Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well, I tried to watch LOTR.
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 136 of 151 (172472)
12-31-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by arachnophilia
12-31-2004 3:57 AM


or indeed a buddhist and not believe siddhartha was the buddha.
Normally I have no problems with you as a poster, but on this particular topic you have been so disengenuous and/or willfully ignorant it has become quite tiresome.
It's sad enough that you have not bothered to investigate Buddhism to educate yourself at this point in the thread. But since you apparently feel confident in talking out of your ass on this subject, I guess I will have to start posting links and info.
Here is a nice description of what a Buddha is from wikipedia...
Buddha (Sanskrit, Pali, others: literally Awakened One, Enlightened One, from the Sanskrit: "?budh", to awaken) can refer to the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, or to anyone who has attained the same depth and quality of enlightenment.
Buddhism recognises three types of Buddha, of which the simple term Buddha is normally reserved for the first type, that of Samyaksam-buddha (Pali: Samma-Sambuddha). The attainment of Nirvana is exactly the same, but a Samyaksam-buddha expresses more qualities and capacities than the other two.
Generally Buddhists do not consider Siddhartha Gautama to have been the first or last Buddha. Technically, a Buddha is one who rediscovers the Dharma (that is, truth; the nature of reality, of the mind, of the affliction of the human condition and the correct "path" to liberation) by Enlightenment, comes to be after skillful or good karma (action) is perfectly maintained and all negative unskillful actions are abandoned.
From the standpoint of classical Buddhist doctrine, the word Buddha denotes a type of person of which there have been many in the course of cosmic time. (Similarly, American President refers not just to one man, but to everyone who has ever held the office of the American presidency). The Buddha Gautama, then, is simply one member of the spiritual lineage of Buddhas, which stretches back into the dim recesses of the past and forward into the distant horizons of the future.
According to Buddhist tradition, Siddhartha Gautama did not claim any divine status for himself nor did he assert that he was inspired by any god. He claimed to be a teacher to guide those who chose to listen, rather than a personal saviour.
Gautama Buddha stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subject to karma themselves in decaying heavens. The Buddha is solely an exemplar, guide and teacher for those sentient beings who must tread the path themselves, attain spiritual Awakening, and see truth and reality as they are.
And just so you can learn something about what Christ means, and so understand it is not the same or similar to what a Buddha is, let us look at Christ at Wikipedia...
Christ, from the Greek ???????, or Khrists, means anointed, and is equivalent to the Hebrew term Messiah. Also suitable is the approximate name pronounced at the time, Yeshua. In the Christian religion it is a proper name for Jesus of Nazareth...
In the Hebrew faith tradition, anointing (with oil) was a key element of religious ceremony by which specific people were explicitly marked or set aside for a specific role: priests, kings, and prophets... The Jews came to expect a savior who would embody the elements of priest, king, and prophet, and whom they therefore termed "the Messias", which served as a title. The association with being anointed and being the savior makes these words in some senses equivalent. They expressed their hopes for this savior particularly in their prayers known as the Psalms, which often make reference to "his anointed", many of which references Christians interpret as prophetical.
In the New Testament it is indicated that the savior, long awaited, did come: He experienced not an anointing with oil, but "is inducted by His heavenly Father into His Messianic office"... As Jesus demonstrates, over time, to his disciples that he is the savior, they come to call him by that name, which again was a title, i.e. normal usage being "the Christ". After the Resurrection "Christ" became a proper name used to refer to Jesus.
It goes on into an excellent discussion about the difference between Jesus, Christ, and God. That includes the possibility of using it cross culturally for other divine beings. Given the above description of what a Buddha is, it is unlikely to fit.
because it's not actually anywhere in the old testament... it's not in judaism. (look it up if you don't believe me)
I did look it up, did you? There was an original act of sin which got us kicked out of eden, and for which we were given certain characteristics as punishment.
You are correct that the modern Jews do not cling to that concept in the same way and use it as as great an overarching issue in our lives as do Xians. The point I would make to you is that certainly there were Jews which did have that concept, and they eventually split to become Xians.
but groups like the gnostics weren't even sure he existed.
Maybe you should just spend a day at Wikipedia sorting things out. You can check up on gnostic interpretations of Christ at the Christ link above.
classical greeks? no. you're mixing up time periods here... but either way, it's clear that these things did not come fro jewish tradition, which was always balanced. always. women were often put in powerful roles (judith? esther?) and even when a man was in charge, he was usually dumb. i can't really take a long time to explain this, but the text, even though it's largely about men, plays one gender's faults against the other. even god, according to some jewish thought, is both male and female. it's not until paul that the idea of celibacy came into things. or that women shouldn't teach.
This is getting ridiculous. Greeks, unless we are talking modern, simply did not have the same sexual views that Jews or Xians had. I am trying to figure out where on earth you got the idea that Greeks influenced Jewish thought on these subjects.
I will give you that celibacy was not a part of Judaism, but neither was it a part of Greek custom (except with respect to certain specific deities). Monogamy is Jewish, anti-fornication is Jewish, anti-prostitution is Jewish, anti-gay may or may not have been Jewish. All these things were accepted by Greek culture.
As far as women being equal under Judaism, I'm dumbfounded. Are there female rabbis? Hmmmm, do you know who Sally Priesand is?
There is more equality in Judaism than in fundamental Xianity. However that is not the issue. You tried to tie Xian New Testament morals on Greeks. This ignores the whole reality that they were trying to change Greek society.
they weren't in heaven, eden was on earth. so they were sent out. exhiled, maybe. fallen, no. but rather the consequences in genesis 3 are portrayed as a choice man makes (or woman, anyways). some scholars suggest that, in the story, god actually WANTED adam and eve to eat from the tree -- really. otherwise why put it there?
This is getting into semantics. If you want to hinge your argument whether they actually say "fall" versus "did something wrong and were punished for it", then fine. I was using fall in a generic sense to cover what happened and its permanent effect on humans.
There may be a group which thinks God wanted eve to eat from the tree, but you can pretty much find a group saying just about anything. Common interpretation is that at best it was necessary for us to become what we are, not that it was desired by God. That pretty well flies in the face of what happens next.
Yes you can ask why did he put the tree there, but then one is ignoring that he put the tree there and said not to eat from it, and when people did they were cast out and changed in certain ways to increase their suffering in life. That is Jewish and Xian.
i think i've decided that i could care less whether christ was divine of just a man -- and i'm leaning towards just a man.
Whether Jesus himself was corporal or divine is open to question. Whether Christ is pretty much is not. Read the link on what Christ denotes.
i'm not totally sure they even were upset. but then again, look at other biblical texts. they do get pissed off at amos for prophetizing on the temple steps, and he's not claiming to be their king. (and neither did jesus, outside of the book of john)
The Jewish orthodoxy was not upset by Jesus? Are you kidding me? Where are you getting this from? Even the dead sea scrolls are said to mention him in a negative light. He was saying that people could do away with orthodox practices (mosaic laws). That took bread and butter out of their mouths, as well as overturned their powerbase.
And as far as Jesus not saying he was their king, well I guess I will leave that one up to historians to start putting up evidence. Very clearly those which followed him and put up the religion of Xianity were quite concerned with tracing his roots to make him heir to the throne, and actions he is said to have made were in connection with what he should be doing as king.
I cannot believe this is where we have reached just to defend a poorly chosen statement regarding Buddhism. You'd be much better off just admitting you were talking out of your ass, and making sure not to do so in the future. I have always found, and this seems to be supporting that finding, as soon as one starts trying to defend a singular "ass statement", more are soon to follow. It is a bad habit.
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-31-2004 05:24 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2004 3:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2004 7:00 AM Silent H has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 137 of 151 (172486)
12-31-2004 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Silent H
12-31-2004 5:20 AM


from the buddha description: "anyone who has attained the same depth and quality of enlightenment"
from the christ description: "prophets"
both are roles of enlightenment, and the prophet that passage speaks of is not a proffessional (one who is paid, a fortuneteller, as the word is sometimes used in the bible) but one who is enlightened, in a manner, from god.
i am not willfully ignorant or disingenuous. i've read a lot on both matters, and the difference i see between the two is the worship of the central figure, part of christianity that i don't agree with. much the technicality of christianity is lost on followers.
there are obvious differences, yes, but you have to remember you're viewing things from a very christianity-influenced mindset. it's pervasive in this culture, and usually has VERY little to do with what the religion was actually originally about.
no matter WHAT christians normally believe, jesus was not the only christ, first or last. messiahs, plural. and like buddha, christ did not going around seeking worship, unless you believe the book of john (which i do not). buddha taught how to achieve nirvana, and christ how to get into the kingdom of heaven. how are the two so fundamentally different?
I did look it up, did you? There was an original act of sin which got us kicked out of eden, and for which we were given certain characteristics as punishment.
and it was an apple they ate right? we're so used to hearing these stories that no one ever actually thinks about them. hell, i've given the story lots of thought, and my teacher still caught me in a common mistake on this one.
biblically, adam and eve's sins do not taint their children. there is a "curse" yes, but it is regarded more as consequences for their choices than punishment. but even if it should be punishment, and if it does carry down generations (as it would seem to), that does not equate to original sin. the punishment is already punished and atoned for with the curses put on mankind by god, in fact the atonement would far outweigh the sin. people later in the bible are often called perfect enoch and job are examples. they clearly didn't think adam's sin tainted anyone but adam.
You are correct that the modern Jews do not cling to that concept in the same way and use it as as great an overarching issue in our lives as do Xians. The point I would make to you is that certainly there were Jews which did have that concept, and they eventually split to become Xians.
the concept seems to have come into being in the early days of christianity, and wasn't formalized until st augustine. but if you can show me otherwise, please do. i am curious on the origin of this thought.
This is getting ridiculous. Greeks, unless we are talking modern, simply did not have the same sexual views that Jews or Xians had. I am trying to figure out where on earth you got the idea that Greeks influenced Jewish thought on these subjects
christian thought. not jewish thought.
i know you think all the greeks were always all out pornographic, but there major revolutions in thought, philosophy, and art in the greek world. it's kind of ironic even that some hellenistic thought scorned sexuality (though most flaunted it). but look at the venus demilo, whose now absent arms used to cover herself. very withdrawn from classical greek art, with limbs and nakedness everywhere.
i've seen people cite certain hellenistic philosophies as contributing to christianity's (or paul's) anti-sexuality. but i'll look into some more if you want. however, these traditions do not come from judaism. when god puts man "over" woman in his curse in gen 3, it's just that -- a curse, and very ironic i might add.
I will give you that celibacy was not a part of Judaism, but neither was it a part of Greek custom (except with respect to certain specific deities).
socrates certainly knew of it as a practice. he's got a rather famous quote about it too.
Monogamy is Jewish
abraham had three wives, i think. jacob had two and two mistresses. you ever read genesis? i don't think there's a monogamous many in the book other than adam...
anti-fornication is Jewish
and by fornication you mean basically rape? there's lots of rape in the torah you know. or just sex out of marriage? there's a lot of that two (in fact, half the tribes of israel were born that way)
anti-prostitution is Jewish
harlotry seems to be scorned but practiced. kind of like pornography in america.
anti-gay may or may not have been Jewish
they seem to have been against male homosexuality, at least, and at least terms of ritual cleanliness. as for whether or not it was practiced anyways, i don't know.
All these things were accepted by Greek culture.
ancient greek, i think so.
classical greek, sure.
all hellenistic greeks? no. some of them, yes.
As far as women being equal under Judaism, I'm dumbfounded. Are there female rabbis? Hmmmm, do you know who Sally Priesand is?
not equal. balanced. women do not traditionally teach, no, but i do not remember there being a commandment saying "suffer not a woman to teach" in judaism. they do have definitive gender roles, but one is not usually placed in power over the other.
There is more equality in Judaism than in fundamental Xianity. However that is not the issue. You tried to tie Xian New Testament morals on Greeks. This ignores the whole reality that they were trying to change Greek society.
yes. and?
christ was a jew, yet he tried to change the way judaism was done. one does not have to be an outsider to attempt to affect change on the group. in this case, i believe the source for the christian philosophy to be more greek than jewish. who they were trying to change has no bearing on that.
This is getting into semantics. If you want to hinge your argument whether they actually say "fall" versus "did something wrong and were punished for it", then fine. I was using fall in a generic sense to cover what happened and its permanent effect on humans.
if i have a lot of unprotected sex, and shoot heroin all day, and catch aids, doesn't that affect every child i would have afterwards? this are my choices, and my actions bear consequences on my children. is god damning them to hell for my mistakes though?
it's a fundamentally different concept. adam and eve's curse is not a punishment, it's a consequence.
There may be a group which thinks God wanted eve to eat from the tree, but you can pretty much find a group saying just about anything. Common interpretation is that at best it was necessary for us to become what we are, not that it was desired by God. That pretty well flies in the face of what happens next.
if god is omnipotent, and he knows everything that's going to happen before it does, and he planned all of us -- as christian doctrine states -- wouldn't it be neccessary for adam and eve to eat from the tree? and wouldn't that make it part of "god's plan?"
Yes you can ask why did he put the tree there, but then one is ignoring that he put the tree there and said not to eat from it, and when people did they were cast out and changed in certain ways to increase their suffering in life. That is Jewish and Xian.
what's the best way to get a child to do something? tell him not to do it. some suggest it more as a warning than a threat, though. and as i said, the punishments weren't punishments, they were consequences. kicking adam and eve out is merely to prevent them from becoming gods themselves, according to the story.
as for the separation from god, and mortality -- "the fall" -- it apparently is in effect from at least the time they eat. they hide from god, before they are "punished." and the text would seem to indicate that they were mortal all along. the separation might be the same case.
seriously, look up some jewish thought on this subject. you won't find original sin anywhere in it, in the christian sense. some argue that without the first sin, there would be no death. but it is not something that has to be atoned for.
Whether Jesus himself was corporal or divine is open to question. Whether Christ is pretty much is not. Read the link on what Christ denotes.
a messiah, yes. jesus is not alone in this role, i must point out.
The Jewish orthodoxy was not upset by Jesus? Are you kidding me?
imagine a crazy man ranting outside your local church's sunday school. what would they do? call the police, probably. i doubt they'd really get their panties in a wad over it. sure they were bothered.
He was saying that people could do away with orthodox practices (mosaic laws)
uh, no, he wasn't. he's quoted as saying in multiple verse that he did not mean to do away with the law of moses.
That took bread and butter out of their mouths, as well as overturned their powerbase.
he was anti-establishment however. but did he really have enough of a following to be dangerous? and just how many religious revolutionaries did they deal with on a regular basis? there was one who even assembled an army and tried to lay seige on jerusalem, and failed. and nobody remembers him.
And as far as Jesus not saying he was their king, well I guess I will leave that one up to historians to start putting up evidence. Very clearly those which followed him and put up the religion of Xianity were quite concerned with tracing his roots to make him heir to the throne, and actions he is said to have made were in connection with what he should be doing as king.
it's very clear that books like matthew are concerned with placing him as a king, somewhat literal, in the line of david. but again, i'm arguing that the later development of christianity has little to do with christ himself.
I cannot believe this is where we have reached just to defend a poorly chosen statement regarding Buddhism.
what, that buddhism is a religion? it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Silent H, posted 12-31-2004 5:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Silent H, posted 12-31-2004 8:54 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 138 of 151 (172496)
12-31-2004 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by arachnophilia
12-31-2004 7:00 AM


from the buddha description: "anyone who has attained the same depth and quality of enlightenment"
from the christ description: "prophets"
If this is the kind of quote mining and semantic game activity you are going to engage in, there simply is not point in continuing. Those were two very full passages which I quoted and I quoted them as full as possible so one can see the differences.
there are obvious differences, yes, but you have to remember you're viewing things from a very christianity-influenced mindset. it's pervasive in this culture, and usually has VERY little to do with what the religion was actually originally about.
That is making a very large assumption about who I am. It is also playing the no true scotsman card.
The original argument was very simple. You said the tenets of Buddhism were "be a Buddhist" which was no different than any other religion. After being presented with the facts that this was not accurate, further argument lead to you equivocating on buddha and christ.
I am not going to argue about what a slim selection of Xians may feel, or which group is correct. The point is that the majority of Xianity has and does believe in certain things. That you do not believe them is besides the point. Indeed I am arguing that if anything it means you are not a Xian. You are the one deviating from their position.
What Christ means and what Buddha means are very different. The tenets of each are also different.
buddha taught how to achieve nirvana, and christ how to get into the kingdom of heaven. how are the two so fundamentally different?
Dispassion from existence, passion toward a God.
and it was an apple they ate right?
No. If you believe I have no insight on this subject you have missed several threads at EvC regarding the fall.
biblically, adam and eve's sins do not taint their children. there is a "curse" yes, but it is regarded more as consequences for their choices than punishment. but even if it should be punishment, and if it does carry down generations (as it would seem to), that does not equate to original sin.
You are discussing variations in the extent of the fall and curse. I am not denying that Xians have different interpretations of this than Jews. Indeed Xians have many different variations between denominations. This does not mean Jews do not have the concept of original sin and the fall. They simply have a variation of what it means in our every day life.
the concept seems to have come into being in the early days of christianity, and wasn't formalized until st augustine.
I don't know when it was formalized. But the point is made. Much of what is xianity today was not formalized, except in stages. Christ freeing men from original sin, regardless of its formality, was popular.
i know you think all the greeks were always all out pornographic, but there major revolutions in thought, philosophy, and art in the greek world. it's kind of ironic even that some hellenistic thought scorned sexuality (though most flaunted it). but look at the venus demilo, whose now absent arms used to cover herself. very withdrawn from classical greek art, with limbs and nakedness everywhere.
How many ways can you get things wrong? I do not think all Greeks were all out pornographic. I have already discussed that celibacy was a tenet in some Greek theologies. You said Greeks influenced Xian moral proscriptions, that is to make a generalized statement about Greeks which is untrue.
Even those that believed in celibacy and monogamy and mysogyny, all clearly had different moral systems than Xianity. The Greeks were a varied people and if Xianity picked and chose some elements, it did so from beyond Greece as well.
In general, Greeks defied Xian moral conventions.
I have never heard that anyone knows what venus's arms were supposed to be doing, The fact that it Venus is aphrodite the goddess of sexual love and beauty, sort of undercuts your argument they were holding Xian virtues as a norm.
however, these traditions do not come from judaism.
I'm not sure why you think Judaism was some egalitarian and openly sexual society. More than modern Xians? Absolutely. More than Pagan Greeks? Not on your life.
Of course older Xians were more egalitarian and open sexually than modern Xians. General antisexuality from what I understand, came closer to the end of the Roman Empire. In fact catholic priests could have sex and sometimes marry until later in church history.
This does not change the fact that monogamy (or polygamy with sex proscribed outside of marriage) was frowned on deeply and things like prostitution and homosexuality were also not too popular. Jesus after all were trying to stop some Jews from stoning a prostitute. That was not exactly a Greek custom.
socrates certainly knew of it as a practice. he's got a rather famous quote about it too.
This does not counter what I said at all. Do you know how many philosophers have quotes against the eating of beans? There were ascetic Greek philosophers. There were some Greeek ascetic religions. That does not make the Greeks ascetic.
abraham had three wives, i think. jacob had two and two mistresses. you ever read genesis? i don't think there's a monogamous many in the book other than adam...
I stand corrected. By monogamy I was really trying to get at sex outside of marriage. Without question there was polygamy.
It is interesting to note that there was plenty of fornication as well. As you pointed out there are mistresses. King David was incredible... oh let me have that guy's sense of moral correctness!
Let's now look past the stories. What were the practices? I think we both know that despite all of the stories the practices were clear. Sex within marriage was the only "legal" activity.
People did otherwise, but it was not the same as what Pagans were doing.
all hellenistic greeks? no. some of them, yes.
Yes, I would agree pretty much agree with this statement. That is why Greeks weren't doing any influencing on Xianity. It was monotheism and a sweeping conservatism which began to pressure and change general Greek society away from Pagan morality.
i do not remember there being a commandment saying "suffer not a woman to teach" in judaism. they do have definitive gender roles, but one is not usually placed in power over the other.
This is untrue. The woman is supposed to cleave unto the man. Women are described mostly as property rights without much going back onto the man. Women are clearly reduced about once a month.
i believe the source for the christian philosophy to be more greek than jewish. who they were trying to change has no bearing on that.
Where did Jesus historically spend most of his time, especially while formulating his theories? He was not a Pagan trying to change pagans and Jews. He was a Jew trying to change Jews and Pagans.
Unless you have some knowledge of which I am unaware, Jesus was not a Greek nor did he have a large connection to overtly Greek (ie Pagan) beliefs.
it's a fundamentally different concept. adam and eve's curse is not a punishment, it's a consequence.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were making the distinction between immediate and concrete punishment which results in consequences for following generations, versus punishment which is passed on to each generation.
If you are claiming that adam and eve's curse was merely a consequence and not a punishment, then that is an interpretation, but not a popular one. I do not get that from the reading either.
if god is omnipotent, and he knows everything that's going to happen before it does, and he planned all of us -- as christian doctrine states -- wouldn't it be neccessary for adam and eve to eat from the tree? and wouldn't that make it part of "god's plan?"
That's an interesting question which gets at inconsistencies regarding God, Free Will, and the Fall. However it is besides the point. Current theology in both Judaism and Xianity do not hold this to be true.
I will point out however that the Xian doctrine you just stated above, yet again defines the difference between Xian and Buddhist tenets.
imagine a crazy man ranting outside your local church's sunday school. what would they do? call the police, probably. i doubt they'd really get their panties in a wad over it. sure they were bothered.
This is a bizarre picture to paint. He was not some lone nut. He had a movement and was upsetting the higher ups. Or do you reject almost all of the New Testament?
uh, no, he wasn't. he's quoted as saying in multiple verse that he did not mean to do away with the law of moses.
This is a very silly game. Yes, he was not going to do away with them, he was going to fulfill them. Did he or did he not advocate changing temple structure and do away with things like sacrifices?
but did he really have enough of a following to be dangerous? and just how many religious revolutionaries did they deal with on a regular basis? there was one who even assembled an army and tried to lay seige on jerusalem, and failed. and nobody remembers him.
Xianity exists. It came and stomped all over Jews for a very long time. It assembled armies and straight out hate mongers and stomped all over lots of people. I heard of Jesus.
Thus your analogy is absurd. The answer to your question is obvious is it not? Yes he had enough to be dangerous.
what, that buddhism is a religion? it is.
No, that the tenets of Buddhism are "be a Buddhist" which is similar to any other religion.
Can you be christ? Can you do this no matter which religion you practice and whether you pray to God at all? If not, then there is no comparison.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2004 7:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2005 6:43 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 139 of 151 (172711)
01-01-2005 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
12-29-2004 3:14 PM


quote:
Remember, this thread started with my comment on one film, LOTR. IMHO it sucks. It is you and others which expanded the thread to the genre as a whole. And looking at the genre as a whole I would say that it is approaching the quality and reliability of a McDonald's Hamburger, not particularly good, not well served and valued accordingly.
I have been thinking about this thread, and also about how you, jar, said that you like to listen to music and because of this interest of yours, you have what you called a "killer" sound system.
Well, lets, for the sake of argument, pretend that one of your very favorite symphonies of all time is Beethoven's 9th.
Now, imagine that somebody started a thread here in the Coffee House forum saying that they just attempted to listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony on the radio but they were disgusted by how terrible it was.
When you ask them how they listened to it, you found out that they used a portable, 30 year old transistor radio with a single, low quality by today's standards speaker. The radio program that broadcast the symphony paused the music every 10 minutes or so to play commercials. They also edited the symphony down to play in the time slot alotted to the show. To prevent the need for listeners to constantly adjust the volume of their radios, the station also evened out all of the dynamics of the symphony, so it was pretty much the same loudness for the duration of the broadcast.
Of course, in talking to this person, you found out that they actually turned the radio off only a few minutes into the broadcast, but judged the entire symphony to be utter garbage anyway.
Moreover, you then found out that this person really doesn't like classical music, having only gone to one or two performances in his life of at least 50 or 60 years.
What would you think of this person and his opinions?
Why would this person start a specific thread to share his opinion with the rest of the community?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 12-29-2004 3:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 01-01-2005 12:54 PM nator has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 140 of 151 (172768)
01-01-2005 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by nator
01-01-2005 9:03 AM


That's a great post.
Let me try to answer.
Well, lets, for the sake of argument, pretend that one of your very favorite symphonies of all time is Beethoven's 9th.
It's one of them, certainly among my favorites.
Now, imagine that somebody started a thread here in the Coffee House forum saying that they just attempted to listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony on the radio but they were disgusted by how terrible it was.
I might ask them which production it was and what it was that they disliked?
When you ask them how they listened to it, you found out that they used a portable, 30 year old transistor radio with a single, low quality by today's standards speaker. The radio program that broadcast the symphony paused the music every 10 minutes or so to play commercials. They also edited the symphony down to play in the time slot alotted to the show. To prevent the need for listeners to constantly adjust the volume of their radios, the station also evened out all of the dynamics of the symphony, so it was pretty much the same loudness for the duration of the broadcast.
I would try to see if those things could have had a significant influence on the outcome.
When the person explained that it was the fact that all the musicians were dressed in silly period costumes, that they did not follow the score and instead moved whole sections around, played passages out of order, added passages not in the score and even skipping whole passages, I'd realize that it was not the equipment used to listen to the symphony but rather that the conductors interpretation may well have been flawed.
Scraf, please don't get too hung up on the fact that it was on tv or that it is a little tv. The fact that there were commercials was not an issue because each part between commercials was enough to offend. The commercials were not an interruption but rather moments of relative relief.
It's like the Super Bowl. No one watch the Super Bowl to see great football. The game simply fill dead air between the commercials.
Of course, in talking to this person, you found out that they actually turned the radio off only a few minutes into the broadcast, but judged the entire symphony to be utter garbage anyway.
If, in fairness that's not what he said. He said that the specific performance sucked. He also said he tried again and again and sampled different segments; I'd have to say he at the least, gave it a fair try.
Moreover, you then found out that this person really doesn't like classical music, having only gone to one or two performances in his life of at least 50 or 60 years.
Actually, the person said that while classical music was not his favorite, he did like classical music. Also, saying "having only gone to one or two performances in his life of at least 50 or 60 years." is an exageration and incorrect.
Remember, what the person has said is NOT that he hates the 9th. but rather that he hated that production.
It is only the one production of LOTR that was in discussion. Hopefully, someone someday will do a better production.
What would you think of this person and his opinions?
I might well disagree with his opinions but that would have nothing to do with the validity of his perception. It's his opinion on a particular interpretation of a piece both he and I agree is a classic.
Why would this person start a specific thread to share his opinion with the rest of the community?
Because it's the coffee house. It's a place we can gather to share what we like, and dislike, to explore opinions.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by nator, posted 01-01-2005 9:03 AM nator has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 141 of 151 (172966)
01-02-2005 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Silent H
12-31-2004 8:54 AM


If this is the kind of quote mining and semantic game activity you are going to engage in, there simply is not point in continuing. Those were two very full passages which I quoted and I quoted them as full as possible so one can see the differences.
i suppose it is disengenuous to over simplify. would you rather i used a lot of words? christ is the greek equivalent of messiah. messiahs are ordinary men, usually said (extra-biblically) to be of the line of david, and a king, but tend to be military leaders. the association is that of being chosen, annointed.
if i wanted to play word games, i'd point out that technically every jew is god's chosen, so they're christs in some respect. but that would indeed be robbing the word of its meaning. it is the aspect of being chosen to lead, among the chosen people. thus the term messiah is reserved for the restoration of the line of davidic kings, or prophets who lead the people (moses was a messiah in some respect). either way, it is not reserved for just one person, or for an incarnation of god, and that is the point.
in short, anyone enlightened by god can be a messiah
the religion reads all messianic references as pointing to jesus of nazareth, but as i and several other have shown on several occasions, some of the most oft-quoted lines cannot be about him.
That is making a very large assumption about who I am. It is also playing the no true scotsman card.
i am unfamiliar with scottish card games. but no, it's not making any kind of assumption about who YOU are. it is a simple fact that christianity and its dogma has permeated the english (and spanish) speaking world so completely that most people don't even notice.
The original argument was very simple. You said the tenets of Buddhism were "be a Buddhist"
following buddhist philosophy does not equate to being buddhist then? what are you arguing, exactly?
do you want me to go over each part of the 8 and its sub-parts? i mean, it's nice that it's phrased as "these are some good recommendations on how to live" instead of "god says..." but at the end of the day, the eightfold path and the ten commandments are still basically instructions on how to live, under that religion.
both say things like don't steal and don't kill, or commit adultery.
I am not going to argue about what a slim selection of Xians may feel, or which group is correct. The point is that the majority of Xianity has and does believe in certain things.
sure, agreed. and 99% of buddhists treat it as a religion, instead of just a philosophy.
That you do not believe them is besides the point.
not that i do not believe them, but that they are not at the root of the religion, nor are part of the teachings of christ or those before him.
Indeed I am arguing that if anything it means you are not a Xian. You are the one deviating from their position.
i've thought about not calling myself a christian because of this, actually (long before you, don't worry ). but the fact remains that i still believe in christ in some respect, and agree with his philosophies. that would make a christian, even if i am not a member of a popular church.
What Christ means and what Buddha means are very different. The tenets of each are also different.
have you read the gospel of thomas? or seen any gnostic gospels? they're not really all that different.
Dispassion from existence, passion toward a God.
well, the majority religion of christianity does seem to place a dis-emphasis on the current existance. i've seen a lot of christian friends really mess up lives over it too. but i'm not promoting that idea.
No. If you believe I have no insight on this subject you have missed several threads at EvC regarding the fall.
no, i probably haven't, but my memory isn't that good. my point is that people are often overly familiar with dogma, to the point of it obscuring the text. as i said, my teacher caught me in a common error, and i've read and rethought that story innumerable times. it was the subject of who adam blames his transgression.
You are discussing variations in the extent of the fall and curse. I am not denying that Xians have different interpretations of this than Jews. Indeed Xians have many different variations between denominations. This does not mean Jews do not have the concept of original sin and the fall. They simply have a variation of what it means in our every day life.
yes, but the idea that human being are incapable of being perfect in the eyes of god because the actions of adam and eve is simply not jewish, nor is it biblical.
I don't know when it was formalized. But the point is made. Much of what is xianity today was not formalized, except in stages. Christ freeing men from original sin, regardless of its formality, was popular.
sure. the idea started as christ freeing the dead from the the grave, sheol (or hell). the judaic idea was that all the dead went there, regardless of their faiths, works, whatever. so moses and abraham were there, along with the citizen of sodom. christ taught how to get to heaven, and so there are several gospels that depict christ going down to the grave to free people like the patriarchs and moses and aaron. if i had to place a guess where the original sin concept came from, it would the evolution of this idea, since it says that ALL men are essentially damned to hell.
i would also bet that exit from eden, and first sin were connected to this idea later, since the connection does not seem to be present in the bible.
How many ways can you get things wrong? I do not think all Greeks were all out pornographic. I have already discussed that celibacy was a tenet in some Greek theologies. You said Greeks influenced Xian moral proscriptions, that is to make a generalized statement about Greeks which is untrue.
it wasn't generalized at all. the ideas that influence christianity were greek in origin. i never meant to imply that they represented ALL of greek thought at any point in time. you can never represent everybody, really.
you also have to remember at this time that the christians were very small (if disorganized) set of individual sects, and the greeks a very large and often varied people. hellenism as a whole touched the entire meditteranean basin, even with the rise of rome.
Even those that believed in celibacy and monogamy and mysogyny, all clearly had different moral systems than Xianity. The Greeks were a varied people and if Xianity picked and chose some elements, it did so from beyond Greece as well.
sure. i'm just pointing out that they weren't a straight evolution of judaism.
In general, Greeks defied Xian moral conventions.
christian moral conventions in general? at the time there was no real standard, if we're gonna play this game. paul was one man, and he influenced a lot of churches, but there were whole other sects you rarely ever hear about. paul attempts to influence churchs can sort of be read in reverse. the things paul rants against, homosexuality for instance (nambla-style), were obviously being practiced by church members, since it was accepted in that society.
so the statement should more correctly read "greeks in general defied paul's specific morality."
I have never heard that anyone knows what venus's arms were supposed to be doing, The fact that it Venus is aphrodite the goddess of sexual love and beauty, sort of undercuts your argument they were holding Xian virtues as a norm.
not as a norm, but an influence yes.
and my art professor sounded pretty sure. but i'll ask him again when school starts if you'd like.
I'm not sure why you think Judaism was some egalitarian and openly sexual society. More than modern Xians? Absolutely. More than Pagan Greeks? Not on your life.
no, of course not. more than early greek christian churches? certainly.
Of course older Xians were more egalitarian and open sexually than modern Xians. General antisexuality from what I understand, came closer to the end of the Roman Empire. In fact catholic priests could have sex and sometimes marry until later in church history.
not sure on the catholic priesthood, but i'm pretty sure the first part is wrong. paul was anti-sex, and is often quoted as such. (he even advises people to not marry, except that it be to avoid sin)
This does not change the fact that monogamy (or polygamy with sex proscribed outside of marriage) was frowned on deeply
most of the patriarchs were polygamous.
and things like prostitution and homosexuality were also not too popular. Jesus after all were trying to stop some Jews from stoning a prostitute. That was not exactly a Greek custom.
where is the condemnation of harlotry in joshua 6? a whore, and a foriegn one at that, is the only one saved from jericho.
in genesis 38, judah does demand that his daughter in law be killed for playing the harlot, but recants because his sin of not giving her his other son seems to be more grievous. the condemnation here seems to have to do with HIERS and not sex.
by jesus's time, the ideas seem to have changed, yes. but again, the very fact that she was a prostitute seems to suggest that it was accepted to some degree, even it was "illegal." prostitution is illegal in the us in every state but nevada. that doesn't mean that prostitutes can't get work.
This does not counter what I said at all. Do you know how many philosophers have quotes against the eating of beans? There were ascetic Greek philosophers. There were some Greeek ascetic religions. That does not make the Greeks ascetic.
no, but if this idea went and influenced another culture, say the ascetics of india (and before you get upset, i'm not actually arguing that), would it be incorrect to say that they were influenced by a greek idea?
I stand corrected. By monogamy I was really trying to get at sex outside of marriage. Without question there was polygamy.
see the judah example above. he certainly wasn't married to his daughter in law, whether or not he though she was a whore. nor was jacob married to his wives handmaidens (a third of the children of israel come from them). these are not just people messing around, either, these are accepted lineages in the religion.
It is interesting to note that there was plenty of fornication as well. As you pointed out there are mistresses. King David was incredible... oh let me have that guy's sense of moral correctness!
interestingly enough, david is still said to have had a perfect heart. so much for his OWN sin, let alone original sin...
Let's now look past the stories. What were the practices? I think we both know that despite all of the stories the practices were clear. Sex within marriage was the only "legal" activity.
genesis would lead me to believe that it if a man dies without an hier, it is not only legal for his brother to impregnate his widow, but it was also the brother's duty. it would also lead me to believe that giving birth on someone's lap is a form of adoption, if your husband gets your maid pregnant. these certainly seemed to be legal when the stories were set, if not when the stories were written.
People did otherwise, but it was not the same as what Pagans were doing.
no, there was no real cultural organization or men and little boys, nor did there seem to be bachanalian (sp?) orgies, but that wasn't what i was arguing. (although, i've heard some thoughts about lesbianism being accepted as a cultural norm in mosaic judaism, but i don't know how much there really is to that argument)
This is untrue. The woman is supposed to cleave unto the man.
didn't you just argue that you weren't caught up in the dogma of the story of the fall? here's what the verse actually says:
quote:
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
i don't read any subjugation into this verse, because it says that two shall become one, not that one shall rule over the other. that only comes later, as a curse, and is probably only talking about sexuality (considering every other part of the address to eve has to do with sex). but if you're gonna read some subjugation in here, it is saying that the man leaves his family, and cling to his wife, and not the other way around. and if you recall in the story, adam is the dependent one: the serpent chooses to reason with eve, but all eve has to do is give the fruit to adam. (some speculate that it might be the intention of the authors that adam didn't even know what he was eating. adam's reply to god would seem to indicate this)
Women are described mostly as property rights without much going back onto the man
i don't totally agree, but the bible does seem to male-centric. probably because it was written by males. still, women tend to be the smarter of the two genders in the stories.
Women are clearly reduced about once a month.
men who bled from weird places were excluded under levitical standards as well. leviticus is obsessed with ritual cleanliness. there does not seem to be a recorded practice anywhere in the bible (or jewish history) in which all women disappear from society for a week out of every month, and the extent of the actual observance is abstinence from sex in maried couples.
Where did Jesus historically spend most of his time, especially while formulating his theories? He was not a Pagan trying to change pagans and Jews. He was a Jew trying to change Jews and Pagans.
i would argue that he was more intent on reforming judaism, and that converting pagans was a later addition, but there's not a lot of proof either way. jesus only message regarding gentiles is take the message to the world.
Unless you have some knowledge of which I am unaware, Jesus was not a Greek nor did he have a large connection to overtly Greek (ie Pagan) beliefs.
you misunderstood, i think. jesus was not greek, he was jewish. my intent was to say that his original jewish philosophy was changed to fit greek audiences. this i think you will find fits the history. christians for a while were regarded as a sub-sect of judaism, until people such as paul swayed the religion away from judaism. i'm arguing that, essentially, christianity has little to do with christ. modern christianity is based more on the teachings of paul than those of jesus.
and yes, i realize that paul was (or at least claimed to be) jewish. althought i'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find some academic disagreement there too...
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were making the distinction between immediate and concrete punishment which results in consequences for following generations, versus punishment which is passed on to each generation.
If you are claiming that adam and eve's curse was merely a consequence and not a punishment, then that is an interpretation, but not a popular one. I do not get that from the reading either.
no, it's not directly present in the reading. it's phrased very much like a punishment, yes. but it's very important to keep in mind that genesis is book of stories written with purposes in mind. etiological stories are sometimes easy to spot: "...and that is why" tends to be a good indicator. genesis is filled with them, from reasons for marriage, for language, and often down to how places or tribes got their names.
what's genesis 3 saying, just by itself? well, it's saying why man farms in a desert, why men treat women as sexual objects, why women have painful childbirths, and why snakes have no legs. quite a set of explanations, really. and yes, on the surface these do sound like punishments. but what's the story really explaining as a whole? why is it integral to the creation myth?
i don't really even think it's a point of dispute that the story is really an explanation for man's thought process. i mean, the tree is named "knowledge of good and evil." it's about why we are different from the animals: awareness, and maybe even morality.
and so eve's curse is that of pain, but it's pain beyond physical i think. with awareness, she's doomed to mourn her son abel, and doomed to an unhappy marriage. animals don't spend nearly as much effort and energy raising children as we do, and don't seem to go through the same kind of relationship trouble some of us do.
adam's curse is that of technology. i don't think any animals farm, but adam is doomed to be a slave to the ground.
these are both things that come with higher conciousness, not punishments really, but tradeoffs. and the story, even if phrased as a punishment, is really about this trade off. and something akin to this must have really happened at some point too, if only gradually, because the tradeoffs are real. most of the pain in childbirth comes from passing the child's head -- if the child had a smaller brain, and we as a whole were less intelligent, childbirth would be a lot easier. and man did not always farm.
so yeah, it's reading a bit into it, but i think strongly allegorical stories should require a bit of interpretation.
That's an interesting question which gets at inconsistencies regarding God, Free Will, and the Fall. However it is besides the point. Current theology in both Judaism and Xianity do not hold this to be true.
....yeah they do. without the fall, there's no need for jesus. ask any pastor, father, minister, etc.
as for judaism, i'll phrase the question like this: would there have been a need for an exodus if joseph was never sold into slavery by his brothers?
I will point out however that the Xian doctrine you just stated above, yet again defines the difference between Xian and Buddhist tenets.
ok. i'm not saying they're exactly the same; they're not. just that christian philosophy and way of life can be independent of religion, just as buddhist philosophy is SOMETIMES independent of the religious aspects.
This is a bizarre picture to paint. He was not some lone nut. He had a movement and was upsetting the higher ups. Or do you reject almost all of the New Testament?
about 95% of the writings of paul, the gospel of john, and possibly luke-acts. i haven't made up my mind on the other epistles, and revelation just yet.
so, um, yes, actually, i do reject almost all of the new testament. i like matthew alot, aside from his really poor understanding of jewish prophesy, and the lone anti-semitic reference towards the end.
scholarly opinion and all. i seem to be slowly whittling away parts of the bible i don't accept based on the rest of the bible. i imagine that at some point there might not be anything left.
This is a very silly game. Yes, he was not going to do away with them, he was going to fulfill them. Did he or did he not advocate changing temple structure and do away with things like sacrifices?
no, he did not. he indicted the hypocricy of the administration. but saying that's unjewish and against the law of moses is about as absurd as saying i'm unamerican and against the constitution because i didn't vote for bush.
he was angry at unfair money changers in the temple, and angry at the people who just prayed for attention, etc. i don't see any indication that jesus wanted to do any more than reform judaism.
Xianity exists. It came and stomped all over Jews for a very long time. It assembled armies and straight out hate mongers and stomped all over lots of people. I heard of Jesus.
Thus your analogy is absurd. The answer to your question is obvious is it not? Yes he had enough to be dangerous.
and yet judaism exists. and jesus did not end the period of the sanhedrin temple.
and no, my analogy is not absurd. what of the other messiahs? what of the ones who actually raised real armies? christianity was not dangerous at all in the time of christ. it was not dangerous for a long time even after he died. in fact, for quite some time, it was dangerous to BE a christian.
what made christian dangerous, and probably the sole reason it's even still around today, was the conversion of constantine in ad 330. but what did constantine's christianity have to do with jesus, really? he just thought that if he believed enough and put crosses on his soldiers shields, they'd win. when did jesus preach about how to win wars?
No, that the tenets of Buddhism are "be a Buddhist" which is similar to any other religion.
it's a tautology. it wasn't meant to cause a huge fuss, really. the tenets of buddhism are x,y,z. if you follow such tenets buddhism, x,y,z, then that makes you buddhist, does it not? it was a logical absurdity in the first place, to combat another logical absurdity: that buddhism does not address difficult matters simply.
of course i was being disingenuous. that was sort of the point. buddhism has four essential truths, all very simple statements. the fourth has 8 sub-parts, whichs consists of things like "right thinking" and "right actions." still saying "follow along" in essence. and when it breaks down to specifics, they're still just basic instructions on how to live. stay away from violence, avoid sexual indulgencies, try not to kill things. are these great sweeping truths? no, their basically religious tenets, at their foundation, no different than "love your neighbour" or "thou shalt not kill," just a little less heavy-handed.
buddha is rarely presented as the wandering philosopher, he's presented as the jolly fat enlightened guy, who has all the answers to life. wanna see how many buddha idols i can find on google in under 30 seconds?
buddhism *IS* a religion, just deal with that fact and move on. the fact that it presents clear, simple answers to difficult questions should be an indication of this fact. hell, even the book of job (which we were originally discussing) doesn't do that. i don't get anything from job but confused. job doesn't tell me how to live. it doesn't even say to trust god, or have faith. job's not rewarded for his faith, it's only AFTER god shows up and yells at him for three or four chapters that job gets his life back. that's not faith, that's recognition. job is rewarded for giving up. what sort of message is that?
Can you be christ?
sure, but i suspect that i am not.
Can you do this no matter which religion you practice and whether you pray to God at all? If not, then there is no comparison.
so you're saying that it really says "be a buddha" and not "be a buddhist?" well, hey, count the mormons in, their solution is "be a god."
and for reference there are both jews and christians that are athiests. i think we actually have a friend of the family who is a rabbi of sorts at secular synagogue. judaism, like catholicism, has become more of a cultural identity and a practice than a faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Silent H, posted 12-31-2004 8:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Silent H, posted 01-02-2005 9:45 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 142 of 151 (172981)
01-02-2005 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by arachnophilia
01-02-2005 6:43 AM


It appears much is just us talking past each other. You are arguing from a position of what you believe (and it may be true) what Jesus was like in life at the time and so denying what it is today as being a description of proper Xianity. I am arguing from a position of what the majority of its adherents believe today regardless what the underlying reality was.
I believe this makes you guilty of the no true Scotsman fallacy in that you seem to be dismissing any Xian theology which does not mesh with your version as not being really Xian. But whatever...
I do think we are close to being in agreement on what was influencing what in the past. So I am ready to drop it, with the exception that Judaic tenets (of which Jesus was a part and did study) had little influence from Greeks in the way you are describing Xianity from having been influenced.
The ten commandments and the mosaic laws are quite restrictive and negative sexually, whatever the stories of great Jewish heroes might be. Granted nothing compared to what Xians created later.
buddha is rarely presented as the wandering philosopher, he's presented as the jolly fat enlightened guy, who has all the answers to life. wanna see how many buddha idols i can find on google in under 30 seconds?
[shaking head sadly]
Zero? The jolly fat enlightened guy is called a Boddhisatva. The mythology behind that is a person who returns to help people find nirvana. It is not a buddha. Buddha is almost universally portrayed as thin, perhaps with a slight pot belly or "full" look.
[/shaking head sadly]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2005 6:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 1:24 AM Silent H has replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 143 of 151 (173012)
01-02-2005 11:54 AM


flame bait?
Has it actually occurred to anyone that Jar might be baiting us? I mean the hysteria surrounding TLOTR is huge and people tend to be a tad dogmatic in it defence. And lets be fair we all like occasionally poking a stick into a termite mound to se the sudden flurry of action.
Sure he may dis-like the liberties taken with plot pacing and characters but that’s fair enough. But the general tone and topics of his answers do seem of the exact type that would infuriate anyone. I.e. watching a network version on a crappy old TV (soz Jar but it does sound like a sorry piece of kit) and then only dipping in to the film a few times, then blasting the quality of the effects, audio and production, will wind up any one who has seen them on the big screen as intended, as any one who has kept even a casual eye on the movies these last 50 years will agree in in terms of technical and production terms they are true master pieces.
Though I can respect Jar’s views if genuine, the over all tone and themes just leaves me very suspicious of a very skilful flame bait thread. If not then, dude, get a decent TV/dvd and rent the special editions. Only then can you say you have given them a fair chance.

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nator, posted 01-03-2005 9:04 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 144 of 151 (173233)
01-03-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Silent H
01-02-2005 9:45 AM


thank god this has gotten shorter.
It appears much is just us talking past each other.
agreed, in part. i know what you're trying to say, about both religions. i just choose to argue the other way.
You are arguing from a position of what you believe (and it may be true) what Jesus was like in life at the time and so denying what it is today as being a description of proper Xianity. I am arguing from a position of what the majority of its adherents believe today regardless what the underlying reality was.
basically. however, i'd be willing to bet that the majority of buddhists also treat buddhism as a religion -- although the percentage is probably a good deal smaller than that in christianity.
I believe this makes you guilty of the no true Scotsman fallacy in that you seem to be dismissing any Xian theology which does not mesh with your version as not being really Xian. But whatever...
i am unfamiliar with the meaning of "no true scotsman." but, no, that's not exactly what i'm arguing at all. i'm just arguing that majority of modern christianity is mistaken about a great many things. i'm not saying they're not christian, but that the religion often seems unrelated to the source. my difference of opinion is that when paul disagrees with jesus (as quoted in a gospel), i take jesus's side and not paul's. the only book i disregard for strictly religious reasons is the gospel of john. it doesn't mesh with my theology.
I do think we are close to being in agreement on what was influencing what in the past. So I am ready to drop it, with the exception that Judaic tenets (of which Jesus was a part and did study) had little influence from Greeks in the way you are describing Xianity from having been influenced.
well, the greek world had a HUGE influence on judaism. i mean, they translated their holy books into greek because it's what all the jews were speaking for a while. i'm sure you can find lots of stuff on the internet about hellenism and jews. but i don't suspect the influence was the same. however, i don't know a damned thing about that, so...
The ten commandments and the mosaic laws are quite restrictive and negative sexually,
and buddhism isn't? buddhist monks can't even masturbate.
whatever the stories of great Jewish heroes might be. Granted nothing compared to what Xians created later.
yes, but you should also remember that levitical standards do not reflect the practices of the average ancient jew.
[shaking head sadly]
Zero? The jolly fat enlightened guy is called a Boddhisatva. The mythology behind that is a person who returns to help people find nirvana. It is not a buddha. Buddha is almost universally portrayed as thin, perhaps with a slight pot belly or "full" look.
[/shaking head sadly]
your point being? everybody still thinks of it as the buddha, even if it isn't. it serves the same function religiously. so what if it doesn't reflect the technicalites of the religion, it's what the majority thinks, right?
also, i can find a ton of paintings of some european blond dude name jesus, even if the guy probably really looked jewish, and his name was really joshua.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Silent H, posted 01-02-2005 9:45 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 5:50 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 145 of 151 (173318)
01-03-2005 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by arachnophilia
01-03-2005 1:24 AM


basically. however, i'd be willing to bet that the majority of buddhists also treat buddhism as a religion -- although the percentage is probably a good deal smaller than that in christianity.
I'm sorry, I should have had this in my last post. I do agree with this. Buddhism is a religion and I would imagine most Buddhists are religious. There are plenty of mystical things which go along with Buddhism as a religion.
The difference was in what the tenets are. The eight fold path you discussed. They are applicable no matter what your religion is. They do not deny other theologies at all or nontheologies. This is separate from the tenets of Xianity.
i am unfamiliar with the meaning of "no true scotsman." but, no, that's not exactly what i'm arguing at all. i'm just arguing that majority of modern christianity is mistaken about a great many things. i'm not saying they're not christian, but that the religion often seems unrelated to the source. my difference of opinion is that when paul disagrees with jesus (as quoted in a gospel), i take jesus's side and not paul's. the only book i disregard for strictly religious reasons is the gospel of john. it doesn't mesh with my theology.
That looks so dang close to no true scotsman I would say it might as well be. You don't have to say they aren't Xian, you simply have to be saying they aren't "true" Xians (meaning they don't understand what was really meant).
they translated their holy books into greek because it's what all the jews were speaking for a while. i'm sure you can find lots of stuff on the internet about hellenism and jews.
From what I understand the main holy books for jews have remained Hebrew no matter where they went. The nature of the language and how it was written was extremely important.
buddhist monks can't even masturbate.
Now you know why the jolly fat guy isn't a buddha.
your point being? everybody still thinks of it as the buddha, even if it isn't. it serves the same function religiously. so what if it doesn't reflect the technicalites of the religion, it's what the majority thinks, right?
???? Who is everyone? Every Xian? Just because a bunch of tourists mistakenly call the John Hancock building the Sears Tower does not make it so.
Boddhisatvas are not Buddhas, and certainly not the Buddha you were implying it was. They actually have some prime differences.
The equivalent to Xianity is pointing to John the Baptist, Paul, or the virgin Mary and saying it is Jesus. Yes their images are all over Xianity, but they are not all Jesus.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 1:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 7:28 AM Silent H has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 146 of 151 (173325)
01-03-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Silent H
01-03-2005 5:50 AM


The difference was in what the tenets are. The eight fold path you discussed. They are applicable no matter what your religion is. They do not deny other theologies at all or nontheologies. This is separate from the tenets of Xianity.
well, i'm arguing that the tenets of christianity are things like "love your neighbor" and can be practiced by anyone of any faith.
That looks so dang close to no true scotsman I would say it might as well be. You don't have to say they aren't Xian, you simply have to be saying they aren't "true" Xians (meaning they don't understand what was really meant).
i'm gonna jump down a second.
Just because a bunch of tourists mistakenly call the John Hancock building the Sears Tower does not make it so.
this is my point, really. i've got you arguing both sides somehow.
am i true american if i think the john hancock building is the sears tower? or that it's the tallest office building in the world? am i still christian if i think jesus was white? can i be buddhist and think siddhartha was fat?
i'm arguing points of technicality here, not deciding who gets into heaven or anything.
From what I understand the main holy books for jews have remained Hebrew no matter where they went. The nature of the language and how it was written was extremely important.
and yet we have greek bibles translated by jews and for jews, as there certainly weren't any christians around at the time. in fact, it's the oldest bible we have. and i can gaurantee you that the main holy books, the torah, were included in the septuagint.
Boddhisatvas are not Buddhas, and certainly not the Buddha you were implying it was. They actually have some prime differences.
i'm well aware of the fact that the statement i made originally about fat buddha idols was false. that was the idea, actually. it was intentionally innacurate in just about every area i could think of. but that is still the way most of the world views it. i don't know how many buddhists actually think that -- i would hope none. i can't say the same for christianity, though.
The equivalent to Xianity is pointing to John the Baptist, Paul, or the virgin Mary and saying it is Jesus. Yes their images are all over Xianity, but they are not all Jesus.
christians routinely mix up god, jesus, and whatever that holy spirit thing is. and the last church i went to, paul's letters were read as if they were the words of jesus. so, sure, i think the analogy is about as close to perfect as it can get it.
only the buddhists are (hopefully) less confused about their own darned religion.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-03-2005 07:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 5:50 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 11:30 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 147 of 151 (173365)
01-03-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by ohnhai
01-02-2005 11:54 AM


Re: flame bait?
No, no, I have come around to understand jar's point.
It really is completely reasonable to watch less than half of a commercial-interrupted, changed-format film on a little crappy TV with a single speaker, confess to not liking movies in general and expect one's opinion to carry as much weight as someone who loves cinema, watched the entire film several times, uninterrupted by commercials, in a theater where it was meant to be watched, with surround sound speakers.
There's really no difference in either experience, you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ohnhai, posted 01-02-2005 11:54 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 148 of 151 (173410)
01-03-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by arachnophilia
01-03-2005 7:28 AM


i'm arguing that the tenets of christianity are things like "love your neighbor" and can be practiced by anyone of any faith.
This is our divide. Although I get the point that some of the practical statements of Jesus can be used and practiced by anyone of any faith, the point of Xianity is that Jesus was more than that.
Jesus went beyond such discussions as well, unless we are to disbelieve most of the New Testament at which point I wonder why bother with the Bible and Jesus at all and go right to the philosophical sources he pulled many of his teachings from?
Buddhism is different in that it is a practical philosophy first with the main figure specifically claiming not to have divine origin. The spiritual elements are secondary.
But yes, they can both be practiced as religions or philosophies. One much more easily as that is pretty much what it is and does not require ignoring as much material.
i've got you arguing both sides somehow.
No, somehow you are missing my point. We are discussing two different issues. The first is what beliefs make up a Xian, the second is whether one is wholly ignorant of a religion.
1) True Xian... you are arguing that most Xians are not aware of the true teachings and meanings of Jesus. Likely they would counter with the same statement. No matter who wins you are both playing the same game, denying the "true" identity to an opposite number. Or should I say applying the "mistaken" label?
2) Ignorance in general... No it does not matter if you can identify which is a Buddha, a bodhisatva, and Jesus in a work of art in order to practice the tenets of a religion. However it does show an incredible ignorance of a religion to not be able to identify what it's main players are, and worse still advance that you do know what you are talking about and then pick the wrong one. A Xian walking into a church and going, yeah but who's the guy on the cross would be pretty ignorant in general.
and yet we have greek bibles translated by jews and for jews
I was not trying to discount translations, I was trying to discount that jews were doing this in order to preserve their religion in and of themselves. It was very important to keep it in Hebrew for study in Hebrew if you were actually going to study it.
christians routinely mix up god, jesus, and whatever that holy spirit thing is. and the last church i went to, paul's letters were read as if they were the words of jesus. so, sure, i think the analogy is about as close to perfect as it can get it.
Look this is very embarassing. I used to make the buddha/bodhisatva mistake as well until I actually learned about the religion. The difference between god, jesus, and the holy spirit is different than buddha and bodhi.
What's great in art is that there is some very clear differences.
Mistaking one for the other is as ignorant as walking into a church and asking who the guy is on the cross, or mistaking the virgin mary for jesus in a painting. It is unlikely to occur unless one has little practice of the belief system.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2005 7:28 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2005 4:36 AM Silent H has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 149 of 151 (173668)
01-04-2005 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Silent H
01-03-2005 11:30 AM


at which point I wonder why bother with the Bible and Jesus at all and go right to the philosophical sources he pulled many of his teachings from?
good question. i've been working through that one myself lately.
Buddhism is different in that it is a practical philosophy first with the main figure specifically claiming not to have divine origin. The spiritual elements are secondary.
yes. what i'm trying to say is that although the end results are different, the origins are not and any major differences are the result of the evolution of thought revolving around the two religions and not their original idealogy.
jesus walked around calling himself the "son of man." while it had messianic (or at least prophetic) connotations, the term itself means "human" or "mortal" as in "less than divine." god calls ezekiel this many times, and the meaning is "lowly human."
But yes, they can both be practiced as religions or philosophies. One much more easily as that is pretty much what it is and does not require ignoring as much material.
do you consider herman hesse's book "siddhartha" to be material to ignore? it was written by an outsider hundreds of years after buddha lived, and deviates from the earlier texts by a lot on major theological and philosophical points. (in fact, this siddhartha is not even the buddha, and finds a different kind of enlightenment).
if you don't even consider this book, why should i consider the writings of paul, an outsider who wrote a long time after christ (probably much later than tradition states, as per usual with the bible), and whose theological and philosophical points differ so drastically from earlier texts?
the difference here is that almost every christian accepts paul, and i doubt very many buddhists accept hesse.
1) True Xian... you are arguing that most Xians are not aware of the true teachings and meanings of Jesus. Likely they would counter with the same statement. No matter who wins you are both playing the same game, denying the "true" identity to an opposite number. Or should I say applying the "mistaken" label?
i'm not saying they're not true christians. i've denied that multiple times now, but you keep putting those words in my mouth. how long did you live in chicago before knew to not say "sears tower?"
2) Ignorance in general... No it does not matter if you can identify which is a Buddha, a bodhisatva, and Jesus in a work of art in order to practice the tenets of a religion. However it does show an incredible ignorance of a religion to not be able to identify what it's main players are, and worse still advance that you do know what you are talking about and then pick the wrong one. A Xian walking into a church and going, yeah but who's the guy on the cross would be pretty ignorant in general.
yes, it would. and if i walked into a church, saw a crucifix, and thought it was an image of god, and used it in an act of worship, i would not only be mistaking who's who in the story, but i would be breaking the a pretty major tenet of the religion, would i not?
yet there are christians who do this, and even make up elaborate excuses for why it's ok.
I was not trying to discount translations, I was trying to discount that jews were doing this in order to preserve their religion in and of themselves. It was very important to keep it in Hebrew for study in Hebrew if you were actually going to study it.
today the septuagint and dead sea scrolls are held with about equal importance over the masoretic text, since they are much older. for purposes of study, a hebrew library circa 300 bc would be useful, but this is partly demnonstrated by the septuagint. what would be even more useful is a 600 bc hebrew library.
however, i think the septuagint was designed for general (non-synagogue) usage, but mostly for addition to library in alexandria. which would, in effect, be preserving the religion.
or mistaking the virgin mary for jesus in a painting. It is unlikely to occur unless one has little practice of the belief system.
i've seen quite a few religious paintings where people are unsure of the character in them. a common one in the early church was the shepherd, with a lamb. is the shepherd god, and the lamb jesus and will the lamb be killed? or is the shepherd jesus, and lamb his flock of followers, who will be lead to heaven's green pastures? or is the shepherd god in psalm 23? probably not, because this is a uniquely christian image. are they BOTH jesus?
i know i've seen at least one other where it was one of two bible stories (different characters) and nobody knew which one it was, but i can't think of it off the top of my head.
but you're being intentionally misleading by suggesting a mistake of mary for jesus. gender is usually pretty easy to tell (except for in some early christian painting!) and i'm not saying people are mistaking a female icon for a male figure. the figure to which i originally referred was male, even if he tends to have man-boobs. it would be more equivalent to mistaking mary of nazareth for mary of magdala.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-04-2005 04:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 11:30 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2005 5:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 150 of 151 (173675)
01-04-2005 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by arachnophilia
01-04-2005 4:36 AM


i'm not saying they're not true christians. i've denied that multiple times now, but you keep putting those words in my mouth.
I'm not trying to do this, i am only pointing out that if you are not saying it, you are saying something so close as to be indistinguishable. Your Hesse/Paul example is perfect for this.
Maybe you should read "true" as "accurate to original message".
but you're being intentionally misleading by suggesting a mistake of mary for jesus. gender is usually pretty easy to tell (except for in some early christian painting!) and i'm not saying people are mistaking a female icon for a male figure. the figure to which i originally referred was male, even if he tends to have man-boobs. it would be more equivalent to mistaking mary of nazareth for mary of magdala.
We can quibble about this for centuries and it really doesn't matter. To me mistaking a jolly really fat bald guy for a serene slim guy (usually with hair or hat) is about as obvious a mistake as missing gender. But that's me!

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2005 4:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2005 6:07 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024