J. M. Peebles (1822–1922)

I came across this book from a conversation. This debate took place in Ceylon around 1870's and it made headlines all across the world. I think, the Christian case was not well represented well Wesleyan Priest David Silva. Basically, the case against Christian faith were, instead of God, Ishwar, Jehovah were used, thus tricking the local people. Some inconsistencies are in the Bible. The body was stolen by disciples when the guards slept. If it were stolen, it seems that they would not simply go and die for a lie. It was controversial among everyone, they could have easily disproved it. I would say, he could do better than these arguments. Both sides threw the word omniscient, trying to play against each other.

The Christian side did not really make a good case against the Buddhist faith, they simply rambled with definitions in Pali. Simply accused Buddha of things and went deep into metaphysics. Buddha was a great teacher. Anyway, I do think the Buddhist priest argued better. I myself came across few questions while reading, if I could ask a Buddhist. Why would life be valuable if God did not create life? One ought to get rid of every desire in Life and attain Nirvana, but isn't that a desire itself?

It seems that the Buddhist monk simply stresses that one ought to get rid of desires, must strive to be morally perfect. Overall, the Buddhist side had a better case and won IMHO.
I would love to discuss more on this.
… (mehr)

I came across this book from a conversation. This debate took place in Ceylon around 1870's and it made headlines all across the world. I think, the Christian case was not well represented well Wesleyan Priest David Silva. Basically, the case against Christian faith were, instead of God, Ishwar, Jehovah were used, thus tricking the local people. Some inconsistencies are in the Bible. The body was stolen by disciples when the guards slept. If it were stolen, it seems that they would not simply go and die for a lie. It was controversial among everyone, they could have easily disproved it. I would say, he could do better than these arguments. Both sides threw the word omniscient, trying to play against each other.

The Christian side did not really make a good case against the Buddhist faith, they simply rambled with definitions in Pali. Simply accused Buddha of things and went deep into metaphysics. Buddha was a great teacher. Anyway, I do think the Buddhist priest argued better. I myself came across few questions while reading, if I could ask a Buddhist. Why would life be valuable if God did not create life? One ought to get rid of every desire in Life and attain Nirvana, but isn't that a desire itself?

It seems that the Buddhist monk simply stresses that one ought to get rid of desires, must strive to be morally perfect. Overall, the Buddhist side had a better case and won IMHO.
I would love to discuss more on this.
… (mehr)