In “recent decades, scholars of Buddhism have been reluctant even to render that noun in the singular, speaking instead of “Buddhisms” in an effort to reflect the wide range of doctrine and practice across time and space. Thus no scholar of Buddhism would dare attempt to identify some essence or even defining characteristic of Buddhism, instead offering, when asked, a rather dry historical narrative: “Buddhism is a religious tradition that began in India around the fifth century B.C.E., founded by a figure known as the Buddha...” “No one, in other words, would dare to venture “what counts as genuine Buddhism”. “But it may be that modern Buddhism has existed long enough to require its own periodization, in which each period of modern Buddhism has its own favored “science.” (pg.891-2, Donald S. Lopez Jr. is the Arthur E. Link Distinguished University Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at the University of Michigan) “There are many philosophies and interpretations within Buddhism, making it a tolerant and evolving religion.” Also making it prone to competing truth claims about itself. Scholars (the newer ones) consider it, a “way of life” or a “spiritual tradition” more than a religion (after it fell apart under scrutiny- pg.887-8). https://backend.production.deepblue-d... It “is impossible to know exactly what the Buddha taught. He did not write down his teachings, nor did his early disciples. The only written versions were recorded several hundred years after his death, following centuries of being passed on orally- and of being interpreted in multiple ways.” (pg.130, 4th Edit. Experiencing the World's Religions, Michael Molloy) https://answersingenesis.org/world-re... • There Are Contradictions in Buddhism - Ve... • The Scientific Buddha: Past, Present, Futu... (26:44 start) Also noteworthy is “The current Dalai Lama has said that the entire traditional cosmology (which he ascribes to the fourth-century scholar Vasubandhu rather than to the Buddha himself ) is simply wrong and may safely be abandoned by Buddhists.” (pg.887 here: https://backend.production.deepblue-documents.lib.umich.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e9d2215-f890-4fac-bbf6-231ee9cc2b1e/content) “It is only in the twentieth century—and especially after Tibet came under Chinese control and the Dalai Lama went into exile in 1959—that the discourse of Buddhism and science emerged in Tibetan Buddhism.” (pg.888) Buddhism has been transformed (everything changes including Buddhism) by Western science since the 1870’s according to Donald Lopez. He lists other scientific failures Buddhists jettisoned (pg.885, 887), making the bold assertion: “For many professional scholars of Buddhism, who know Buddhist doctrine and history well, the idea that Buddhism and science (whatever one means by those terms) are compatible is so preposterous as to be unworthy of sustained analysis...” (pg.885) Why All the Distinctions? https://factsanddetails.com/japan/cat... https://www.learnreligions.com/brief-...

John 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved... (40) And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

St. Petersburg is PROUD!

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL21jvLtxj92jbqSaFH1mnGx_do1mRNT-q The bible stands alone authenticating its own claims by the revelation necessary to justify any and all knowledge (i.e., presuppositional apologetics). It gives us in its teachings the preconditions needed to account for intelligibility and what we experience.

Apparently, this local news station promotes this agenda for their community and children: https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/arti... https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/news... https://www.gulfcoastnewsnow.com/news...

Our culture has come to the point that the litmus test of truth is what you think about 'gay marriage'. But at the same time they have no basis for morality whatsoever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3d1zvgvcx4&list=PL21jvLtxj92g3qZN9vfofZj0tZEY6rifp&index=7

As demonstrated in the link below, even high level intellectual atheists basically argue as these young men do, that something is wrong because they don't personally like it or a group of people don't personally like it. There is no objectivity to moral laws or rights in atheism. Atheism reduces to philosophical childish tantrums. https://youtu.be/6WOiUtv8-XI?si=6ln5KDmCrnFFgxsd&t=3086 You will notice in discussions with people in general and atheists in particular that they think defining a moral standard justifies it. That is basic question begging. 'It's wrong because it hurts people'. Why is hurting people wrong? 'Because people don't like being hurt.' Why is it wrong to hurt people just because they don't want to be hurt? Look for the 'is/ought' fallacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6tvxMC3lvc&list=PL21jvLtxj92g9bJICSBaMjFILvj6IHZ_W&index=10

Atheists are generally unaware of and do not understand the problem of induction in philosophy and usually think "science" is an argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRjLEEbfBnM&list=PL21jvLtxj92g3qZN9vfofZj0tZEY6rifp&index=8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxa2i9deELI&list=PL21jvLtxj92g9bJICSBaMjFILvj6IHZ_W&index=7

Sorry for the typo at the 38 sec. mark : (they're not their). The Ontological Argument is basically 'If God, defined as the maximally greatest conceivable being, can possibly exist then he therefore must exist'. So, it is argued that if God could exist in any logically possible worlds, then he does exist in at least one possible world. But if he is maximally great, he should exist in every logically possible world. Therefore, he exists in this world. The presuppositional approach would be that what is logically possible, and argumentation itself necessarily assumes the existence of the Christian God, for his nature is metaphysically necessary for logic itself and our capacity to accurately engage in it. see here for our presupp series • Street Presupp

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Col.2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Prv.26:5 This conversation is a sample of unbelievers you encounter. Most have no clue what they believe and don't care if they are coherent. I had to cut this down to just the relevant presupp material. The conversation went about twice as long. Pray for this man. • The Problems of Philosophy

Language Caution The enemy wants to divert you from preaching the gospel of Christ and engage in railing. We need prayer so we can keep our focus on the preaching of Jesus Christ and him crucified.

These are samples of frequent distracters on any random outreach from getting the gospel to the lost. The devil inspires his own to disrupt the message from getting out and getting your mind off of preaching the truth of Christ. We need prayer on how to properly respond to each situation and encounter.

Jesus & Satan are brothers in Mormonism https://purposeinchrist.com/jesus-sat... https://mormonchurch.com/587/do-mormo... https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/d... The Trinity • The Trinity Theology • Theology for Presupp

This was the discussion referenced- • Atheist STUMPED By How MATH Points To... If you want to learn more about presuppositional apologetics to assist you evangelizing check out the series here: • Street Presupp

Sorry for the poor quality, but this is a frequent complaint we get from church people.

People presume to speak for a God while their god is no god at all. If people reject the bible and proceed to speak anything about God we should challenge their source of that revelation. • Thus saith ME