Why Create Us?

[ananda]

Remember, we're comparing. My "chosen scripture" would, obviously, be the Bible. But I'm guessing that is not your chosen scripture. So how will we compare? Do you have a scripture you trust? Then we could compare my trust in mine vs your trust in yours.

I trust the early Buddhist scriptures (Sutta Pitaka) because it accords with my experience with reality.

I'm not sure if it's possible to identify something we both equally trust to an equal degree.

 

[renniks]

I'm not saying that the god of the bible doesn't want/desires/gets upset/angry/etc.

I'm saying that - according to my observation - perfection implies the lack of need for anything (no wants, desires, etc.).

And when have you ever observed a perfect person?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure if it's possible to identify something we both equally trust to an equal degree.

You're beginning to see the difficulty of this exercise. Trust is subjective. The Western mind is trained in objective proofs, and doesn't handle subjective questions very well - the "What is it like to be x?" kinds of questions.

The experience you mention is likely what gave you that "what it's like" subjective understanding.

I trust the early Buddhist scriptures (Sutta Pitaka) because it accords with my experience with reality.

Yes. So that text prompted you to take a certain action, and you found the result of that action "good" in some sense. That is one element of my trust in the Bible. But how can you know the action you took is what the text intended?

 

[ananda]

And when have you ever observed a perfect person?

I haven't, but I know from my own experience that my experience of incompletion motivates desire which in turn motivates action.

 

[ananda]

You're beginning to see the difficulty of this exercise. Trust is subjective. The Western mind is trained in objective proofs, and doesn't handle subjective questions very well - the "What is it like to be x?" kinds of questions.

The experience you mention is likely what gave you that "what it's like" subjective understanding.

Yes. So that text prompted you to take a certain action, and you found the result of that action "good" in some sense. That is one element of my trust in the Bible. But how can you know the action you took is what the text intended?

I don't know if the action I took is what the text actually intended, it is only what I understood the text intended.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know if the action I took is what the text actually intended, it is only what I understood the text intended.

If it were possible to increase your confidence that you did what the text intended, would you be interested in that increased confidence?

 

[ananda]

If it were possible to increase your confidence that you did what the text intended, would you be interested in that increased confidence?

Certainly.

 

[Resha Caner]

Certainly.

One method is the use of story to create a vicarious experience for you. That is something the Bible does extensively. Does your text? It was a widely employed method throughout the world until the Enlightenment. It still happens in the medium of video, though I'm not sure how aware modern viewers are of that method. Since film is a hobby of mine, I can testify that filmmakers are very aware of and extensively study the use of video to create a vicarious experience.

Another method is trust in the person who introduced you to the text. Similar to that would be someone who has a pedigree with the text, i.e. an unbroken line of teaching from the creation of the text. Next, and again similar to that is knowing the author.

 

[ananda]

One method is the use of story to create a vicarious experience for you. That is something the Bible does extensively. Does your text? It was a widely employed method throughout the world until the Enlightenment. It still happens in the medium of video, though I'm not sure how aware modern viewers are of that method. Since film is a hobby of mine, I can testify that filmmakers are very aware of and extensively study the use of video to create a vicarious experience.

Another method is trust in the person who introduced you to the text. Similar to that would be someone who has a pedigree with the text, i.e. an unbroken line of teaching from the creation of the text. Next, and again similar to that is knowing the author.

How do your vicarious experiences with your Bible help you to trust in its message? Do you know that there is an unbroken line of teaching from the creation of the text?

 

[dlamberth]

And when have you ever observed a perfect person?

So, what IS a perfect Human Being?

 

[Resha Caner]

How do your vicarious experiences with your Bible help you to trust in its message? Do you know that there is an unbroken line of teaching from the creation of the text?

I was asking if you employ any of those methods.

With respect to your first question, vicarious experience relates the story to something you already know. If someone tells you a new food "tastes like chicken" they are helping you to imagine how the new food tastes. If you like chicken, you're more likely to try it. If you don't like chicken, less likely.

With respect to your second question, would you dispute that at least one Christian has lived on this earth continuously from the days of Jesus?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, what IS a perfect Human Being?

Excellent question. In order to know that no one is perfect, one must know what is perfect.

 

[ananda]

I was asking if you employ any of those methods.

With respect to your first question, vicarious experience relates the story to something you already know. If someone tells you a new food "tastes like chicken" they are helping you to imagine how the new food tastes. If you like chicken, you're more likely to try it. If you don't like chicken, less likely.

There are stories in the Buddhist texts.

With respect to your second question, would you dispute that at least one Christian has lived on this earth continuously from the days of Jesus?

It is likely, but I do not know for sure.

 

[Resha Caner]

There are stories in the Buddhist texts.

It is likely, but I do not know for sure.

I detect a disinterest in continuing.

 

[ananda]

I detect a disinterest in continuing.

No, I just wasn't sure where you were going with your last post ...

 

[Resha Caner]

No, I just wasn't sure where you were going with your last post ...

I thought it was pretty straight-forward. If you're not sure, you can ask a clarifying question.

 

[ananda]

I thought it was pretty straight-forward. If you're not sure, you can ask a clarifying question.

I'm not sure how vicarious experiences with the Bible gives you trust that its descriptions of your deity is truthful and accurate, even though you cannot verify said descriptions.

 

[renniks]

Jesus was the only perfect person. Obviously a perfect human is one who does no wrong. If one has no desire, seems he would do nothing at all.

So, what IS a perfect Human Being?

 

[dlamberth]

Jesus was the only perfect person. Obviously a perfect human is one who does no wrong. If one has no desire, seems he would do nothing at all.

Is that all there is to being a perfect Human Being? Someone who does no wrong? Is that all you have?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure how vicarious experiences with the Bible gives you trust that its descriptions of your deity is truthful and accurate, even though you cannot verify said descriptions.

I never said anything about verifying. Again, I'm not sure exactly how you mean the use of that word, so it would help for you to clarify your usage.

Still, the process went like this: The text tells a story. Within the story something happens that is unfamiliar to the listener. The text associates that unfamiliar experience with a familiar experience. If the listener thinks the familiar experience is good, they mimic something from the story. If the action they took produces a new experience that they deem good, they have one instance of trusting the text with a good result.