"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[muichimotsu]

There are no guarantees ... when it comes to the variances between people.

Yeah, that's nice and pithy, but why is that relevant in terms of something that's supposed to be supposedly clear to even a child (Christianity)?

Forgive me, but my knowledge of Buddhism is fairly superficial, ... but isn't the goal of Buddhism to avoid suffering ?

Suffering is generally not regarded as the best translation for the word used in terms of contrasting to nirvana/enlightenment, which I don't claim to be pursuing in the grand mystic sense associated. It's more about reducing it in the sense of how our patterns of thought negatively affect our ability to be satisfied or otherwise in a good state in life. Suffering is necessarily going to happen in life in one sense or another, it's almost more closely related to Stoicism from Greek philosophy, as I recall. The nature of existence is transient, the only sense of consistency we have based on our abstract approximation of things. There can be a physical universe apart from our minds, but our ability to understand it is necessarily going to have limits in terms of some absolute knowledge rather than something that is as close to ideal as possible.

If so, how does one make a parallel to the "suffering Christ" ?

The parallels are not nearly that precise: Jesus as a suffering servant and such are rooted in the theistic transcendent perspective of Judaism and such, while Gautama Buddha's suffering was more his own choices and circumstances outside of his control, even his death something he could not avoid even after his enlightenment (food poisoning, supposedly, was the cause of death ultimately) Jesus willingly became a martyr, Gautama in general stories, is such that he engages with people, but was not a revolutionary to the point of speaking about the kingdom of heaven and the like, but was about helping people as they were and not telling them how to act in appealing to an authoritative law, but observations about life that anyone can reasonably grasp to some extent

 

[A_Thinker]

And that's literally a circular argument, claiming that you need only look at the words of someone in a book that makes claims related to them to conclude that that person is correct and the worldview espoused is true.

This is not my claim.

My suggestion was to peruse the words of Jesus, who is, in the very words of the Bible ... and the opinions of His followers, the most persuasive voice for the God of Christianity.

If Jesus himself doesn't persuade you ... then nobody will. We're all just parroting his words ...

 

[muichimotsu]

Let's talk.

Jesus said the following ..

"Greater love has no man ... than that he would give his life for his friends."

Would you agree with this sentiment ?

I wouldn't call that love, I would call that something more nuanced to, say, agape. And love shouldn't be made into some hierarchy like that. The "greatest" love is not necessarily self sacrifice and altruism, though it can manifest as such, even to the extent of being willing to die for someone else.

You're really getting into a whole thorny issue of ethics of what Christianity advocates, I'd say, there's a video I watched that got into that, because love is not a simple matter of discussion and I'd say we can't really reduce it to a scale where anything below altruistic love is somehow lesser in quality and intensity. I can love someone and make sacrifices in some sense without it involving my death.

And my death in the context of sacrificing for their sake, while keeping them alive, may also arguably cause them suffering because I no longer would be in their life, just in their memories. Not all Christians would agree, but there is a tradition of passive pacifism, to the extent of not wanting to engage in aggression at all, but I'm almost willing to bet money you wouldn't agree with that and neither would I, though I might lean towards it a bit, but I'm more a martial pacifist.

Also, my sacrifice could be in a different manner than, say, jumping on a grenade or taking a bullet for them, it could be more in the vein of what Christianity tends to embody as a major sacrifice: Jesus standing in as a scapegoat, but I don't find the scapegoat idea remotely moral in any real form beyond the tribalist perspective that characterized ancient Israel. Or do you think scapegoating is a moral practice in any other context apart from Jesus' sacrifice? Because if you don't, then that's special pleading on your part

Jesus saying something like that and some people finding it convincing seems more about the rhetoric than the logical analysis of the moral principles embodied in the statement. Jesus seems to encourage pacifism in some verses and then some degree of revolutionary anarchist ideas, or at the very least a radical sense that his followers should figuratively bring a sword against their family that doesn't follow Jesus' teachings

 

[muichimotsu]

This is not my claim.

My suggestion was to peruse the words of Jesus, who is, in the very words of the Bible ... and the opinions of His followers, the most persuasive voice for the God of Christianity.

If Jesus himself doesn't persuade you ... then nobody will. We're all just parroting his words ...

I've heard this line of thought before, and that's an appeal to authority, practically, along with being circular in the argumentation, because you're saying that the book itself is the evidence for the claims it makes rather than substantiating the evidence for the claims made apart from the book's context. The person should not be the source of the truth behind the claims they make, those claims should stand on their OWN merit

Seems to me if your god wanted to save everyone, they would've been able to dispose EVERY person to be able to believe in Christianity, it seems more like the Calvinist notion, which is repugnant in creating most people to ultimately be condemned to hell by no fault of their own, especially those that strive to believe and such, but find no inspiration at all, no matter how they try in various churches in their lifetime.

Jesus is not the source of the convincing if you ask me, it's something more fundamental that underpins Jesus' ideas, the scapegoat, among a few other points, like his apocalyptic viewpoint, that the world was soon to change and become the kingdom of heaven. I don't find a reason to take Jesus seriously not because of what he is saying, but the foundational aspects in his thought that manifest in modern day cults, demonstrably damaging in people taking his words to heart with no correction or way to distinguish fanaticism from faithfulness

 

[A_Thinker]

Yeah, that's nice and pithy, but why is that relevant in terms of something that's supposed to be supposedly clear to even a child (Christianity)?

It is clear to some children ... and some adults.

Not so clear to others ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I wouldn't call that love, I would call that something more nuanced to, say, agape. And love shouldn't be made into some hierarchy like that. The "greatest" love is not necessarily self sacrifice and altruism, though it can manifest as such, even to the extent of being willing to die for someone else.

So ... love is what ?

The consideration of the other ... to the extent that it entails your contribution to ... and, perhaps, sacrifice for ... the needs of the other ?

 

[A_Thinker]

I've heard this line of thought before, and that's an appeal to authority, practically, along with being circular in the argumentation, because you're saying that the book itself is the evidence for the claims it makes rather than substantiating the evidence for the claims made apart from the book's context.

Every following is a response to someone, or something, that is authoritative, whether Jesus ... or Buddha.

And we only, for the most part, know of these authoritative ones, through what is written of them.

Some of us may have personally met Mandela, or Ghandi, or some persuasive disciple of them or others, ... but as for what is authoritative, we must trust what is written/published of them.

 

[Silmarien]

Quite frankly, so am I. We are almost 400 posts deep, and no one is attempting to offer reason why their god is THE god. Instead, we are addressing 'side issues', left and right. If you are going to make a case for Jesus, as the one true and correct God, please start making it.

I have been trying, but you absolutely refuse to let me. You've preemptively decided that anything I consider a major issue is actually just a side issue that need not be discussed. How is anyone supposed to respond to a question this large if you can't even be bothered to follow an unfamiliar line of reasoning from beginning to end?

 

[muichimotsu]

It is clear to some children ... and some adults.

Not so clear to others ...

Then the message is a failure from an entity that's supposed to be all knowing and all powerful and can thus convey things in a way that is not insulting to dignity, autonomy or rationality, yet it seems to do that more often than not according to believer's attempts to defend it.

 

[muichimotsu]

Every following is a response to someone, or something, that is authoritative, whether Jesus ... or Buddha.

And we only, for the most part, know of these authoritative ones, through what is written of them.

Some of us may have personally met Mandela, or Ghandi, or some persuasive disciple of them or others, ... but as for what is authoritative, we must trust what is written/published of them.

I'm not claiming Buddha is absolutely authoritative, no person should be put on such a pedestal as authoritarians are prone to do with cult leaders or those they hold unrealistic levels of respect for

No, the authority a person has is not merely in people writing about them, but the merit of the words themselves as conveyed by anyone. Again, you seem to reduce this to me trying to suggest something I'm not: any argument stands on its own merits of logic, validity and soundness, not whether the person making it is regarded as special or wise or the like

 

[muichimotsu]

So ... love is what ?

The consideration of the other ... to the extent that it entails your contribution to ... and, perhaps, sacrifice for ... the needs of the other ?

Love doesn't have to manifest as altruism to that extent, love is understanding and a sense of compromise on the part of both sides rather than merely one side bending over backwards to satisfy the other. Love is mutuality more than altruism in the sense of being so compassionate you'd feed yourself to a person to save their life (a tale of one of Buddha's past lives has something to that effect happen when he's a rabbit and throws itself into a fire to feed a hungry traveler, having nothing else to offer)

 

[A_Thinker]

Then the message is a failure from an entity that's supposed to be all knowing and all powerful and can thus convey things in a way that is not insulting to dignity, autonomy or rationality, yet it seems to do that more often than not according to believer's attempts to defend it.

It is never the case that ALL persons receive any message in the SAME way.

Truth is only received by those brave enough to receive it ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I'm not claiming Buddha is absolutely authoritative, no person should be put on such a pedestal as authoritarians are prone to do with cult leaders or those they hold unrealistic levels of respect for

No, the authority a person has is not merely in people writing about them, but the merit of the words themselves as conveyed by anyone. Again, you seem to reduce this to me trying to suggest something I'm not: any argument stands on its own merits of logic, validity and soundness, not whether the person making it is regarded as special or wise or the like

The integrity and genuineness of a teacher will vouch for their message ...

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is never the case that ALL persons receive any message in the SAME way.

Truth is only received by those brave enough to receive it ...

Yet a tri-omni god could ensure that all receive the message in a sufficient way.

 

[A_Thinker]

Yet a tri-omni god could ensure that all receive the message in a sufficient way.

Perhaps ... if that was His purpose.

Perhaps His purpose is that ALL are able to make a choice in accord with their desire.

We were speaking of this in Sunday School this morning.

God desires to WIN us ... to His calling. His objective is NOT to FORCE us, ... but to PERSUADE us ... that a relationship with Him is of benefit to us.

We value that type of freedom in every other arena our lives. God values it too ...

 

[cvanwey]

I have been trying, but you absolutely refuse to let me. You've preemptively decided that anything I consider a major issue is actually just a side issue that need not be discussed. How is anyone supposed to respond to a question this large if you can't even be bothered to follow an unfamiliar line of reasoning from beginning to end?

Oh please... I refuse to let you? As if I could? I can't help but to wonder...?

I first have to ask you... Do you think YHWH is the God of claimed Gods? Yes or no?

If yes, please proceed. If no, then, why are you here?

If you feel you have 'smoking gun' evidence, I doubt my prior rebuttal/perceived misunderstaning/other would stop you

If you wish to present your argument in full, please do. Don't let me stop you; as if I could.

 

[MrsFoundit]

If you feel you have 'smoking gun' evidence, I doubt my prior rebuttal/perceived misunderstaning/other would stop you

A request for reasons evolved into a request for evidence and now that evolved into a "smoking gun".

Interesting to see your point of interest keeps moving.

Can you explain why?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Perhaps ... if that was His purpose.

Perhaps His purpose is that ALL are able to make a choice in accord with their desire.

We were speaking of this in Sunday School this morning.

God desires to WIN us ... to His calling. His objective is NOT to FORCE us, ... but to PERSUADE us ... that a relationship with Him is of benefit to us.

We value that type of freedom in every other arena our lives. God values it too ...

Your omniscient god can't think of a way to win us without force? Really?

It could show up in my living room and have a conversation with me. I predict you are already thinking that that would be force. But, it's not. Thomas got his holes in Jesus' side. Where's my chance? Saul/Paul got his Damascus road experience. Where's mine? I haven't crossed a sea on dry land. I haven't seen Jesus walk on water. I haven't had my dad raised from the dead. The Israelites got fire from heaven (Elijah). If this is force, then God is not opposed to it. If it's not, I want my Damascus road experience.

In the meantime, your god ain't trying to win anyone.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Your omniscient god can't think of a way to win us without force? Really?

"objective is NOT to FORCE us" is not "cannot think of a way".

Turn up in your living room and have a conversation with you? Yes, but believing based on that would leave you with "faith", not "evidence". It would not be force, no.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

A request for reasons evolved into a request for evidence and now that evolved into a "smoking gun".

Interesting to see your point of interest keeps moving.

Can you explain why?

Because they're all basically the same thing: a request that you stop dodging the issue.

Why should we believe that the Christian God exists? Do you have any reason? Proof of any kind? Evidence.of any sort? Arguments in favour of? Anything at all?

I can only assume not, since a reasonable person would have shared it nineteen pages ago if they had. On the other hand, if a person had no good reasons for their belief and was embarrassed to admit it...well, such a person might well try to change the subject by splitting hairs in an effort to avoid a straight answer.