can somebody help me understand this?!

[NikolaiI]

Haha, no thank you.,that was a very pleasant surprise. I'm glad you liked it, I like your posts, too..

I actually got that from a Zen talk I heard on youtube by Bon Yeon.

[Gorilla King]

If you were to ask me about the basis for my belief in the findings of biology I would tell you that those findings have been tested.

You get defensive when asked about the basis of your beliefs, as if 'God' were incompetent to defend himself against attack and it was up to you to do so. The existence of God is not within my competence either to affirm or disprove; it is the authority and the touchiness of those who profess to 'know' Him that I am curious about.

And I tell you my beliefs have been tested far more than yours, but you find the methods of testing to be unsatisfactory and dismiss them. Do you really believe that the thousands, perhaps even millions of miracles people have experienced even in the last century can all just be dismissed? If I tell you I've seen a woman in a wheelchair who has been there since she was a teenager walk after being prayed over, how are you going to explain it? Are you going to dismiss it because you can't apply the scientific method to it? seems to me that the scientific method is a rather limiting box in terms of human experience.

[Gorilla King]

It's true though, that when you're on one side you really do believe it's true. As Donnie Darko said from the movie Donnie Darko, "I want to believe I'm not alone, but I don't know. I've just never seen any proof, you know? I don't debate it anymore. I used to, but I don't anymore. You could debate it all your life and not be anywhere further. It's absurd! So I just don't debate it anymore."

I agree with Feynman. Living and not knowing, or living and being alone is nothing terrible. I don't fear death, etc., either. Some theologians think it's inherent that all people are terrified by death, etc., like Camus, and it just doesn't make sense.

And about God and not knowing, the only reason we consider it at all, and are debating it, is because of the precise way we were raised. We were raised, taught the issue, etc., talked with people about it ever since our childhood and schooldays. If, for example, you never knew anything about it, you wouldn't think anything about it. Consider a child raised in a small community, seperate from the modern world. She was taught nothing about religion or God, she just lived with nature, knew plants and animals and the seasons in all their freshness and beauty, the warmth of the sun in the summer, the grass on her bare feet and the streams, and winter in all its vigor and freshness, and lived with her family and community and people who loved her, but she never knew God - then she would think of the world as a safe place, she would be happy and think of the world as a good place, and and she wouldn't be sad because she was alone in the universe or unhappy because she didn't know...theology.

The Christian mythic narrative, as so-and-so calls it, has many adherents. Some of them were, really did fit the negative stereotype some atheists have of Christians. I mean the ones who were the opposite of what the ideal was - what Christ was - the ones you just want see- you say you follow Christ!?? The type of person Nietzsche thought a Christian was. But obviously the way it should be is a good religion, one that preaches compassion and enlightenment, etc., i.e., if one follows Jesus. I think one problem is that people take the bible too literally. It's a mythic narrative. There are lots of others. It doesn't have a monopoly on truth, rationality, logic, and everything good, goodness. It isn't the one and only truth. Going through Buddha is the same as going through Christ. Proof: the actions are the same, and the thoughts are the same.

That's my opinion. Hope that helps, stella. I find it strange when people take strange things for granted; things that are strange to me. Like, we should all be depressed, or things should be this way or that, pretty much almost anything. Like, if someone bases everything on the bible. Then you're in an argument with them, and they use a verse from the bible as evidence, or proof. It's not evidence, it's only the point you made. And you're giving me another source for it. That doesn't convince me. Or when people argue about who's right. It's very strange. I don't have anything to prove to anyone. But, I understand you when you say it's hard to grasp how someone could, not believe anything, because we all feel that way about people who believe different things.

Ultimate truth by it's very nature has to be objective. Therefore the vast majority of what you've said is entirely without foundation. The fact that you say going through Buddha and Christ is one in the same is telling considering that Buddha's idea of salvation is ceasing to exist and Christ's is being restored to ones original design.

[PrinceMyshkin]

And I tell you my beliefs have been tested far more than yours,

You see, that is what I think it comes down to with you, some sort of personal competition (and one, I may say, that you are determined to win by any means available to you): "my beliefs have been tested far more than yours," my beliefs are truer, better, bigger, more moral &c., &c. than yours, underlying which, I'm inclined to conjecture, is the core belief: I'm better than you are.

So be it.

[NikolaiI]

Ultimate truth by it's very nature has to be objective. Therefore the vast majority of what you've said is entirely without foundation. The fact that you say going through Buddha and Christ is one in the same is telling considering that Buddha's idea of salvation is ceasing to exist and Christ's is being restored to ones original design.

No you have it opposite with Christ and Buddha. Haha, sorry, but I don't know what to say. If you had read anything the Buddha said you would not say something like that. I mean, you are basically saying the Buddha said the solution to life was suicide.

As far as subjectivity and objectivity, let me tell you, they are both good. And I don't think any of my points were any of the things you might think they were.


You should read my post on page 8.

Peace,
Nikolai

[weepingforloman]

Nikolai, I believe GK's point is that Christianity is, by its nature, exclusive. Christ did, after all, say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Paul says "If anyone adds anything to these words [Scripture] he is a false teacher." The exclusivity is built directly into the faith. I don't know if it is logically possible to reconcile Buddhism and Christianity, unless of course you use Buddhism only as a means of meditation and contemplation of moral obligation.

[NikolaiI]

You added words, though.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nikolai, I believe GK's point is that Christianity is, by its nature, exclusive. Christ did, after all, say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Paul says "If anyone adds anything to these words [Scripture] he is a false teacher." The exclusivity is built directly into the faith. I don't know if it is logically possible to reconcile Buddhism and Christianity, unless of course you use Buddhism only as a means of meditation and contemplation of moral obligation.

In which case, Jesus the son and Paul, the creator of Christianity, were less than God the father who created us ALL in his image.

Just as Marx is reported to have said of the doctrine that was made from his writings, "Je ne suis pas Marxist," I sometimes imagine that Jesus, looking on at the hodge-podge of sects that claim his name, their dogmatism and in some cases their obscene wealth, "I am not a Christian."

[weepingforloman]

Again, and again, and again, people throw up the argument that "Christianity must be wrong, look at its members!" That is just so wrong. I wouldn't, were I trying to decide upon a belief, judge atheism wrong because the Columbine shooters killed a girl after asking her if she believed in God. Furthermore, not every person who claims to be a Christian is really one. I recommend reading the book Real Christianity, which is a modern update of William Wilberforce's A Practical View of Christianity. The discussion of what he calls "social Christians" takes up a long time. And yes, Christ would be upset with the state of the Church-- any rational person would be. I am, for one. And Christ would not call himself a Christian anymore than Allah would call himself a Muslim.

And, yes, Paul is less than God the Father. So what? He is believed by the orthodox to have been divinely inspired in the writings of his that are included in the Bible, just as all the other biblical writers are believed to have been divinely inspired. But Christ is not less than God the Father, he IS God, with the Father. The three hypostases, or persons, of the Trinity are regarded to be "equal in power and deity." They are all equally God. The difference is solely in their function. Part of the function of the Son is to provide an image of what it means to submit wholly to the will of God... Even to the point of death by torture.

Grace and Peace.

[JGL57]

Again, and again, and again, people throw up the argument that "Christianity must be wrong, look at its members!" That is just so wrong. I wouldn't, were I trying to decide upon a belief, judge atheism wrong because the Columbine shooters killed a girl after asking her if she believed in God. Furthermore, not every person who claims to be a Christian is really one. I recommend reading the book Real Christianity, which is a modern update of William Wilberforce's A Practical View of Christianity. The discussion of what he calls "social Christians" takes up a long time. And yes, Christ would be upset with the state of the Church-- any rational person would be. I am, for one. And Christ would not call himself a Christian anymore than Allah would call himself a Muslim.

And, yes, Paul is less than God the Father. So what? He is believed by the orthodox to have been divinely inspired in the writings of his that are included in the Bible, just as all the other biblical writers are believed to have been divinely inspired. But Christ is not less than God the Father, he IS God, with the Father. The three hypostases, or persons, of the Trinity are regarded to be "equal in power and deity." They are all equally God. The difference is solely in their function. Part of the function of the Son is to provide an image of what it means to submit wholly to the will of God... Even to the point of death by torture.

Grace and Peace.

All fine and dandy understood as allegory. Taken literally as fact? There's the rub.

[weepingforloman]

Say what you want, J, I'll stick to my backward, unenlightened, patriarchal, medieval, reactionary, fundamentalist, dogmatic interpretation. Carry on with your enlightened, open-minded, modern interpretation.

[Dark Star]

Am I correct in assuming that you truly believe that Jesus meant that all non-Christians go to hell, then? I agree that it's rather exclusive, by the way.

[weepingforloman]

It's not that all non-Christians go to Hell, as if Heaven is a country club or something, it's that EVERYONE is headed there without the intervention of Christ. Feel free to punch the wall if you need to.

[Dark Star]

So, how do you interpret "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." then? And...what is required for an intervention from Jesus to occur?

[weepingforloman]

As I said, without Christ all go to Hell. Hence the "I am the Way..." statement. I am Calvinist, and this is how we break down the salvation process: God chooses (elects) those whom He wants to save. God, through a specific outpouring of grace, causes the elect to have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ saves a man. Christ is God, so election is intervention by Christ. Of course, you could use the same term to refer to the Crucifixion.