17 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI think you missed the point. Questions such as cosmological origins are extremely difficult and may well just be complete wastelands for justified belief. There may simply be no satisfactory answers at all. When you just make up a bunch of silly crap and somehow convince yourself you have instead found some profound "answer", that leads to (a bad sort, almost like a willful sort of) ignorance and suffering. The Buddha understood this, and he understood that the appropriate approach is to take your reason as far as it will justifiably take you; and that leaves you wherever it leaves you. I think part of the problem is that sometimes we consider having "answers" to such questions as paralyzingly important. The Buddha understood that this is not necessarily so, and forcing yourself to carry around ersatz answers to these sorts of questions leads, again, to suffering:
Do notice that I said it was ONE of many reasons and not the only reason.
Glad you brought up Buddah. Here is what Buddah says regarding the creation of the universe.
"Conjecture about the origin of the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." LOL.
W universe. 🙄
As for myself, I'll stick with a source that seems to have some answers. 😉
Suppose, Malunkyaputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: "I will not let the surgeon pull out the arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me; whether the bow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed." All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone should say: "I will not lead the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite; whether the soul is the same as or different from the body; whether or not an awakened one continues or ceases to exist after death," that would still remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die. --The Buddha
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloI take such myths as anthropologically relevant and insightful…
[b]I guess my point is, is that the Genesis account in terms of ancient myths is about as accurate as there is out there no matter your interpretation of it. In addition, as with most stories in the Bible there is more truth in these stories than people like yourself give them credit.
What if one's interpretation of genesiac account is that it is ...[text shortened]... at case, your genesiac account is outrageously false and arbitrary, like any religious myth.[/b]
Which is exactly what myth—or, in my more mundane term, story—is supposed to be.
What I object to is the extreme historicism (as opposed to proper historical criticism as one appropriate hermeneutic) that both religionist and non-religionists often impose on these texts—leading to an accepting-literalism on the part of the former, and a rejecting-literalism on the part of the latter.
I read an interesting commentary the other day, which said that the traditional rabbinical-midrashic approach to these texts is, in a sense, quite “post-modern”—in that how the reader engages/interprets the text is decisive. (“One must bring one’s own torah to the Torah, in order to discover/create true Torah.” ) And that is why the midrashic hermeneutic is so (intentionally) open to multivocal readings. Even the most scholarly attempts to determine “what the author meant” may ignore the role of story as something that is (to change one word in your formulation) “existentially relevant and insightful”.
I do not reject historical criticism or (more in my line) literary criticism. But, in the end, I tend to approach the texts midrashically—which means that I am often looking for existentially relevant “koans”.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeywrong. i am not saying ignoring his presence. i am not saying not pray to him for some sort of guidance as long as you are aware that guidance is improbable to come. but how can you use "god has superior reasoning abilities" since he doesn't share it with us?god is silent and it falls to us to figure out the universe in the little time we have.
To have a working relationship with God, if there be one, you would be obligated to place your faith in him at some point. This is because, if there be a God, such a God would have superior reasoning abilities than yoiur own, hence, at times it would behoove one to then rely on his superior insight than that of our own. Otherwise, we may as just as well ign ...[text shortened]... d be needed and no relationship started. He would be as dead to us as if he did not even exist.
and while we are at the point of god's superior reasoning, let me ask you one thing. i am not saying the above statement isn't true, yet you consider that anyone who dismisses genesis as a fairy tale is calling god a liar and a retard. but here comes my question: do you tell your children that daddy put his woohoo into his mommy chacha and after 9 months he came, or do you tell him a tale involving a stork carrying babies in its beak?
did you call your mother a liar when you discovered there is no santa claus? what do you expect from god? to teach the ancient jewish shepherds astrophysics and evolutionary biology? or did he had a different, more urgent agenda, like teaching those savages to stop killing each other, give them some sort of rules. if the latter is true, it is reasonable to assume god didn't had to give us the secrets to nuclear physics(why, so we can kill each other faster and earlier?) because we could already figure them out by ourselves. instead he tried to give us some moral guidelines. and since the ancient man was pissing his pants about an evolution story, god did to him as any parent would a child, gave him a fairy tale.
but of course you cannot believe this version of things, because you hold true the fact that god cannot lie. the freakin supreme being cannot lie. how retarded is this thought?
17 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdActually, I would also tend to prefer your term, story, which I think is a good one.
[b]I take such myths as anthropologically relevant and insightful…
Which is exactly what myth—or, in my more mundane term, story—is supposed to be.
What I object to is the extreme historicism (as opposed to proper historical criticism as one appropriate hermeneutic) that both religionist and non-religionists often impose on these te ...[text shortened]... the texts midrashically—which means that I am often looking for existentially relevant “koans”.[/b]
Also, I think you have well captured what I meant by (anthropologically or existentially) "relevant and insightful". I don't consider story to be truth-apt or in the business of giving "accurate" account (unless there is insistence on such consideration for the sake of debate). Searching for koans is more what I had in mind.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziOf course, if you don't view the Bible or any other religious document as being the "will" of God revealed to us, then I suppose you are left with only prayer and what answers you percieve as getting back from such interaction if anything. However, if you believe the Bible is more than a fairy tale, in fact, if you so dare to believe that it is God's message to humanity and has not tried to "lie" to us about things, then we know a great deal about what his will is for us in this life.
[b]wrong. i am not saying ignoring his presence. i am not saying not pray to him for some sort of guidance as long as you are aware that guidance is improbable to come. but how can you use "god has superior reasoning abilities" since he doesn't share it with us?god is silent and it falls to us to figure out the universe in the little time we have.
The Bible is often referred to as a two edged sword. This is because it cuts assunder all those obstacles that inhibit us from discoving truth no matter if it is "uncomfortable". This is how I view God's word. There have been and continue to be things in my life that have been revealed to me through his word that I see needs dealt with. Now if I view the Bible as anything short of God's word or if it is a God who lies, I am simply wasting my time. I would be much better off doing my own thing and living life the way I see it should be lived rather than trusting sources that should not be trusted. To sum up, I guess it is about trust.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeythere is no more truth to be discovered in the bible. love each other and love god. what do you think, that in time you will discover fusion power in it? not to mention that is not the true purpose of the bible anyway
Of course, if you don't view the Bible or any other religious document as being the "will" of God revealed to us, then I suppose you are left with only prayer and what answers you percieve as getting back from such interaction if anything. However, if you believe the Bible is more than a fairy tale, in fact, if you so dare to believe that it is God's message ...[text shortened]... an trusting sources that should not be trusted. To sum up, I guess it is about trust.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziOn the contrary, the Bible is a wealth of information. For example, I have said many times over, Biblical Archaeology is based upon it. Have you even heard of it or do you even know what it is? If you have not heard of it or do not know what it is, I will cut you some slack and assume your assertions are based upon ignorance, but if you do know, shame on your for being disingenuous.
there is no more truth to be discovered in the bible. love each other and love god. what do you think, that in time you will discover fusion power in it? not to mention that is not the true purpose of the bible anyway
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyit is what the name implies, a branch of archeology which specializes in digging in areas mentioned in the bible.
On the contrary, the Bible is a wealth of information. For example, I have said many times over, Biblical Archaeology is based upon it. Have you even heard of it or do you even know what it is? If you have not heard of it or do not know what it is, I will cut you some slack and assume your assertions are based upon ignorance, but if you do know, shame on your for being disingenuous.
"In fact the members of the school were not biblical literalists, and their main concern was to discriminate between those parts of the biblical story which were true and those which were embellishments."
claiming the bible is offering a base for this school, that is "a wealth of information", is an overstatement brimming with naivety(i am in a civilized mood so i didn't used narrow-mindness). in fact it is the other way around, the school is giving substance to the bible. what biblical archeology discovers may or may not confirm parts of the big book. you make it sound like the bible already contains all the answers this branch of science is looking for, they just look for them to... actually find them?
got anything else? this is a bad example(again, i am in a civilized mood and don't want to use insulting terms)
20 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziTo what degree you give the truth within the Bible in terms of Archaeology is your own business, however, the fact remains that you made the statement that their is no truth in the Bible other than to love God and love others. Do you now retract that statement?
it is what the name implies, a branch of archeology which specializes in digging in areas mentioned in the bible.
"In fact the members of the school were not biblical literalists, and their main concern was to discriminate between those parts of the biblical story which were true and those which were embellishments."
claiming the bible is offering a bas is is a bad example(again, i am in a civilized mood and don't want to use insulting terms)
The fact remains that the stories within the Bible are based upon real people during real historic times. To not recognize this fact is disingenuous.
20 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by dystoniacAlthough the term myth can mean fictional, this not necessarily the case, rather, it can also mean a traditional story involving supernatural forces, characters etc.
The phrase 'Creation Myths' is an oxymoron because creationism is no myth. The heavens and earth are 'designed' by a creator. One cannot disprove this; even the atheists and evolution-geeks are stymied by this fact.
One thing is for sure and that is we all got here some how and some way. The term "creation", however, is what bothers atheists because this then demands a creator. For the atheist, their creator is father random chance. Some refer him to as "dumb luck". In fact they have a Bible and the first book is entitled, "Abiogenesis". It is chalked full of stories of how they imagine it all probably started but will never really know for sure.
20 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAtheists have a 'bible'? How interesting. Thanks.
Although the term myth can mean fictional, this not necessarily the case, rather, it can also mean a traditional story involving supernatural forces, characters etc.
One thing is for sure and that is we all got here some how and some way. The term "creation", however, is what bothers atheists because this then demands a creator. For the atheist, their c f stories of how they imagine it all probably started but will never really know for sure.
20 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by dystoniacI'm confused. What would it take, in your estimation, to "disprove" a claim (e.g., that the earth was designed by a creator)? Under these same standards, can you disprove that it is not the case that the earth was designed by a creator? If not, do you consider yourself "stymied" by this fact?
The phrase 'Creation Myths' is an oxymoron because creationism is no myth. The heavens and earth are 'designed' by a creator. One cannot disprove this; even the atheists and evolution-geeks are stymied by this fact.
Further, I'm confused why such facts should even be taken as relevant, let alone stymieing. I'm guessing you cannot "disprove" that there is an invisible elf in my closet. Is this fact really somehow all that material to the question of whether or not it actually is the case that there is an invisible elf in my closet?
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyYeah, whodey, your theistic "answers" are, like, way cooler than ours. Bitchin', dude.
Although the term myth can mean fictional, this not necessarily the case, rather, it can also mean a traditional story involving supernatural forces, characters etc.
One thing is for sure and that is we all got here some how and some way. The term "creation", however, is what bothers atheists because this then demands a creator. For the atheist, their c ...[text shortened]... f stories of how they imagine it all probably started but will never really know for sure.