Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: steve austin
Post Volume: Total: 918,261 Year: 5,518/9,624 Month: 543/323 Week: 40/143 Day: 2/11 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 367 of 417 (27867)
12-25-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by forgiven
12-25-2002 9:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
quote:
"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed ... in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 2 Thessalonians 1:7,8 KJV
Which gospel? What translation? Should those who wish to learn what the Christian god said need to learn Aramaic or Greek to really get the full effect? Or is the true gospel, the true holy book written in some dead language on some island peoples who died 10k years ago?
Actually, it sounds more like threats from those who want you to believe the church they support.

this post and your previous might lead one to believe that while you don't deny God's existence you would need more before you could decide *which* God exists, the muslim, hindu, christian God... is this in fact your position?

This is a logical question, Forgiven, but of course logic only works within logically indeterminate limits. Gzus can very possibly be persuaded of this, but it cuts both ways
The mutually exclusive truth claims made by strong adherents of all the religions mentioned do seem to throw severe doubt on the universal validity of any of them.
Most pragmatic empiricists do not see profit in ideas of the transcendent, especially in sorting through claim and counter-claim, and may be called atheists, as much for a lack of interest as a lack of capacity for the subject.
Suppose a buddhist were to claim that the concept of God is a benign and useful way of conceptualising the thoughts and feelings which arise if one sees merit in entertaining such ideas.
Buddhists can and do describe themselves as pragmatic, empirical, religious and atheistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 9:19 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 8:21 PM Chavalon has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 417 (28026)
12-28-2002 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by forgiven
12-25-2002 8:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
hello chavalon
Originally posted by Chavalon:
The mutually exclusive truth claims made by strong adherents of all the religions mentioned do seem to throw severe doubt on the universal validity of any of them.
i frankly don't see how two or more mutually exclusive truth claims can lead to the conclusion that doubt, severe or otherwise, need be thrown on any one of them... person P thinks the earth is spherical in shape, person Q says flat, person R says triangular...

-But it is possible to verify publically that the world is, in fact, approximately spherical. No such verification is possible for metaphysical assertions, or there would be as much consensus about religious entities as there is about physical ones.
quote:
Most pragmatic empiricists do not see profit in ideas of the transcendent, especially in sorting through claim and counter-claim, and may be called atheists, as much for a lack of interest as a lack of capacity for the subject.
Suppose a buddhist were to claim that the concept of God is a benign and useful way of conceptualising the thoughts and feelings which arise if one sees merit in entertaining such ideas.
Buddhists can and do describe themselves as pragmatic, empirical, religious and atheistic.
i agree that empiricists believe as you say, i just think they must borrow from my worldview in order to hold to their beliefs
how do buddhists reconcile the seemingly mutually exclusive definitions you attach to their beliefs? for example, would a religious empiricist deny or affirm the supernatural? would a pragmatic atheist, during her religious ceremonies, affirm or deny a deity?

-The buddha insisted that to say even a single word on the subject of metaphysics is to fall into error - that the subject is, in the true sense of the word, ineffable.
Rather, he started from a different point:
All existence is suffering.
The true origination of suffering has been discovered.
The stopping of that suffering is possible.
The way leading to the stopping of suffering is the Eight-fold path:
1. Right Understanding
2. Right Thought
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
A non-theistic system of morality. It is claimed that the truth of these assertions can be verified by living them. Thus it is - in a rather subjective way - pragmatic and empirical. Some say that it is a philosophy rather than a religion, but it is a truth claim of buddhism that to achieve all of this is to see everything clearly (and of course wordlessly), transcending oneself and achieving a timeless, heaven-like state of conciousness.
Thus there is a promise of transcendence, but without any claims about the supernatural, so it is both religious and atheistic.
Edited for a more enlightening quote structure!
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 8:21 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 1:44 PM Chavalon has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 393 of 417 (28039)
12-28-2002 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by forgiven
12-28-2002 1:44 PM


quote:
i don't agree that this lack of empirical verification is itself proof of a truth claim being false
-Nor is it. It shows it to be undecidable.
quote:
-The buddha insisted that to say even a single word on the subject of metaphysics is to fall into error - that the subject is, in the true sense of the word, ineffable.
so metaphysical entities do exist in buddhism, yet they aren't to be mentioned... is that accurate?... in a sense i agree with this... unless a metaphysical entity had the means and proclivity to reveal something of his/her/its nature, speaking of that nature is bound to be prone to error... however, to say that some such entity hasn't revealed its nature is to beg the question...
christians say that God has done just that, thus we are not bound by the material, we can account for things not hung in time and space... buddhism says, not only is it wrong to seek to understand metaphysics, it's wrong to acknowledge its existence... why is it wrong? because you might be in error... but maybe i've misunderstood you
- Metaphysics exists, in our minds if nowhere else, but none of its propositions are decidable using logic. Buddha regarded its importance as trivial in comparison with the suffering actually experienced by sentient beings.
If the Christian God is other than metaphysical, can you cite the evidence? Can you explain why it is not as widely accepted as the sphericity of the planets?
quote:
...there is a promise of transcendence, but without any claims about the supernatural, so it is both religious and atheistic.
religious in the sense that it places each individual person in a deified position... at least that's how it seems to me... buddhism seems to have simply replaced one God with many without attempting to explain how non-material entities exist... in fact, buddhism seems to frown upon anyone actually asking the question... why is that? is there some quality to be found in the ineffableness of an endeavor that makes it meaningless?
to me this seems like an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too... it seems to say, the material isn't all there is therefore we are justified in utilizing metaphysical entities... but these entities can't be discussed, their origins can't be understood... to do so, to even make the attempt, is to fall into error...
I suggested in a previous post that the revelation experienced by Cristians may be a benign projection of their own buddha nature ('godlikeness'). Of course, this is a metaphysical speculation, so a buddhist wouldn't make it. I'm not one (that would also involve being a non-smoking vegetarian ) so I'll say it and apologise for making observations that may be thought rude.
The true reality, metaphysics and all, can - it is asserted - be directly experienced through fully realised meditation. It is however impossible to communicate the resulting insights linguistically. The standard similie is that talk of reality is to reality itself as a menu is to a meal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 1:44 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 9:38 AM Chavalon has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 395 of 417 (28068)
12-29-2002 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by forgiven
12-29-2002 9:38 AM


...giving up one's pride, abandoning one's centricity in the universe...
...is fundamental to fully realised meditation. In fact 'meditation with the aim of achieving enlightenment' is essentially the same thing as 'contemplative prayer with the aim of union with the Godhead' - as practiced by John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart and other less well known Christian mystics. It is possible to establish extremely close correspondences between the two, according to accounts of practitioners*. In fact, at least one Christian commentator has claimed that St John of the Cross was both entirely Christian and entirely buddhist...
The result is the same, the axioms different. You wrote
i think metaphysical entities can be proven using logic, but can't be proven in an empirical sense
which is obvious if you choose the right axioms. How do you feel about the fact that other axioms can lead to equivalent results with a much simpler metaphysic?
*Details in Aldous Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 9:38 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 4:13 PM Chavalon has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 417 (28077)
12-29-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by forgiven
12-29-2002 4:13 PM


Oh come on, Forgiven. An axiom is a basic assumption.
There is no proselytising tradition in buddhism. Those who are motivated to learn about it are encouraged to do so, but I'm not your best source of information.
I have been pointing out that many religions, such as buddhism and christianity, are substantially equivalent in many ways (the morality, the mystical core) apart from the undecidable metaphysical parts, which seem to have no publically verifiable proof.
The reader may possibly recall that this thread started as an investigation of personal divine revelation, something also common to all religions but 'objectively' unprovable. I suggest that although people think it comes from their God, the metaphysical framework of revelation is an accident of birth and culture, and that the experience of revelation is a consequence of the fact that people, unaided by the divine, are even more extraordinary than they realise.
You seem to believe that I hold these beliefs through self deception, love of sin and fear of divine perfection. In the end it's all ipse dixit on both sides, as one would expect of this subject matter.
Go well.
'El chavaln'
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-29-2002]
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 4:13 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 9:14 PM Chavalon has not replied
 Message 400 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-29-2002 10:55 PM Chavalon 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