buddhist
Well-Known Member
Which one, and how did he confirm this to you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Favorite Bible error
- Thread starter Sand Dancer
- Start date
You don't know what you are talking about again. In this reality, you don't even bother verifying the existence of Barrack Obama if you are not an american. Since when you verify anything said by the media before you swallow it with faith!
You are completely out of reality.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Yes, you are correct in that I do not know for myself who Barrack Obama is - I do not have "faith" in or against him, as I do not perceive that his existence or non-existence impacts in any significant way my ultimate well-being.
"Jesus Christ" is claimed by many as someone who does impact my ultimate well-being, however, and so I demand evidence for him and his doctrines.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Hi. I am a Muslim and your post here affects my faith a lot. You understand how much it affects probably any theist.
But it is probably the most fair and honest statement put into a few words. Cant find many like this.
As a scholar of any theology, anyone must contemplate your statement here and seriously reconsider their position and their way forward.
Cheers.
History is history, as recorded by humans. Do you mean simply because your demand in the year 2016 that humans in AD 50 should write things more evident to you?
To put it another way, what do you expect them to do? Borrow a video cam from God to record down Jesus' deeds? Tell us, what else can be done?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I would expect a deity/god/all/universal divine/universal reality to do better than to record its message in one historical language - a language (along with texts) which can become lost, misunderstood, misinterpreted, mishandled, misrecorded, mistranslated; not to mention, giving its message through a limited number of intermediaries (creating an intercessory hierarchy or prophets/priests/etc. to be believed in) instead of revealing itself directly to everyone, through all time. That's all quite short sighted of a deity who is expected to be omniscient, omnipresent, and almighty.
I'm not singling out Christianity, as this argument applies to any faith-based religion.
IMO, if there was a supreme deity or universal reality, the best way would be to record its message in the laws of reality itself, laws plainly evident to everyone, through all time - past, present, future - a message which is clear, permanent, and undeniable, without the need for intermediaries or "interpreters" of the "divine will".
The basic criteria is that you are bound to a covenant which you need to rely on your faith to be saved. God thus won't do anything supernaturally obvious to everyone. That's the bottom line. Or else how can you and everyone else be saved?!
That said, show us another document which is better preserved by applying your standard.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
IMO there isn't any such "document", since I don't support the idea that God/Supreme Reality records it message in specific language(s) or document(s).
As I said, if there was such a Supreme Reality, I expect that its message is recorded in Reality itself - which is what early Buddhism basically teaches. Laws such as that of rebirth, cause-and-effect, etc., laws which are plainly evident to every wisely observant individual throughout time and space.
God's wisdom is no how a message can be conveyed among humans. The fundamental way for humans to get to any truth is
1) for humans as witnesses to write it down,
2) for other humans to believe.
Budda didn't even know this is the only way how a truth can be conveyed among humans. Even a scientific truth is conveyed this way. Say, we don't actually examine the existence of black holes. The scientists as the direct witnesses will write this down for other 99% humans to believe that black hole exists.
The more valid witnessing relies on that Jesus' eye witnesses chose to martyr themselves for what had been recorded down. No witnessing can be made more legitimate, today we have video and audio recordings to 'enhance' our witnessing though.
The whole purpose of the Bible is that it's theologically preserve serving the purpose of 'calling His sheep'. As long as all His sheep answer the call, God's job is done. He will do no more and no less.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Do you know - directly, for yourself - that the records of Jesus' alleged eyewitnesses and of their alleged martyrdoms were not fabricated?
No. You are leveraging the nature of history. The nature of history is that it's not verifiable. Or do you have any human writings (especially those written 2000 years ago) that you can confirm that they are not fabricated?
History, as a specific kind of truth, will have to rely on the same two factors to stand. 1) someone writes it down, and 2) for everyone else to put faith to believe.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not the one claiming that we should believe in ancient writings without the ability to personally verify them.
No, I'm not the one claiming that we should believe in ancient writings without the ability to personally verify them.
The point is, no human writings can be verified even in the case the a truth was recorded down. So, what is your recommendation? Disregard all human writings?
Moreover, it's misunderstanding saying that we want you to believe. We spread the message the best we can for you to have a choice. In the end, it's your own life.
The analogy is that there's a message saying that "there's a bomb in your house", it is said that the direct witnesses to this chose to martyr themselves in order to bring the message out. The repeat the message because we believe so. In the end, it's your own life that you make a choice to leave or to stay.
Last edited:
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No, but I would question everything until they can be personally verified, especially ones claiming to affect my ultimate destiny.
The early Buddhist writings apparently originated ~2,400 years ago, but I don't take them on faith alone. Its teachings and doctrines are described as personally verifiable by every individual throughout time (a unique characteristic of the Buddhist Dhamma, as compared to faith-based religions). I've verified and know - for myself - the early steps of the Way taught by early Buddhism, which creates faith in me regarding the upcoming steps I must take to verify and know them (eventually) for myself.
Moreover, it's misunderstanding saying that we want you to believe. We spread the message the best we can for you to have a choice. In the end, it's your own life.
The analogy is that there's a message saying that "there's a bomb in your house", it is said that the direct witnesses to this chose to martyr themselves in order to bring the message out. We repeat the message because we believe so. In the end, it's your own life that you make a choice to leave or to stay.
It's not our attempt to stop you from verifying. On the other hand, verification is overstated as in this reality we don't verify before believe.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
... if you don't need verification, what stops you from believing other religious narratives, regarding Zeus, Apollo, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, Ahura Mazda, or any other alleged deity?
james bond
Well-Known Member
It's spelled Barack Obama. Or Barry Soetoro. Never mind, the latter is an American joke.
The way I started was how did life begin (and not just by having sex) and why are we here?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
What answers did you arrive at?
james bond
Well-Known Member
It wasn't easy, but I spoke to friends and students in class and other people I knew and strangers. Usually, nothing heavy or in-depth, but a few times it turned out that way. I was going to college and sometimes in-between classes I would chat with mostly students whom I didn't know. There were street people, too. One guy held up a poster that read John 3:16, Repent the end of the world is coming or something to that effect. I guess people gave him more money that way. Sometimes he had different messages. Also, I made time to talk with the philosophy professors and ministers my Mom knew. I read religious news and articles. There were a wide variety of answers, but it boiled down to what is good and what is evil and will there be a final judgment in the end? The how life began part I couldn't answer well, but why we are here or the purpose of life was to help others. One article by Mahatma Gandhi really made an impression on me. He was referring to his faith in God. It was something like the following article I found on the internet a couple of years ago:
http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_god_meaning.htm
The Ardent Atheist
Member
The fact that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present contradictory creation accounts just sets the whole tone, doesn't it?
What a gloriously fumbled introduction for a holy book.
What a gloriously fumbled introduction for a holy book.