bigotry, useless and emotionally-loaded opinions, and incorrect historical recounts. I really would like to set you straight, so that you don’t continue to criticize the validity of OTHER religions, when you can’t even make sense of your own. And what nations killing and eating each other are you referring to? If you cannot give me names, historical dates, cultural and societal facts, or anything of the like, and just say “nations”, you are clearly making this up. I thought Christians weren’t supposed to lie. :P

        • porch

          God’s law is do not murder and still stands. God gave the Jews one day a week to rest and worship their Creator – this man knew the law. Except for igneous rock such as lava, granite etc the flood sediments are everywhere covering 80% of the earth’s surface – even mountains – eg mt everest has trilobite fossils right up to the top.
          Granite was created instantly as proven by polonium rings.
          God is omnipotent but gives mankind the free choice of accepting him or rejecting him. He wants everyone to spend eternity with Him not through force but by free choice.
          Give me one example of where the Bible has been proved wrong.
          From wiki :-Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world, continuing into the 19th century in some isolatedSouth Pacific cultures, and to the present day in parts of tropical Africa. In a few cases in insular Melanesia, indigenous flesh-markets existed.[3] Fiji was once known as the ‘Cannibal Isles’.[4] Cannibalism has been well documented around the world, from Fiji to theAmazon Basin to the Congo to Māori New Zealand.[5] Neanderthals are believed to have practiced cannibalism,[6][7] and Neanderthals may have been eaten by anatomically modern humans.[8]Cannibalism has recently been both practiced and fiercely condemned in several wars, especially in Liberia[9] and Congo.[10] Today, theKorowai are one of very few tribes still believed to eat human flesh as a cultural practice.[11][12] It is also still known to be practiced as a ritual and in war in various Melanesian tribes.[13]

          • Tyler

            So despite the fact that the law is “Thou shall not murder”, because the man was picking up sticks (presumably to support his family, but what-have-you), it is suddenly OK to kill this man because he broke yet another law (the punishment of which is paradoxically, murder). Doesn’t make sense, and you can’t just explain it away, because the paradox was still made. Unless of course you change what is written in the Bible, which seems to be the case by way of interpretation of context, whenever you want something to be “good” or “bad” according to scripture.

        • Tyler

          I gonna just cut through the bs and save myself sometime here. Here’s a nice source for you. http://www.infidelguy.com/article3.html It goes through the illogical nature of the Bible. Have Fun!

    • porch

      I asked you to provide one piece of evidence that disproves any part of the bible – not to give
      a website.

    • porch

      Since God created DNA and used this incredibly complex code to create all living creatures
      then we would expect to share DNA with all living things – this proves a Creator .

    • porch

      The British Museum of Natural History has the largest fossil collection in the world. When the senior paleontologist (Colin Paterson) was asked why he did not show the missing links in his book he said: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line – there is NOT ONE such fossil.” (Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma 1988, p. 89).

    • porch

      The universe is young – around 6000 years – did you not read the comments I made

    • porch

      Its me that seems to give the evidence while you just play with words. Can you tell me how the first cell came into existence with a Dna code of over a billion characters in a muddy pool.

    • porch

      Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission said, “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great conmen and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

      “The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or the wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” (Stephen Hawking, Austin American Statesman, October 19, 1997).

      Researchers suggest that virtually all modern men – 99% of them, says one scientist – are closely related genetically and share genes with one male ancestor, subbed ‘Y-chromosome Adam’. We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor…That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe, and then it spread out from there.” (US News and World Report, December 4, 1995).

    • porch

      “I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil records of plants is in favour of special creation”. Prof. E.J.H. Corner. Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, Page 97.

      “Most of the major groups of animals appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them”.
      Dr. Colin Patterson. Evolution, British Museum of Natural History, 1978, Page 133.

      “It is as though they (the Cambrian invertebrates) were just planted there, without any evolutionary history”. Dr. Richard Dawkins.
      Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, Page 97.

    • porch

      “There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world”. Gordon Rattray Taylor.
      The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.

      “Although this transition doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages”.
      Dr. Kriag Adler. Encyclopaedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, George, Allen & Unwin, London, 1986, Page 4.

    • porch

      “Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptillian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles”.
      Robert L. Carroll. Problems of the Origin of Reptiles, Biological Review of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, July 1969, Page 393.

      “The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to to bird was achieved”.
      W. E. Swinton. Biology & Comparative Anatomy of Birds, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, Page 1.
      “Feathers are unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers”. A. Feduccia.
      The beginning of Birds, The Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, 1985, Page 76.

    • porch

      “We have no certain knowledge of their origin (the cetaceans), for the earliest known fossils from the Eocene are already unmistakably whales”.
      L. Harrison Matthews. Natural History of the Whale, Page 23.

      “We are ignorant of their terrestrial forebears (the cetaceans and sirenians) and can not be sure of their place of origin”. Prof. Alfred S Romer.
      Vertebrate Paleontology, University of Chicago Press, 1966, Page 339.

    • porch

      “All fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats, and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestors”.
      John E. Hill and James D. Smith. Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, 1984, Page 33.

      “Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats”.
      Richard Leakey.
      Footnote in the Illustrated Origin of Species, abridged by R. Leakey, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1979, Page 128.

    • porch

      You are right on Charlie :“The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory”.
      Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species – 1859.

    • porch

      Tyler you have not given one evidence which disproves the Bible – nor one piece of evidence which supports evolution or the billions of years long time scale it needs – so your faith based belief in evolution must be rejected under the laws of the scientific method.

    • dan cook

      The Templeton Prize is an award based upon the “exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension whether insight discovery or practical works.” I think you do a grave disservice to the lifelong dedication of Sir John Templeton and the intent of this award by selfishly making a forum to vent what you think are the inadequacies of Buddhism. Just as This comes off on a sequel to “Crossing the Threshold” which pretty much rides roughshod over the Buddhist tradition. When will we as Catholics ever learn? We have a Pope leaving the Papacy today. That is our reality. Let’s look inward for once. The Pope’s final address states “it seems as though the Lord was sleeping”. The words speak for themselves. Where are we Catholics going with this line of thought? And what does it state about the lineage of thinking with our leaders? As a Catholic and studying Mayahana Buddhism for the past 26 years I assure you you need to do much more investigation as did the “true” author of “Crossing the Threshold” before you write about Buddhist concepts like “emptiness”. The Buddhist Concept of Emptiness is the focal point of the Dalai Lama’s meditation. It is a core concept that has enriched my relationship to the 3rd Person of the Trinity something that has been difficult for me to grasp though traditional means and paths that the Church have provided to me. Another branch of Mayahana Buddhism is ZEN. Zen teaches us with deal with our “stuff” by sitting with it not by avoiding it. We as Catholics need to sit with our “stuff” and stop the bashing of other religious traditions. Enough already. We look foolish enough.

      • nworder

        The Bible teaches the gospel of separation from the Godless religions of demons. There is only one way to God through His Son Jesus – not through Bhudda or any other self appointed guru – there is only one truth not many. Bhudda and anyother guru else had no part in the creation . Catholics need to get back to studying the WORD (bible) then they will understand about Jesus who was the Word made flesh.

        A little leaven leavens the whole lump and false religions are big leaven.