My thread on which the topic is, whatever I want to talk about

[A. believer]

Since we were told to stay on topic on a thread in this forum on which I was carrying on a couple of separate discussions, and since I have a propensity for letting topics veer off to wherever they happen to go (after all, isn't that generally how normal discourse goes), I decided to start my own thread for which I can't be accused of going off topic.

 

[arunma]

Want to talk about physics? I know I do.

 

[A. believer]

Want to talk about physics? I know I do.

Maybe--if you can post something interesting enough about physics to get me interested. You have to figure out a way to relate it to non-Christian religions, though, to keep the thread from being moved to another forum.

 

[arunma]

Well, how about calculating the terminal velocity of a falling Bible in a medium of arbitrary viscosity?

 

[A. believer]

Well, how about calculating the terminal velocity of a falling Bible in a medium of arbitrary viscosity?

Shouldn't that be a falling Q'uran?

 

[arunma]

Shouldn't that be a falling Q'uran?

LOL! I suppose you're right. Then again, I've dropped my Bible off of my bed a few times before, so the problem is of some interest to me.

 

[e=mv^2]

How about pie? Everyone likes pie!

 

[arunma]

How about pie? Everyone likes pie!

Well I know that the first few digits are 3.1415926535. Alternatively, I think you can compute it by taking the Taylor series of the inverse tangent fuction about a certain point. But I usually do my computations in terms of pi, and then approximate as necessary.

...wait, wrong pi.

 

[indianx]

The first time I have seen someone make pie boring..

 

[A. believer]

The latter, of course.

Okay. Then again, I'll address the problem with the presupposition behind your accusation--that we should expect any of the people who wrote at the time to have mentioned these phenomena. J.P. Holding addresses your false presupposition in this essay.

And btw you seem to imply that you are ignorent of the fact that the gospels were not in fact contempory accounts. They were written many years after, Mark apparently being the first which other writers used as a reference. Scholars now believe there is reason to suspect Mark wasnt even the first gospel, but rather a earlier original book they named "Q", that is now lost.

And the scholars to whom you refer who have drawn these conclusions have done so in accordance with their own unbelieving presuppositions. In other words, there are no "autonomous facts" by which one can draw the conclusions that the gospels were not written in the first century or that such a document as "Q" existed. The conclusions of these scholars (and there are, obviously, many Christian scholars who reject these conclusions, as well as the presuppositions behind them) reason from of their own arbitrarily assumed presuppositions. But if you think you can justify these presuppositions, and explain why we should accept the conclusions of these scholars, then be my guest. There is nothing that militates against the notion that the gospels are exactly what the church has always regarded them as being--the true and reliable testimonies of apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions to apostles (Mark and Luke).

Well unfortunately Scripture isnt exactly forthcoming as to the details so we have no choice but to infer. When you bury a dead person you have bury them reasonably deep, you cant just throw a layer of dirt over them and call it a night. So anyone dead conjoured back to life would clearly have to get rid of all that earth somehow. Now, if they were "zombies" they wouldnt have to breath, obviously, since they'd be dead. However if they were literally living again, they would need to breath. But they cant breath until they have got rid of all that earth, and they wouldnt be able to get rid of all that earth very quickly since there would be so much of it.

The Jews generally buried their dead in caves. A major earthquake opened these caves. Some miraculously resurrected and physically regenerated Old Testament faithful walked out. Again, your entire scenario comes from kitchy horror movies, not from Biblical testimony.

Now if we ignore this, and somehow imagine god gave them magical powers to do the above in some way that doesnt involve desperately gasping for breath and furiously scraping the earth and wheezingly crawling from their graves - we can nevertheless still assume that the dead coming out of their graves to any ordinary person would certianly seem like they were "the living dead". How were they to know that Yahweh had magically given these dead "saints" life again? All they would see is a graveyard with the dead coming out of their graves, right? Scary stuff.

Why would you presume that anyone would have been in the vicinity of the tombs when they were opened? Why are you describing some kind of modern-day cemetery? And most importantly, on what basis would you presume that these events would likely have been recorded elsewhere and in greater detail? Ancient non-Christian historians would have had little interest in the events. Literate unbelieving Romans would not likely have known the resurrected saints, and they probably wouldn't have believed anyone's testimony that they were formerly dead if they had even heard about it. Literate unbelieving Jews would certainly not have recorded such a powerful testimony against their position on who Jesus was. They would have wanted to explain it away, both to themselves and to other Jews. Much the way unbelieving scholars try so hard to explain away the resurrection of Christ.

Now isnt it intersting that the night of the living dead wasnt written about by anyone other than Matthews gospel, even though it is written that these dead saints were "seen by many"? Isnt it also interesting that not even other believers wrote about it, no Christians that did know these were literally ressurected, and not in fact "zombies" after all? Not even the brought-back-to-life Saints, who we never hear of past 2 lines of text from Matthew, felt the need to write it down either. And isnt it really interesting to note that only the writer of Matthew mentions any of this at all?

It's a question worth asking, for sure. And I already posted a link to a source that gave a perfectly plausible answer to the question. An answer, incidentally, that not only accounts for only Matthew including this, but sheds light on why we should expect that he would be. In case you didn't read the link last time I posted it, I'll post it again here. Resurrected saints.

So again, as long as you're presuppositionally committed to rejecting Christianity, you will always interpret any and all evidence in some contrary way. But don't kid yourself into thinking that you (or anyone else) can ever interpret "objectively."

No, I suspect it probably isnt to you. Believers such as yourself can always find some implausible way to make it make sence to yourselves no matter how riduclous it sounds. But reasonably this doesnt, unless we acknoledge the only conclusion that makes any sence at all - the writer of Matthew wasnt accurate when he said this. It sounds exactly like the kind of detail one might expect a legend passed down would create.

This could be considered a fair assessment of a story like the one recorded in Matthew's gospel if it were a story told in isolation from the rest of Scripture. In light of the entirety of the Scriptural witness, however, it's foolishness. Your criticism of Scripture is premised upon unjustifiable assumptions. In rejecting a Christian worldview paradigm (which alone provides the preconditions for rationality), you're rejecting the intelligibility of anything. Your criticisms presuppose naturalistic assumptions, but you have no foundation for those assumptions.

Lazarus was a recent death, was he not? These were all dead Saints. Now unless in one year Saintage was in high demand, it is reasonable to assume that these Saints lived and died spanning, at the very least, a hundred years. Now are you saying God rejuvinated all their body parts as well? We would have to add to the story to do that, and if we do that I am just as free to suppose what the obvious reaction people would have had to the dead coming out of their graves, and how exactly they managed to be able to do this.

First of all, "saints" is defined as faithful worshippers of the God who is. Biblically defined sainthood doesn't imply moral perfection. Nevertheless, that's not to dispute your point that these bodies would have undergone various degrees of decay. But, of course, it's even noted in Scripture that Lazarus's body would have undergone some degree of decay having been in the tomb four days. But that the bodies were physically restored doesn't have to be specifically mentioned in the narrative for it to be presumed. It is certainly implied in the story of Lazarus.

And I didn't say that you're not free to presume anything you want. What I'm saying is that your presuppositions are not justified. Mine are well justified in the context of my entire worldview. You, though, merely assume yours to be self-justifying. But they're not and they cannot be. They're arbitrary because your worldview, itself, is arbitrary and without epistemological justification.

No, I have no faith in my position. I dont see the point in faith, I want to know what is really true not pretend I do regardless. Real truth stands up to anything, we shouldnt have to close our eyes and pretend it isnt there just so we can have our "faith". I dont see the creator of the entire universe who endowed us with reason and objectivity would force us to become intellectucally dishonest with ourselves and discard them all so that we can believe a book, clearly written by men, was correct in every detail.

What you're really insisting on is not intellectual honesty, but intellectual autonomy. God did create us with rationality (the ability to reason), but to say that we possess "objectivity" is absurd. We are, by definition, subjective. We do not and cannot reason neutrally. Reason is presuppositionally based, and the presuppositions from which we reason are either true or they are false. But they are not neutral.

And how do I fail to "recognize the nature of Christian faith"?

By subscribing to the false dichotomy between faith and reason. We all hold our presuppositions on faith, whatever our worldview, whether it's "religious" or "secular."

Knowldedge3 told us on the Creation/Evolution forum that it was holding onto reason and objectivity that stopped one understanding the truth of the Bible, that one must cast them aside to see the "truth". Is that what I must do to "recognise the nature of Christian faith"? If so, the position is clearly the definition of insane, and if not there should be some objective reason for believing it.

Perhaps Knowledge3 has, himself, been confused by false modernist categories of faith and reason, or perhaps you misunderstood Knowledge3's response. Since I didn't read the thread, and I'm not familiar with Knowledge3, I won't presume to guess.

Or perhaps I just need to understand what faith is; a strict adherence to a belief and to continue believe no matter what. A notion, as I said, I find absurd.

As I said, it's not a matter of faith or reason, but a matter of what one places one's faith in. But it's the very arbitrariness of your presuppositions that proves your faith irrational.

(Im still waiting to see if Arunma will admit this is evidence, (Im not even saying conclusive evidence mearly evidence) that the gospels may not be accurate, as my original point was responding to)

I can't speak for Arunma, but I would say that your arguments do not provide evidence for the unreliability of the gospels. Rather, they reveal the prejudicial nature of your presuppositions.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste AB,

i tried to move our most recent conversation here, however, the post is too long.... how we managed to talk on it escapes me.

nevertheless, perhaps we could excise the most relevant bits and continue here?

metta,

~v

 

[A. believer]

Namaste AB,

thank you for the post.

why not? you know how Hume views knowledge and the method of its aquisition. what, specifically, do you disagree with and, more to the point, what refutation can you provide to establish that your view is correct and his view is not?

Hume's epistemology presupposes the autonomy of reason. So that, while I would agree with Hume that true knowledge cannot be obtained by (autonomous) reason, I disagree with his presupposition that reason can or ought to be autonomous. In fact, I would say that the presumption of autonomy is, itself, inherently rebellious. God's being and His absolute claim upon all of creation, as the ground and source of all truth, must be presupposed before knowledge can be had. ("The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.") I'm defining knowledge as justified true belief. For something to be properly called knowledge, it cannot be based upon arbitrarily assumed presuppositions. The presuppositions upon which one reasons must be consistent with one another and justified within the context of an entire worldview. (i.e., one cannot assume the concept of morality, for example, without a worldview framework that renders the concept of morality intelligible.) Only a Christian worldview can provide this justification.

this is not what i am saying.

though it seems that the Buddhist view is the correct view, it is only the correct view for beings with the capacity to practice the Dharma. thus, it isn't about their appeal or not. in point of fact, the Buddha Shakyamuni specifically instructs us *not* to adopt views based on our feelings and things of this nature.

So then, if one hasn't the ability to practice the dharma, then the dharma doesn't exist? My understanding of the dharma is that is posited as a transcendent reality. Whether or not I have the ability to practice it or even to comprehend it, you are still saying that it exists and that it is intrinsically good to practice it (despite the fact that not everyone can practice it), are you not?

the Buddhist critique of other religious traditions is not a philosophical objection, though that exists as well. it is, rather, a religious objection being that your tradition is grounded in a radically different ontology than Buddhism.

thus, my critisim is mainly from a religious point of view.

But you're saying that the nature of reality is reflected in Buddhist ontology, are you not?

When I say that Christianity is true, I'm making a universal and exclusive claim, as you know. I'm saying that Christian ontology correctly reflects the nature of reality in regard to a dog or a spider or a tree, despite the fact that this reality has not been revealed to any of these species--that none of them have the capacity to receive this revelation.

Are you not saying the same thing about Buddhist ontology (minus the concept of revelation). Aren't you saying that dogs and spiders and trees and some people are not capable of practicing the dharma, but the dharma still exists despite that some cannot practice it?

that is, precisely, what Hume is saying. there isn't any connection between human experential perception and the ultimate, which is why "knowledge" is what it is, in their view.

And I reject this. My epistemological position is not based upon skepticism. The human experience of reality (which includes sense perception, but is not limited to it) is what makes up the human capacity to know God. The reason man so frequently does not know God, however, is because our natural (unregenerate) state resulting from the fall, is rebellion against God. Although God has sufficiently revealed Himself to all men (externally, through the instrument of nature, and internally, through the instrument of conscience), we suppress the knowledge of God in various ways and insist on our own autonomy.

it is true enough that the Buddhist view is slightly different, but in this respect, the views seem close enough that we can simply discuss the Humeian view.

Except that I reject it.

no, because other beings that do not hold to a trinitarian conception of God find the human experience to be intelligible, as thusly demonstrated on this forum.

They may consider it intelligible, but when the various worldviews that the various participants on the board hold are examined, it becomes apparent that their worldviews are fraught with inconsistencies and arbitrariness. Many of them will say that their worldviews "make sense to them," and no doubt they do. But their problem is in justifying their beliefs in the context of their own worldviews.

that is not my argument.. and i would tend to agree with you.

Okay.

actually, from a very technical point of view, that is not so. the Jews have no such thing called the "old" Testament. they have an Eternal Covenant with God. it is a bit of a strange thing to me to hear the Christian explanation of why God has forsaken His promise to the Jews, but hear it i do.

Granted they don't call their Scriptures the Old Testament, but the content of their Scriptures are the same as the Christian Old Testament. And I don't know why Christians would argue that God has forsaken a promise, but if some do, they're not speaking in accordance with their own Scriptures.

for very good reasons, as well.

Well obviously, they feel their reasons are good ones, and apparently you do as well. But the Jews have had to radically reinterpret their religion in various ways since the first century, and particularly since 70 A.D. when their temple was destroyed.

this is not at all how Rabbis have explained this to me. perhaps this is the Christian understanding of the Jewish Torah, but it is not the Jewish understanding.

Of course it isn't how Rabbis would see it--people don't observe a religion that they believe condemns them. I'd be interested in seeing an exegetical defense of various forms of modern-day Judaism, though.

this is only true of the Semetic traditions, other traditions do not share this view.

No, but everyone experiences some kind of longing for meaning, regardless of how they interpret it.

vaguely alluded to?

i wonder why the Jews insist that there is no such triune deity in their religon. interesting that.

As I said, it is not clearly revealed in the Old Testament, so that it could be gleaned from those texts alone. But when we look at the Old Testament through the lens of the further revelation of the New, we can see shadows of this great truth. I'm not suggesting that people who consider the OT texts the complete written revelation of God would arrive at the truth of the tri-unity of God, though. This revelation was withheld prior to the incarnation of the divine Logos.

how does it do this?

what problem of the "one and the many"?

The ancient ontological conundrum of monism vs. pluralism. Trinitarianism (in which God is both three and one) harmonizes these two contrasting views.

i submit that, by and large, all metaphsyical structures do this for the beings that adhere to them.

And I take issue with that. Ultimate presuppositions (from which all reasoning stems) are faith commitments, but the difference between a justified presupposition and an unjustified one is dependent upon the worldview as a whole. In fact, it was the philosophical recognition that various necessary presuppositions cannot be (autonomously) justified that led to radical skepticism and even to the notion of the absurdity of life.

precisely.

naturally, when the hyperbole turns to equating happiness to allowing felons to comit their crimes, i tend to find the conversation degenerates quickly.

The only thing I can see that I've consistently seen it degenerating into is people realizing that they can't justify their presuppositions with the context of their worldviews, and so begin accusing their opponents of moral failure for thinking that one must "need a book to tell them right from wrong" or something along those lines. (Of course, this response not only skirts around the failings of the position of the one making the accusation, but it entirely misses the point of what the Christian is even contending. We aren't saying that we "need a book", even if that book is God's holy Word, to know basic right from wrong. The knowledge of basic morality is revealed through the conscience, but it's "a book" that reveals the entire worldview framework within which the concepts of right and wrong and the conscience are fully justified.)

actually, it did define benefit and happiness, both. perhaps they are not definitions that you are used to seeing for these terms?

the presupposition is that beings desire to be happy. do you deny that beings desire to be happy? as such, being happy is its own goal, one does not have to be happy, of course, however, sentient beings all seem to desire this same mental state.

But a desire doesn't justify itself. (And, incidentally, I don't know that all sentient beings desire happiness. I have no reason to presume that an ant or a cockroach, for example, even have a capacity for happiness.) And the nature of reality has a definite bearing on what would bring about happiness. According to my understanding of the Buddhist view, eliminating suffering is an important component to happiness. In the Christian view, suffering is often a means to great happiness. Attachment, as well, I understand is a negative in Buddhism. In Christianity, attachment is a positive as long as it's rightly prioritized. Our ultimate and greatest attachment ought to be to our Creator. And deriving from that attachment ought we to form attachments to other created beings since we were created for fellowship primarily with God, and derivatively with one another.

actually, what i said is that the Buddhist world view posits two aspects of reality, relative reality, where our thoughts, words, sense perceptions and so forth, are operative and Absolute reality, which is featureless, and thus no thoughts, perceptions or conceptions can apply to it.

I understand that, but I'm still finding it an incoherent theory because a) why should we believe that some other reality exists if our current reality in no way indicates that it does and b) if there's no correlation between the reality we exist in and this other reality, then there's no way of knowing how we should obtain to this other reality or why we should desire to.

Buddhism does not teach monism. that is a doctrine of some other schools of thought, not ours.

Then please forgive me, and help me to understand what Buddhism does teach. It has something to do with some kind of nothingness, does it not? Now I'm conjuring images of some kind of striving after happiness in this "reality" while biding our time awaiting the "other reality" in which there will be no conscious existence. But I'm open to correction.

In the Christian worldview, the happiness we experience here is a kind of foretaste of a much greater and more fulfilling and permanent happiness--more profoundly experienced as a kind of transcendent joy. Temporal happiness is not an end in itself, and it has the definite potential for perversion (in fact, in our fallenness, we do pervert it). But when we truly have the perspective that real and lasting joy is found in the consummation of our desire--personal communion with our God which occurs later on, we understand that temporal happiness is just a signpost for the ultimate reality.

then you would be incorrect. Buddhism posits two modes of reality, the relative and the Absolute. the relative is that which we experience through our human senses, perceptions and thoughts. the Absolute is beyond that.

much in the same way as the nature of your Triune God is simply called "a mystery". it is simply beyond the conceptions and thoughts of the discursive intellect. yet, you most assurdedly do not dismiss the mysterious nature of the Triune God simply because it cannot be intellectually assimilated.

yet, you would dismiss the Buddhist teaching that Ultimate reality is beyond intellectualization.

i find this to be rather odd.

The difference is that, in regard to the ultimate reality of the triune God, the entirety of our human experience points us to the reality of Him. Although in His entirety, He is far beyond our comprehension, we have a foretaste of Him here. Yet in your worldview, our experience of reality is deceptive rather than indicative, since it has no corollary with the ultimate reality.

so you would say that there is no benefit in feeding a hungry person until and unless, there is an intellecutally understood, ultimate ground of being from which all things arise?

i confess that this view is hard to understand.

There is "benefit" in that it makes both the recipient and, potentially, the giver "feel good," but feeling good cannot be an intrinsic good.

the Buddhist view, and thus my view, is that engaging in skillful moral and ethical actions is irrelevant to ones understanding, or lack thereof, of the ultimate ground of being. one can and should engage in positive ethical and moral actions regardless of their understanding of the ultimate nature of reality.

And in the Christian view, failing to acknowledge the revealed ultimate ground of being (the triune God) and His absolute and intrinsic holiness/goodness is the antithesis of good, although unbelievers engaging in moral and ethical actions is still beneficial and glorifying to Him.

truly, very different world views.

Indeed.

 

[A. believer]

Namaste AB,

i tried to move our most recent conversation here, however, the post is too long.... how we managed to talk on it escapes me.

nevertheless, perhaps we could excise the most relevant bits and continue here?

metta,

~v

I reposted my response above. It is very long, of course, so you can decide how you'd like to respond.

 

[urnotme]

Are arabs semites, if so why does anti semitism only reffer to the jews?

 

[A. believer]

Are arabs semites, if so why does anti semitism only reffer to the jews?

I believe Arabs are Semites, although I never thought about why the term anti-Semitic has traditionally only referred to Jews. Good question, although I'm not sure why you posted it here?

 

[arunma]

I think the term "anti-semitism" was invented in Germany a couple hundred years ago. The person who coined the phrase probably didn't have Shem's other descendants in mind.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste AB,

thank you for the paste to here

i had actually composed a reply but then the silly internet ate it. stupid TCPIP stack failure, doubtlessly.

Hume's epistemology presupposes the autonomy of reason. So that, while I would agree with Hume that true knowledge cannot be obtained by (autonomous) reason, I disagree with his presupposition that reason can or ought to be autonomous.

fair enough.

however, it would seem that your objection to Humes view is not a logical objection rather, it is a religous objection which you indicate in the next sentence... to wit:

In fact, I would say that the presumption of autonomy is, itself, inherently rebellious. God's being and His absolute claim upon all of creation, as the ground and source of all truth, must be presupposed before knowledge can be had.

which is the crux of your view and your disagreement with Hume and thus me.

why does your understanding of deity *have* to be presupposed where there is no direct evidence to indicate one way or the other? why could not a different understanding of deity be presupposed and still come to a conclusion much like you have?

i am fairly certain that my Sanatana Dharma friends would make a similiar argument regarding Maha Brahma, however, their philosophical base is a bit more solid than what you Christian types have to work with. different world view once again.

("The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.") I'm defining knowledge as justified true belief.

and this may be your view of what knowledge is... it is justified faith, however, that in no way means that your view is correct, nor does it even imply that your view is in any way capable of producing real knowledge, expect by a special pleading to a definition of knowledge which is religous in nature.

this is a fine view to hold but it is as inherently subjective and arbitrary as any other with regards to knowledge.

For something to be properly called knowledge, it cannot be based upon arbitrarily assumed presuppositions.

however, this is precisely what you have done. perhaps not arbitrary, but they are a priori assumptions which lack a rational basis.

The presuppositions upon which one reasons must be consistent with one another and justified within the context of an entire worldview. (i.e., one cannot assume the concept of morality, for example, without a worldview framework that renders the concept of morality intelligible.) Only a Christian worldview can provide this justification.

i agree that ones world view should be consistent within its frame of reference, provided that one is endowed with the reasoning faculties to do so.

i disagree with your assertion that only a Christian world view is consistent within its frame of reference. it is clear that other world views, regardless of the prescence of deities, are capable of rendering an intelligible matrix in which a being can act morally.

So then, if one hasn't the ability to practice the dharma, then the dharma doesn't exist? My understanding of the dharma is that is posited as a transcendent reality. Whether or not I have the ability to practice it or even to comprehend it, you are still saying that it exists and that it is intrinsically good to practice it (despite the fact that not everyone can practice it), are you not?

it isn't a transcendent reality... that is a teaching of some other religions, not Buddha Dharma.

yes, it exists if there are humans in this world system or not. it is not inherently "good" to do anything, let alone practice. "good" is a value statement which purports to compare one experience against another to deteremine the hierarchy of this experience. the Buddha Dharma uses the term "skillful" rather than 'good' in its teachings.

so, yes, it is skillful to practice the Buddha Dharma.

please understand, however, that the Dharma is not an "it" like your God. there is no anthropormorphization that can be applied to the Dharma. of course, the term "dharma" is a Sanskrit term which has a broad array of meaning depending on the context in which it is used. thus, "wetness" is a dharma of water and so forth.

But you're saying that the nature of reality is reflected in Buddhist ontology, are you not?

no, i am not.

i am saying that Buddhist ontology reflects reality, not the other way around.

When I say that Christianity is true, I'm making a universal and exclusive claim, as you know. I'm saying that Christian ontology correctly reflects the nature of reality in regard to a dog or a spider or a tree, despite the fact that this reality has not been revealed to any of these species--that none of them have the capacity to receive this revelation.

indeed, this is the Christian claim.

Are you not saying the same thing about Buddhist ontology (minus the concept of revelation). Aren't you saying that dogs and spiders and trees and some people are not capable of practicing the dharma, but the dharma still exists despite that some cannot practice it?

yes, however, the Dharma is not the Buddhist ontological view. this is found in the Abidharma section of our scriptures, not the Sutra or Vinya sections. it is unfortunate, in some cases, that linguistic short hand is so common place. when Buddhists use the term "dharma" we are meaning the typical dharma of phenomenal and noumena structures.. i.e. ice is cold, fire is hot and water is wet. when we use the term "Dharma" we are referring specifically to the Buddha Dharma.

And I reject this. My epistemological position is not based upon skepticism.

upon what is your view predicated?

The human experience of reality (which includes sense perception, but is not limited to it) is what makes up the human capacity to know God. The reason man so frequently does not know God, however, is because our natural (unregenerate) state resulting from the fall, is rebellion against God. Although God has sufficiently revealed Himself to all men (externally, through the instrument of nature, and internally, through the instrument of conscience), we suppress the knowledge of God in various ways and insist on our own autonomy.

humans cannot "know" God anymore than humans can "know" the number of atoms in the universe.... well.. that is if you believe some sects of Christianity. other sects seem to have a very different take on things... like you are expressing here.

you are making a lot of unfounded religious assertions which have little to do with the foundations of knowledge. of course, you are free to claim that only a presupposed Christian world view can make sense, but that does not make it so.

it cannot be demonstrated by any method whatsoever that there is an "unfallen" and a "fallen" nature of humanity in any way that you'd care to measure it. this is a religious belief of your religion.

Except that I reject it.

clearly, for religious reasons you are obligated to do so. nevertheless, the point remains that many beings feel this to be opposite of what your claim is.

They may consider it intelligible, but when the various worldviews that the various participants on the board hold are examined, it becomes apparent that their worldviews are fraught with inconsistencies and arbitrariness. Many of them will say that their worldviews "make sense to them," and no doubt they do. But their problem is in justifying their beliefs in the context of their own worldviews.

your view is quite broad in this... and, as evidenced on this very forum, not accurate.

i am singularly unaware of a being that cannot justify their world view from with their own world view. perhaps you could point out a few of those sorts of arguments and so forth so that i could take a look at them? it would be quite interesting to talk with someone that feels that their worldview makes sense but then explains how their own worldview makes their understanding of their worldview invalid.

Granted they don't call their Scriptures the Old Testament, but the content of their Scriptures are the same as the Christian Old Testament.

actually, no, it is not the same at all. the Christians have added all manner of things which are not found in the Torah. however, that is a bit besides the point of our conversation, don't you agree?

Well obviously, they feel their reasons are good ones, and apparently you do as well. But the Jews have had to radically reinterpret their religion in various ways since the first century, and particularly since 70 A.D. when their temple was destroyed.

of course.. i generally consider that beings which practice their religion understand it better than beings that do not what can i say... i'm with Tertullian in this regard.

Of course it isn't how Rabbis would see it--people don't observe a religion that they believe condemns them. I'd be interested in seeing an exegetical defense of various forms of modern-day Judaism, though.

yes... well... that makes a lot of sense, yes? i, too, do not practice a religion which condemns me... and hopefully neither do you

The ancient ontological conundrum of monism vs. pluralism. Trinitarianism (in which God is both three and one) harmonizes these two contrasting views.

oh.. i see.

Buddhism rejects both monism and pluralism as incorrect understandings of the nature of reality. however, our philosophical understanding of these themes has progressed to such a point where terms like "monism" and "pluralism" are not frequently used. generally speaking, the terms "eternalism" and "nihilism" are the descriptive terms. Buddha Dharma rejects both eternalism (which is your belief) and nihilism (which is the belief of quite a few non-religious beings) and, in their stead, posits the Middle Way between the extremes, thus harmonizing both views.

And I take issue with that. Ultimate presuppositions (from which all reasoning stems) are faith commitments, but the difference between a justified presupposition and an unjustified one is dependent upon the worldview as a whole. In fact, it was the philosophical recognition that various necessary presuppositions cannot be (autonomously) justified that led to radical skepticism and even to the notion of the absurdity of life.

whilst this may be where this arose in your culture i can assure you that our culture has used the skeptical view for thousands of years and have found it to be a very valuable tool. it is not rational to remain unskeptical and uncritical of information which is presented as so-called truth, in my view.

The only thing I can see that I've consistently seen it degenerating into is people realizing that they can't justify their presuppositions with the context of their worldviews, and so begin accusing their opponents of moral failure for thinking that one must "need a book to tell them right from wrong" or something along those lines.

hold on.

so... when someone creates a strawman of someones view and then equates the happiness of a child with the happiness of a murdering rapist, it is *your* view that what this really means is that people cannot justify their presuppositions within their world view?

it has nothing to do, at all, with the other being purposefully mischaracterizing statements and so forth?

i wonder how you can have been on this forum for so long and have this view? clearly, your own view has been mischaracterized at times... yet, you would have us believe that it is simply because you cannot justify your presuppositions?

fascinating!

But a desire doesn't justify itself. (And, incidentally, I don't know that all sentient beings desire happiness. I have no reason to presume that an ant or a cockroach, for example, even have a capacity for happiness.)

what about a dog, or a cat? do you think they can experience happiness? how about suffering? do you think the cow finds the experience of being smashed in the skull with a sledgehammer to be positive or negative, happy or not?

you may well believe that animals are mere automata and thus, cannot experience happiness and/or sadness. this is not a view which i share, predicated on my own experience with animals.

And the nature of reality has a definite bearing on what would bring about happiness.

without doubt. however, it is not so much that the nature of reality has bearing, per se, rather, the individual beings perception of said reality is the primary factor in this sense of happiness, in our view.

continued in part 2.....

 

[vajradhara]

According to my understanding of the Buddhist view, eliminating suffering is an important component to happiness. In the Christian view, suffering is often a means to great happiness. Attachment, as well, I understand is a negative in Buddhism. In Christianity, attachment is a positive as long as it's rightly prioritized. Our ultimate and greatest attachment ought to be to our Creator. And deriving from that attachment ought we to form attachments to other created beings since we were created for fellowship primarily with God, and derivatively with one another.

your view of my tradition is mistaken in this regard.



the word which you've translated as "suffering" is dukkha. dukkha is very different than how it is explained to most non-interested non-Buddhists. dukkha is the total emotive experience of a sentient being... joy, happiness, sadness, longing, hope, love, anger and so forth. these feelings arise predicated on a fundamental misconception concerning the nature of phenomena and noumena, in our teachings. correcting this misconception results in something more sublime than mere happiness, it results in bliss. to use a relative description.



attachment isn't a problem in Buddhism either. from whence have you derived information concerning my religion?



the thing we Buddhists are going on about with regards to attachment is something called Tanha, in Sanskrit. this is a particular sort of thing... in English, the word would be "craving". thus, it isn't about attachment, per se, rather it is about a specific type of attachment, a craving sort of attachment, which we are going on about. it is this craving which perpetuates many aspects of the being in an unskillful way.

I understand that, but I'm still finding it an incoherent theory because a) why should we believe that some other reality exists if our current reality in no way indicates that it does and b) if there's no correlation between the reality we exist in and this other reality, then there's no way of knowing how we should obtain to this other reality or why we should desire to.

i would encourage you to explore the Many Worlds interpetation of Quantum Theory for how this can be done.

Then please forgive me, and help me to understand what Buddhism does teach. It has something to do with some kind of nothingness, does it not? Now I'm conjuring images of some kind of striving after happiness in this "reality" while biding our time awaiting the "other reality" in which there will be no conscious existence. But I'm open to correction.

not really, no. Sunyata is often translated as "nothingness" or "emptiness" which are somewhat misleading given their use in English, however, what it means is that all compounded structures in the multiverse rely upon causes and conditions by which they arise, the structures have no "inherent" self nature... they do not exist independently from their own side. it is only in dependence do things exist. thus, our teaching is not one of "nothingness" it is, rather, one of signlessness. by which we mean to say that phenomena and noumena lack an inherently existing self-referent and arise in dependence upon causes and conditions.



the two aspects of reality are like the shores of a river... it is the same river, different shores and thus, different views. the practice of the Dharma in the relative existence has some value in creating happiness and so forth.. however, that is not a Buddhist goal as happiness is, itself, arising based upon causes and conditions. the Buddhist goal, if such a thing can be said, is to develop compassion towards all sentient beings, in this relative aspect of reality. of course, there is more to it than this, however, this should be sufficient for our conversation at this time.

The difference is that, in regard to the ultimate reality of the triune God, the entirety of our human experience points us to the reality of Him.

this is your religious view and one which is not shared by most sentient beings.

Although in His entirety, He is far beyond our comprehension, we have a foretaste of Him here. Yet in your worldview, our experience of reality is deceptive rather than indicative, since it has no corollary with the ultimate reality.

this is correct, until such a time as one has removed their ignorance with regards to the nature of reality. at that time, things change and the being is quite aware of and active in the Absolute sphere, if such a term can even be applied.



perhaps you are not as aware of my worldview as you think that you are?

There is "benefit" in that it makes both the recipient and, potentially, the giver "feel good," but feeling good cannot be an intrinsic good.

why not?



is the only benefit of feeding someone which is hungry a "good feeling"?



this would be another vast, and i really do mean *vast* difference in our world views.



metta,



~v

 

[A. believer]

Namaste AB,

thank you for the paste to here

i had actually composed a reply but then the silly internet ate it. stupid TCPIP stack failure, doubtlessly.

Yikes! I hate when that happens. Sorry.

fair enough.

however, it would seem that your objection to Humes view is not a logical objection rather, it is a religous objection which you indicate in the next sentence... to wit:



which is the crux of your view and your disagreement with Hume and thus me.

You can call it a religious objection if you like, but what it comes down to is a difference in our fundamental presuppositions. Hume (and you) presuppose the legitimacy of autonomous reason and I presuppose its illegitimacy. Neither of our presuppositions can be proven or disproven by any external standard because the standard you accept--autonomous reason--is disputed by me and the standard I accept--Scriptural revelation--is disputed by you.

But, of course, the conclusion that Hume (and you) draw from your presupposition (and rightly so) is that knowledge is inherently impossible. My presupposition, though, is that the triune God is the necessary ground of all being, and that rationality begins with acknowledging Him and that His revelation leads to genuine knowledge.

why does your understanding of deity *have* to be presupposed where there is no direct evidence to indicate one way or the other? why could not a different understanding of deity be presupposed and still come to a conclusion much like you have?

I would argue not only that "my definition of deity" (i.e., the triune God revealed in Scripture) not only has to be presupposed, but is presupposed (albeit not self-consciously) in all forms of rational discourse. I would say that the reason this is so is because God created us with knowledge of Him, and the evidence that it is is in the kinds of assumptions people make that are not justified within the context of their own worldviews. If I were to have a discussion with someone who advocated a different deity, I would attempt to draw out his or her assumptions in regard to epistemology, morality, logic, etc., and to demonstrate how those assumptions do not comport with their beliefs.

i am fairly certain that my Sanatana Dharma friends would make a similiar argument regarding Maha Brahma, however, their philosophical base is a bit more solid than what you Christian types have to work with. different world view once again.

So far, none of the Hindus on this forum have even been willing to answer my questions about their epistemology.

and this may be your view of what knowledge is... it is justified faith, however, that in no way means that your view is correct, nor does it even imply that your view is in any way capable of producing real knowledge, expect by a special pleading to a definition of knowledge which is religous in nature.

this is a fine view to hold but it is as inherently subjective and arbitrary as any other with regards to knowledge.

I defined knowledge as justified true belief, and this is a well-accepted philosophical definition.

however, this is precisely what you have done. perhaps not arbitrary, but they are a priori assumptions which lack a rational basis.

The Christian worldview is rational because it provides the preconditions for intelligibility of our experience of reality. Morality is grounded in God's holy character. The orderliness of nature (a presupposition upon which scientific studies are based) is grounded in God having created order out of chaos, the inherent dignity of man is grounded in man having been made in the image of God, man as a relational being is grounded in God as a triune being existing eternally in relationship, etc. There is no aspect of reality that is not grounded in the triune God. Although unbelievers deny this God, they generally presuppose these aspects of reality in their stated worldview and/or in their behavior.

i agree that ones world view should be consistent within its frame of reference, provided that one is endowed with the reasoning faculties to do so.

I'm not implying that only people who can intellectually comprehend the rationality of the Christian faith should trust and obey God. We are all under a moral obligation to do so, and the limitations on any given individual's intellect are certainly no barrier to true and justifiable faith. The point, though, is that only Christianity meets the requirements for rationality.

i disagree with your assertion that only a Christian world view is consistent within its frame of reference. it is clear that other world views, regardless of the prescence of deities, are capable of rendering an intelligible matrix in which a being can act morally.

I refuse to get into a discussion wherein you continually assert that "other worldviews" meet the requirements for rationality. If you agree that rationality is a necessary component of truth, then please lets stick to you defending what you believe is true and not a bunch of hypotheticals in regard to what others might believe. Why would you want to defend a worldview you don't hold to? If you believe some other worldview is defensible, then why don't you hold to it?

it isn't a transcendent reality... that is a teaching of some other religions, not Buddha Dharma.

yes, it exists if there are humans in this world system or not. it is not inherently "good" to do anything, let alone practice. "good" is a value statement which purports to compare one experience against another to deteremine the hierarchy of this experience. the Buddha Dharma uses the term "skillful" rather than 'good' in its teachings.

so, yes, it is skillful to practice the Buddha Dharma.

please understand, however, that the Dharma is not an "it" like your God. there is no anthropormorphization that can be applied to the Dharma. of course, the term "dharma" is a Sanskrit term which has a broad array of meaning depending on the context in which it is used. thus, "wetness" is a dharma of water and so forth.

The very concept of morality necessarily implies inherent value. You speak of the moral content of specific actions, but your worldview contradicts the idea of morality. "Skillful" relates to the degree of ability one has to conform their actions to a specific end, but it does not require any inherent value to the end one is striving for. In other words, skill has nothing to do with morality, so that your calling certain actions "moral" is incoherent if what you really mean is skillful.

no, i am not.

i am saying that Buddhist ontology reflects reality, not the other way around.

This is what I meant. Sorry for the misleading wording.

indeed, this is the Christian claim.



yes, however, the Dharma is not the Buddhist ontological view. this is found in the Abidharma section of our scriptures, not the Sutra or Vinya sections. it is unfortunate, in some cases, that linguistic short hand is so common place. when Buddhists use the term "dharma" we are meaning the typical dharma of phenomenal and noumena structures.. i.e. ice is cold, fire is hot and water is wet. when we use the term "Dharma" we are referring specifically to the Buddha Dharma.

Okay.

upon what is your view predicated?

Christian epistemology revelational in order that we might "think God's thoughts after Him."

humans cannot "know" God anymore than humans can "know" the number of atoms in the universe.... well.. that is if you believe some sects of Christianity. other sects seem to have a very different take on things... like you are expressing here.

By "knowing God," I'm not talking about full knowledge but partial. Genuine (albeit, incomplete) knowledge of God is intellectual, experiential, and relational. This is not a different take than any other Christian sect. But one can say, in accordance with a Christian worldview, that God is not knowable, and that He is knowable, and both statements are true, although not in the same sense.

you are making a lot of unfounded religious assertions which have little to do with the foundations of knowledge. of course, you are free to claim that only a presupposed Christian world view can make sense, but that does not make it so.

Indeed, truth claims do not create truth, but attempt to describe it. The fallenness of man is another Christian presupposition, and hence, it's not something I'm attempting to prove. One's recognition of man's fallenness, and specifically of one's own fallenness, is received from the Holy Spirit--the One who lays bare the heart of man. However, it needs to be pointed out in the context of the discussion in order for you to get a full-orbed picture of what I'm claiming about reality. As I said earlier, the presupposition of autonomy is itself, a manifestation of fallenness. Therefore, the truth value of whether or not man is fallen cannot be arbitrated by appealing to any shared assumptions.

It cannot be demonstrated by any method whatsoever that there is an "unfallen" and a "fallen" nature of humanity in any way that you'd care to measure it. this is a religious belief of your religion.

Right--it's a presuppositional assumption.

clearly, for religious reasons you are obligated to do so. nevertheless, the point remains that many beings feel this to be opposite of what your claim is.

Are you advocating feelings as an appropriate epistemological base?

your view is quite broad in this... and, as evidenced on this very forum, not accurate.

i am singularly unaware of a being that cannot justify their world view from with their own world view. perhaps you could point out a few of those sorts of arguments and so forth so that i could take a look at them? it would be quite interesting to talk with someone that feels that their worldview makes sense but then explains how their own worldview makes their understanding of their worldview invalid.

I'm not talking about what people feel. I'm talking about the ability of a given worldview to provide the preconditions of intelligibility for the concepts about which it attempts to speak. It it does, it does, regardless of how one feels about it, and if it doesn't, it doesn't, also regardless of the feelings of those holding to it.

actually, no, it is not the same at all. the Christians have added all manner of things which are not found in the Torah. however, that is a bit besides the point of our conversation, don't you agree?

The Christian Old Testament does not add to those writings regarded as God-breathed Scripture by the Jews to whom were entrusted the oracles of God at the time Christ came and fulfilled those Scriptures, and I make this point because earlier you were quibbling over words when I referred to the Old Testament as the Jewish Scriptures, and now because you're make an unfounded assertion.

of course.. i generally consider that beings which practice their religion understand it better than beings that do not what can i say... i'm with Tertullian in this regard.

This is not necessarily so, and how can it be said to be universally so. Among those who practice any given religion, there is generally a wide range of understanding, and there are also those who may have a great deal of understanding who do not practice it. But in regard to the situation we're discussing, we're talking about the Jewish understanding of the nature of God and of man and the ramifications thereof, based upon their own Scriptures versus the Christian understanding of same. Since Christianity began as a Jewish sect that was founded by a Jew and propogated by Jews, one cannot reasonably presuppose that the understanding of one group of Jews is superior to another or that the understanding of modern-day Jews is superior to that of any sect of ancient Jews. If the Old Testament Scriptures really are what both Jews and Christians claim that they are, they are the God-breathed revelation of an immutable reality, and there's no ipso facto justification for presuming that modern day Jews have a better understanding of those Scriptures than does the historic church that was borne of them.

oh.. i see.

Buddhism rejects both monism and pluralism as incorrect understandings of the nature of reality. however, our philosophical understanding of these themes has progressed to such a point where terms like "monism" and "pluralism" are not frequently used. generally speaking, the terms "eternalism" and "nihilism" are the descriptive terms. Buddha Dharma rejects both eternalism (which is your belief) and nihilism (which is the belief of quite a few non-religious beings) and, in their stead, posits the Middle Way between the extremes, thus harmonizing both views.

Perhaps you could explain this harmonization as well as your notion of having progressed past the terms I posited. What is the standard of measurement for the progression of understanding?

whilst this may be where this arose in your culture i can assure you that our culture has used the skeptical view for thousands of years and have found it to be a very valuable tool. it is not rational to remain unskeptical and uncritical of information which is presented as so-called truth, in my view.

I referred to "radical skepticism" by which I'm talking about the idea that knowledge is impossible.

hold on.

so... when someone creates a strawman of someones view and then equates the happiness of a child with the happiness of a murdering rapist, it is *your* view that what this really means is that people cannot justify their presuppositions within their world view?

It has nothing to do, at all, with the other being purposefully mischaracterizing statements and so forth?

i wonder how you can have been on this forum for so long and have this view? clearly, your own view has been mischaracterized at times... yet, you would have us believe that it is simply because you cannot justify your presuppositions?

fascinating!

This equation is not a straw man, but the logical conclusion of the notion that personal happiness is an intrinsic good. People propose this as a true notion, but when the notion is followed to it's ultimate conclusion, they cry foul.

 

[A. believer]

what about a dog, or a cat? do you think they can experience happiness? how about suffering? do you think the cow finds the experience of being smashed in the skull with a sledgehammer to be positive or negative, happy or not?

you may well believe that animals are mere automata and thus, cannot experience happiness and/or sadness. this is not a view which i share, predicated on my own experience with animals.

I deliberately used the examples of a cockroach and an ant (I believe it was) because, although it's clear that some animals can experience a degree of happiness (which I never denied), it isn't clear that all sentient beings can, and you cannot reasonably claim to know otherwise.

without doubt. however, it is not so much that the nature of reality has bearing, per se, rather, the individual beings perception of said reality is the primary factor in this sense of happiness, in our view.

But individual happiness as an ultimate renders the idea of morality incoherent because morality implies compulsion. Your view provides no basis for a set of rules or laws by which a society ought to function. If an individual perceives any given rule to be in conflict with his own happiness, there is no morally compelling reason why he should follow this rule. Additionally, this notion renders the idea of sacrificing one's own happiness for the happiness of another as a positive thing incoherent. Judging by what you've said so far, I don't know that you'll have any objection to that since you deny the concept of morality as it is generally used anyway. But the fact that humans universally perceive some actions/non-actions to be intrinsically good or bad is what I mean by the human experience of reality. You can claim that this perception is based on ignorance of the true nature of reality, of course, but then, you still have no epistemological grounding for what you claim to be your own knowledge of the true nature of reality. In other words, you're saying that reality is entirely different than what we universally perceive it to be (there really is no such thing as "good" and "bad") and one can know this is so because what? Because some very wise people say that it is? But then what is the standard against which one can measure who qualifies as a wise person? Or can we only know that reality is as you claim it is if we have some personal experience that confirms this to us? But then how can we know that we're not deceived by that experience (as opposed to being deceived by what seems right to us now, as you claim)?

The problem with your worldview is that it has no identifiable standard by which we can know whether something qualifies as truth or not.

I've worked on this post for a long time, so I'll continue with this later--maybe tomorrow. It would be preferable to me if you don't respond before I've finished.