Why you believe what you believe II

[The Palantir]

The Mormons believe their "Book of Mormon," which was written by Joseph Smith. It claims to be "the most true book in the world." It describes many different empires and wars having occurred in America. Archaeologists have performed a great deal of research, and no evidence for any of their cities or empires has ever been found. It's pretty sad for the Mormons. Does the Bible, like the Book of Mormon, claim to be accurate while it is actually flawed by numerous major errors?

Ah, yes...the Mormons...nothing personal to anyone, but that is a sad cult.
And no, I don't believe there are any flaws in the Bible, major or
minor.
The Bible is archaeologically true. One example is the worldwide flood it describes. And what is found all over the world? Fossils of catastrophically
buried creatures, that only a flood could explain. I mean, evolution says
that these fossils are the results of a slow process. But the evidence is
there, folks. When you see a fossil clam(they are very common where I
live), it is almost invariably fossilized in a closed position. Now, when
a clam dies, it doesn't stay closed. It comes apart-you see this everywhere
on the beach. So the clam must have been buried alive, and fossilized in that position. There is no other explanation than a flood
for this, and this is true about almost any other fossil phenomenon.
Also, I remember that there was a city mentioned in the Bible, that
some archaeoligists went and investigated the area where it was said to be-and sure enough, there it was-until then, undiscovered. I only wish I could remember more about that incident.

Anyways, I believe that the Bible is completely true-I've never seen
a single scrap of evidence that it isn't.

And to Chrys-
I might look at those other scriptures sometime, to compare them to the
Bible.
I'll ask you-and everyone here-to ask yourself this: what is truth? And if you know, how do you know it?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

truth is that to which one believes to be correct, in essence a truth is your own opinion, except scientific truths.

[Genealogy_dude]

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one can get into heaven except through him. The Bible is truth. Jesus loves you. All of you. He is real. He is God's son.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Genealogy_dude

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one can get into heaven except through him. The Bible is truth. Jesus loves you. All of you. He is real. He is God's son.

let's be careful that we don't descend into fundamentalism here, a few "I believe"'s here and there wouldn't go amiss
or then again...
the truth of lama is whole, all must follow the noble truths to follow the buddha into nirvana, om mani padme hum, the following of chenrezig, that is avalokiteshvra, brings and teaches great compassion...

[Genealogy_dude]

LCoU,en do you think that Christianity was thought of? and (no offense to and Buddhists) Buddhism was thought of by some guy who thought he knew the way to paradise.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i suppose christianity was brought about/thought of about the year 0 BCE/CE

whereas siddartha gautama (Buddha) was born approx. 800 BCE, at lumbini

Buddhism was thought of by some guy who thought he knew the way to paradise.

that is a slightly prejudiced statement
to turn it around:
'christianity was thought of by some guy who thought he knew the way to heaven.'

[Genealogy_dude]

Well I am very sorry If that was taken as a prejudiced statement. I am very sorry. but Jesus IS the way to heaven.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Genealogy_dude

Well I am very sorry If that was taken as a prejudiced statement. I am very sorry. but Jesus IS the way to heaven.

all you need do is put 'I believe' in after the 'but',

and then the 'fundamentalism' is removed from the statemtn

[Genealogy_dude]

ok. believe that Jesus is the way to eternal life.

I gotta go but. LCoU, in advance. Happy Birthday.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Genealogy_dude

Well I am very sorry If that was taken as a prejudiced statement. I am very sorry. but Jesus IS the way to heaven.

Heaven does not exist

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Genealogy_dude

ok. believe that Jesus is the way to eternal life.

I gotta go but. LCoU, in advance. Happy Birthday.

why thank you

hey millane, you got that right
hell exists, hell is life

[Lief Erikson]

Millane, how do you know heaven does not exist?

Genealogy Dude, how do you know Jesus is alive or the way to heaven? Just saying it's true is not going to be very convincing.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

the truth of lama is whole, all must follow the noble truths to follow the buddha into nirvana, om mani padme hum, the following of chenrezig, that is avalokiteshvra, brings and teaches great compassion...

Genealogy Dude, do you find that very convincing? It's not an argument. It has no power to convince. Neither does the claim, "Jesus is alive and the way to heaven." When people just say that, they aren't going to convince anyone. You have to explain how you know what you claim, as Last Child of Ungoliant is trying to explain. When Jesus came to Earth, he didn't go around saying to everyone, "I am God, I am God, you must believe in me." He hid that he was God from most people, and he convinced people that he was God through his character, his actions and his words.

We need to give other people a reason to believe.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

hey millane, you got that right
hell exists, hell is life

Hell is Illusion .

Last Child, I would be rather curious to hear you give an outline of the reasons and evidences that support Buddhist belief. That would be highly interesting to me . If you don't feel qualified, then at least your own beliefs. Or did you already do this somewhere on the thread, which I didn't read? It would be most interesting.



RÃ*an, thanks for the quote. It is compelling and contained within a splendid post, by the way. I have something of a response argument to pose, though.

Often we have found that peoples of the ancient past had extreme knowledge that people of the future did not have. The extremely cunning engineering from the ancient monument Stonehenge is one example. The extensive mathematical and astronomical knowledge of highly ancient cultures, like Sumer, which was founded in 3500 BC, is another example. The Roman Empire's achievements in architecture were so great that when the Empire was gone, future barbarian peoples living in the same places looked at the massive, exquisite sculpture and architecture and said that gods had come to Earth and created them.

In view of the astounding achievements of other ancient peoples, isn't it easy to believe that the medical understanding of the Hebrews was a result of their own talent?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Genealogy Dude, how do you know Jesus is alive or the way to heaven? Just saying it's true is not going to be very convincing.

Genealogy Dude, do you find that very convincing? It's not an argument. It has no power to convince. Neither does the claim, "Jesus is alive and the way to heaven." When people just say that, they aren't going to convince anyone. You have to explain how you know what you claim, as Last Child of Ungoliant is trying to explain. When Jesus came to Earth, he didn't go around saying to everyone, "I am God, I am God, you must believe in me." He hid that he was God from most people, and he convinced people that he was God through his character, his actions and his words.

We need to give other people a reason to believe.

yes, that was the argument i was trying to make

Originally Posted by lief

Hell is Illusion .

Originally Posted by lief

Last Child, I would be rather curious to hear you give an outline of the reasons and evidences that support Buddhist belief. That would be highly interesting to me . If you don't feel qualified, then at least your own beliefs. Or did you already do this somewhere on the thread, which I didn't read? It would be most interesting.

i mite have already, though i dont think so
i am definitely underqualified to do thusly, but i will make a game attempt, as it were

the main reason for my follwing of the buddhist scriptures was originally due to the studies i conducted into the ancient tibetan and zen ways of life, which i conducted due to my extreme respect and admiration for the oriental cultures. in discovering the nature of the mahayana way of life, and more importantly lamaist and zen ways of life, i discovered that the eternal truths, such as compassion and love, appealed greatly, and so, one could say that i merely follow in the footsteps of buddhists, as the dalai lama once said,

merely to call oneself a buddhist is not enough

i hope this helps show my viewpoint,

also, i do not actually believe in the hindu gods, although they form the basis for much of buddhism, i follow the more atheistic sect of buddhism, however do believe that those muths are an accurate attempt at early indus man to create an explanation for what he saw around him, and the gaps were filled in, and myths replaced, as man discovered more about the world.

[Lief Erikson]

Why do you think that compassion and love are "eternal truths", and what do you mean when you call them that? Also, what was it about their representation in Buddhism that particularly appealed to you?

Originally Posted by Daia Lama

Merely to call oneself a buddhist is not enough.

I like that phrase a lot.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i feel that compassion and love are eternal truths because the one way to progress in life is to show compassion and love, in doing so one can only hope to receive such upon oneself.

the representation in buddhism that particularly appeals is the unconditionality, with some religions it is love this god, and you will receive love, but with Buddhism it is merely love, and be loved.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

Heaven does not exist

Millane does not exist. After all, I can't see him!

[Rían]

Sorry I've been away for a bit - I'll catch up on Monday, because I want to do some "thread-starter moderating" and focus the discussion a bit to keep it in line with the intent stated in the first post of this thread.

good question, Lief - I'll think about it!

just realized the first post might not be here anymore - there's been some adjusting to split the threads that are over 1000 posts ... I'll check ...

[Rían]

OK, it's Monday, I"m back

As thread starter, I'd like to ask that statements like "Jesus is alive and the way to heaven.", without any supporting argument, not be made. I don't want to get into a war of "I say, you say" here As Lief pointed out, "Just saying it's true is not going to be very convincing."

No one here can take their worldview and put it on a scale and see if it stops at "true" or "untrue". NO worldview, from Christianity to Buddhism to Mormonism to agnosticism to atheism, can be "proven" in a scientific sense. However, LOTS of things are outside the realm of science, and we make conclusions about them anyway. When my husband told me he loved me and asked me to marry him, I didn't reply, "Well, let's put you on a scale and see if you truly DO love me, then I'll answer you." It was an important decision, so I decided to make a decision based on the only type of evidence that was available, and I chose to marry him. I could be wrong - he could be working up a vast conspiracy based on acting loving for years and then on our 20th anniversary next year, say, "Ho HO! I tricked you! I actually DON'T love you!" But I don't think so

The point is that I would like people to go deeper than just "I think this is right" on this thread. One's worldview is a very important question to decide, and NOT deciding upon one is a decision as surely as deciding upon one. One's moral actions and decisions are based upon one's worldview, so I think the question deserves some serious consideration. I think a good way to do this is to have people with opposing worldviews post questions to the hotseater (always with respect, of course) and the hotseater give the questions honest, careful, openminded consideration.

SO - Palantir, if you're still around, would you like to continue or not? If not, Chrys, would you like to go?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

RÃ*an, thanks for the quote. It is compelling and contained within a splendid post, by the way.

thanks!

I have something of a response argument to pose, though.

Often we have found that peoples of the ancient past had extreme knowledge that people of the future did not have. The extremely cunning engineering from the ancient monument Stonehenge is one example. The extensive mathematical and astronomical knowledge of highly ancient cultures, like Sumer, which was founded in 3500 BC, is another example. The Roman Empire's achievements in architecture were so great that when the Empire was gone, future barbarian peoples living in the same places looked at the massive, exquisite sculpture and architecture and said that gods had come to Earth and created them.

In view of the astounding achievements of other ancient peoples, isn't it easy to believe that the medical understanding of the Hebrews was a result of their own talent?

I thought about this last night and came up with several thoughts - let's see if I can remember them this morning! Some are very undeveloped, because I've never thought of your question before, but here they are (I think points 1 and 3 are most relevant, but 2 is interesting to think about):

1 - I think the test is more of an eliminator than whatever the opposite is ("confirmer"?). IOW, if the text involved in a particular religion tends to have errors of this type in it, it would be a strong point against it, IMO, and if it tended to NOT have errors of this type, it would get a "one more indicator that you are a good candidate for being true; you may pass on to the next evaluation" type thing. And as a worldview passes thru many such "eliminators", the case for it being true becomes stronger and stronger.

2 - Now, for the next angle, one must assume that Christianity is speaking the truth when it talks about God's character. IOW, this is where when I evaluate ANY worldview, I assume, for the moment, that it is true, and look for internal consistency and cohesive logic. SO - assuming Christianity is true, how are the building techniques in your example different from medical techniques, if they are at all?

I think one area is that the God of the Bible is described as caring about people. In fact, from what we can see, He's not overly impressed with architecture for architecture's sake alone (ref. Tower of Babel!) The God of the Bible is interested in the welfare of His chosen people, and giving good medical info, which was NOT the standard of the day and is STILL good advice today, would seem to be consistent with what is revealed in the Bible of God's character.

This is not particularly strong evidence, but it's interesting to think about. Perhaps there's more here than I'm aware of right now, but I think points 1 and 3 are more relevant.

3 - I was talking about evaluating the scripture set of different religions, so we're talking about evaluating written records. The Romans believed in lots of gods, but I'm not aware of a god whose primary concern was architecture and construction engineering, with corresponding scripture that claimed that this special engineering knowledge was GIVEN to the people by the god. If there WERE such scriptures, then the engineering evidence would be a good supporting bit of info for them (altho I would need more than just this to consider it seriously). The architectural/construction engineering god would have passed thru an "eliminator" test as in #1 above, but would need to pass thru some more tests for me to consider it seriously.


NOW - we can discuss this briefly, if you'd like to, while we wait to hear from Palantir

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

with reference to your point 3, their architechtural knowledge was, IIRC, claimed by the romans to have been given to them by a powerful god-like race, tho not actual gods, called the Ancient Ones, the teachers of Rhodes.