<Puts away his sniper rifle again.>
"Errr. Yes?"
I don't see it as a slam either, actually.
I think that the "God is an American" chorus has a lot to say about America's posture in the world.
My mom and dad are Americans. I lived there for years. Love the place. Love the people. Am frightened by particular things I see there.
I agree. Similar to what Bowie was alluding to:
Drivin N Cryin - Fly Me Courageous
Mother America is brandishing her weapons,
She keeps me safe and warm by threats and misconception.
It may not be the wisest thing bringing this up on here, but this seemed like the best place to vent my thoughts. I myself am a legally ordained pagan reverend, who also loves gaming as a hobby.
I wrote the following and then realized it might come as a bit of a put-on. It's not. I'm genuinely excited to have a chance to talk to an adherent of a religion much different from the usual ones I encounter. Being I'm King Crabby of Mount Threadcrap lately (Fear my Scepter of Anger and my Orb...of ANGER!!eleven!) I can see how one might take it as mocking. I hope you'll take my word that it's not intended that way.
Cool! I have a great fondness for pagan aesthetics and it's certainly a pleasant change of pace from talking to the majority all the time. Also the pagan gods seem like more pleasant people, depending on pantheon.
Mind sharing if you're a Reconstructionist (what pantheon?), Wiccan, Druid, etc? Most of the pagans I know are vaguely Buddhist soft polytheists (Many gods that all represent different faces or aspects of some kind of Platonic One or so forth. I used to know a guy who revered Discordia, Ganesh, and a few others as sort of his custom-built godhead). I got quite a kick out of finding a hard polytheist (All of everybody's gods are real, separate entities. He worshiped the Roman deities.) on another message board a few years ago.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion just not their actions. Plus listening to everyones opinions helps the general public weed out the loonies.
I completely agree with this. The thing is (and I am not saying you were trying to do this), many people try to shut down debates with this.
|
Of course not Kirth. I even realize there are social conservatives who deserve derision. I just get tired of the same people on these threads who feel a need to cut down religion at every single opportunity they can get.Amen to that, brother. Maybe you and I need to start a thread for "people who don't give a rat's ass that they don't agree on politics or religion, because they don't mind kicking back with a Shiner and shootin' the breeze with each other anyway."
It's called Son of Fourms are way too Long. No politics or religion allowed.
Cool! I have a great fondness for pagan aesthetics and it's certainly a pleasant change of pace from talking to the majority all the time. Also the pagan gods seem like more pleasant people, depending on pantheon.
Mind sharing if you're a Reconstructionist (what pantheon?), Wiccan, Druid, etc? Most of the pagans I know are vaguely Buddhist soft polytheists (Many gods that all represent different faces or aspects of some kind of Platonic One or so forth. I used to know a guy who revered Discordia, Ganesh, and a few others as sort of his custom-built godhead). I got quite a kick out of finding a hard polytheist (All of everybody's gods are real, separate entities. He worshiped the Roman deities.) on another message board a few years ago.
I lean mostly toward Keltic Recon, but I have a few eclectic views. I am also as you put ia hardcore polythiest, as I believe all the pantheons gods exist, and I respect other pantheons and deities (including buddhist and christian). I agree that most pagans I've met are pretty mellow, but there are a few posers I've met that were freakin crazy. It's mostly the people that are only doing it for attention, but I digress. Like many eclectic pagans I will occasionally call upon gods outside of my main pantheon, but not constantly. I feel the best way to put it is that it feels like I have an immediate family of deities I build relationships with and there are extended family that I keep ties with as well, but as with all families, there are some members of which I just don't keep up with. I also celebrate the eight holy days of the year. Most people celebrate these holidays as well unkowingly, as they have evolved and takken on different meanings with time.
What I actually believe is far more complex, but since it takes about 30 minutes to explain talking face-to-face, I think it'd make an exceptonally long post. I've been writing a book, but most the new age or pagan publishers are not the way to go as they mostly want to publish that which is trendy at the moment.
|
Everyone is entitled to their opinion just not their actions. Plus listening to everyones opinions helps the general public weed out the loonies.I completely agree with this. The thing is (and I am not saying you were trying to do this), many people try to shut down debates with this.
I was not. Just making an observation. I have however felt that many people have not been debating here in the last few days rather that they are trying to insinuate that if you do not agree with them you are obviously wrong and in deep need of help. If that is there opinion fine. Please don't push it as fact. It is not. I have found that at tiems it is hard for many, myself included, not to express our opinions as facts. At times like those humor, that is nto directed at an individual or belief, is the best route to go. It calms us down and lest us look at how and why we feel the way we do.
I lean mostly toward Keltic Recon, but I have a few eclectic views. I am also as you put ia hardcore polythiest, as I believe all the pantheons gods exist, and I respect other pantheons and deities (including buddhist and christian). I agree that most pagans I've met are pretty mellow, but there are a few posers I've met that were freakin crazy. It's mostly the people that are only doing it for attention, but I digress.
The nuts fall on the just and unjust alike, sure. To tell you the truth I was sufficiently impressed when I first discovered neopaganism that I briefly entertained the thought of signing up, if not for the empirical issues.
Could you recommend a good compilation of the relevant myths? I'm as up on my Greek and Roman as any typical English-speaker (what with starting in on them in grade school) and I got a smidge of Norse in high school but college skipped right past most elsewise European to focus on cultures we'd almost surely have never gotten to read about otherwise. Fair enough, but the Celts slipped through the cracks.
Does the spelling convention have significance, like magic vs. magick, or is it just to help people get the pronunciation right?
I feel the best way to put it is that it feels like I have an immediate family of deities I build relationships with and there are extended family that I keep ties with as well, but as with all families, there are some members of which I just don't keep up with.
That makes a certain amount of sense. Well not personally (I don't get along with most of my family) but in in principle. Do you view the relationships as hierarchical, communal, something of a mix?
I also celebrate the eight holy days of the year. Most people celebrate these holidays as well unkowingly, as they have evolved and takken on different meanings with time.
I was just shopping for one of them a few days ago! :)
I've been writing a book, but most the new age or pagan publishers are not the way to go as they mostly want to publish that...
That's true everywhere. The big Christian publishing houses, at least in the US, produce great reams of Evangelical popular Christianity and not much else. It's what sells the big numbers and they're businesses too. I gave my copy of Spong's (very liberal theologian to most Christians, to me fairly conservative :) ) book on the Bible to a Christian friend and two days later she was back telling me how she'd never read anything like this and after she was done she just had to let her husband read it. I told her not to worry about giving it back to me. It was a curiosity in my hands but apparently a big eye-opener to her.
|
|
I have found that at tiems it is hard for many, myself included, not to express our opinions as facts.
A lot of people seem to feel that their beliefs *are* who they are, and that an attack on even the whackiest person associated with their belief system is an attack on the very foundation of their sense of self.
Meanwhile, amongst themselves, they'd be the first to say that the person who was being criticized is batcrap insane and making their group look bad by association. They just get caught up defending what feels like an attack on themselves, and to the outside observer, it looks like they are defending the weirdos who massively coverup decades of institutionalized molestion of children or wave signs that 'God loves IEDs' at military funerals or engage in 'imprecative prayer' for America to fail or Obama's family to come to harm or whatever. These whackos (who get far more press than they deserve) just force *sane* people of faith to defend their own (much kinder and gentler) beliefs, and lead to stress and cognitive dissonance and people hiding their faith, feeling persecuted and put-upon and 'under threat,' despite living in a country that is majority Christian and governed by 535 congressmen that include *one* Moslem and five hundred or so Christians... (Yet another false narrative the media has thrust upon people of faith, convincing an overwhelming majority that utterly dominates the political system in America that they are some terribly threatened minority at risk of being herded into 're-education camps' and placed before 'death panels,' just as propoganda once convinced a 96+% majority of white Germans that their entire society and way of life was under imminent threat of extinction from the ~1% Jewish minority living amongst them. Ooh, ooh, I'm a white male Christian! I'm so oppressed! /eyeroll)
My beliefs are something I chose, over decades of visiting and participating in everything from Catholicism to Jehovah's Witnesses to some evangelical holy-rollers (during which time I even spoke in tongues, although I don't seem have have that particular talent any longer). Many of them have some useful components to them that I've adopted. Many of them have some scary stuff that, IMO, is very unbecoming of someone who purports to revere Jesus, and that I've eschewed.
Since I'm a church of one, I'm not terribly offended by attacks on Pat Robertson or Brigham Young or Cardinal Law. None of them speak for me.
A thought: The moral of the story of Babel in Genesis is that God doesn't want people to live in a conformist culture. He actually wants people to disagree. And not just a little, but to such a level that it is sometimes difficult for them to communicate.
A thought: The moral of the story of Babel in Genesis is that God doesn't want people to live in a conformist culture. He actually wants people to disagree. And not just a little, but to such a level that it is sometimes difficult for them to communicate.
The moral of that story is that man should keep his place and not aspire to God-like creativity.
The complete opposite of what you said.
The relevant passage:
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city
If we are to believe that the Bible is an accurate account of the doings of the deity it described, as believers do, then we have to take it at its word. If it says that God did X for Y reason, it ought to know.
So to take from this, apparently God's main problem is that people were learning that they could achieve great things if they worked together and put the kibosh on that. One can say that it's because the builders were prideful, but it hardly seems like some kind of excessive amount of pride to want to come together and make something great which would stand the test of time. (In modern terms, they're more or less saying that together we can achieve anything.)
That's not just Samnell the Atheist Meanie talking either. History is full of religious people who wanted to do exactly that. They built St. Peter's, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Notre Dame, the state of Israel. Are these not significant achievements, each in their own way? They may not all be equally morally great (personally I think the Pilgrims could have been a lot better behaved) but I have a lot of trouble with the idea that cooperation for common goals and pride in achieving them is something one should avoid.
|
|
I disagree…let us take a look at the account in context.
1 And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; (the land we call Sumer)and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another: 'Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
4 And they said: 'Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.'
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men built.
6 And the LORD said: 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withheld from them, which they purpose to do.
7 Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.'
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth; and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
From there it goes on to list the various people of who begat whom.
So what themes can we see here?
It is a story that tries to explain the reasons for the differences in languages and peoples.
Men went to the east. Wanted to “make a name” for themselves. So they built a city with a tower; A tower with its top in the heavens so that people do not leave and scatter across the earth.
We can put lots of suppositions here as to why, because it does not say. It just says that He did come down and confounded their speech and scattered them across the earth. Was He an ass? Was it because of Man’s arrogance? Was it because men were trying to control other men and not let them leave and go forth upon the face of the earth, strike a blow for freedom?
Well we don’t know. Some people have spoke upon it though.
The traditional interpretation, as found for example, in the writings of Flavius Josephus, explains the construction of the tower as a hubristic act of defiance against God ordered by the arrogant tyrant Nimrod. He wrote that it was Nimrod who had the tower built and that Nimrod was a tyrant who tried to turn the people away from God. In this account, God confused the people rather than destroying them because destroying people with a Flood hadn't taught them to be godly.
One thing to notice, the biblical account nowhere says anything about the destruction of the tower.
Rabbinic literature offers many different accounts of other causes for building the Tower of Babel, and of the intentions of its builders. The Mishnah (the first written record of the Jewish Oral Law, c AD 200) describes the Tower as a rebellion against God. Some later midrash record that the builders of the Tower, called "the generation of secession" in the Jewish sources, said: "God has no right to choose the upper world for Himself, and to leave the lower world to us; therefore we will build us a tower, with an idol on the top holding a sword, so that it may appear as if it intended to war with God"
Well we don’t know. Some people have spoke upon it though.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? The Bible doesn't tell us anything except that these fellows made a tower and God gave 'em a slap to the language center of the brain. Josephus and the authors of the midrash and the like are, even if we believe this is a straight historical account, far removed from events. Their guess is just as much a guess as our guess is.
We can mentally insert words into the Bible to make it say one thing or another. People do it all the time. But we're operating from a common set of facts, right?
Here's what I get:
A way long time ago, people wanted to understand the universe just as much as we do now. Just like us, they're pattern seekers and story tellers. They noticed that not everyone spoke the same language. Kind of weird, isn't that? It would be easier if we did. How did we ever end up with such a bum situation anyway? Surely no one would choose to start speaking a new language out of nowhere, since that would be a huge pain in the butt and you'd still have to speak your old one all the time to function in society.
So being people, they weren't content to leave it like that. Humans don't really like mysteries; we like solving mysteries. It reduces uncertainty, which is rarely as fun as certainty, and frees us up to get on with other things without that niggling oddity in the backs of our minds.
These people lived thousands of years before serious study on the origins of languages took off. They might notice that some languages are similar to others, maybe even think they're akin, but it's a haphazard thing and they have a lot more demands on their time just to stay alive than we do. So they take a guess and make a story.
"Well you see at one time, everyone did have a single language. It was a great idea! But it didn't work out."
"Why didn't it work out?"
"That's a good question. God knows! I bet someone did something to upset him, and that was the punishment."
Or to put it the short way, the Tower of Bable is a pourquoi myth. To me, these are the product of the most admirable of human impulses: to know things.
LMAO Wow just had to share
fixified
Or to put it the short way, the Tower of Bable is a pourquoi myth. To me, these are the product of the most admirable of human impulses: to know things.Does not make it less true.
That depends on what one means by true.
The nuts fall on the just and unjust alike, sure. To tell you the truth I was sufficiently impressed when I first discovered neopaganism that I briefly entertained the thought of signing up, if not for the empirical issues.
Could you recommend a good compilation of the relevant myths? I'm as up on my Greek and Roman as any typical English-speaker (what with starting in on them in grade school) and I got a smidge of Norse in high school but college skipped right past most elsewise European to focus on cultures we'd almost surely have never gotten to read about otherwise. Fair enough, but the Celts slipped through the cracks.Though much of the traditions are destroy due to the loss of the oral traditions and such, there is the Mabinogion. Mainly looking into Brigid, Cernunnos, Dagda, Lugh, Kerridwen, Morrigan, Taliesin, and such. Even though I follow the Keltic path, I sometimes lean toward the Norse gods as well (my fiance's fault, she's hardcore Asatru and we do have a degree of influence on each other). I have great respect for Gaia, Janus, Minerva, Pan, Thoth, and Venus. Here's one of my favorite about Taliesin and Kerridwen I yanked off of wiki for you.
Taliesin the Bard:According to the late medieval Tale of Taliesin, included in some modern editions of the Mabinogion, Morfran (also called Afagddu) was hideously ugly, so Ceridwen sought to make him wise. She had a magical cauldron that could make a potion granting the gift of wisdom and poetic inspiration. The mixture had to be boiled for a year and a day. Morda, a blind man, tended the fire beneath the cauldron, while Gwion Bach, a young boy, stirred the concoction. The first three drops of liquid from this cauldron gave wisdom; the rest was a fatal poison. Three hot drops spilled onto Gwion's thumb as he stirred, burning him. He instinctively put his thumb in his mouth, and instantly gained great wisdom and knowledge.Ceridwen chased Gwion. He turned himself into a hare. She became a greyhound. He became a fish and jumped into a river. She turned into an otter. He turned into a bird; she became a hawk. Finally, he turned into a single grain of corn. She then became a hen and ate him. When Ceridwen became pregnant, she knew it was Gwion and resolved to kill the child when he was born. However, when he was born, he was so beautiful that she couldn't do it. She threw him in the ocean instead, sewing him inside a leather-skin bag. The child did not die, but was rescued on a Welsh shore - near Aberdyfi according to most versions of the tale - by a prince named Elffin ap Gwyddno; the reborn infant grew to became the legendary bard Taliesin.
Although myths are stories, the more important part is the underlying psychological meanings. As far as an amusing Keltic work of fiction, reading the Copper Crown by Patricia Kennealy Morrison may be insightful (yes, Jim Morrison's Patricia).
Does the spelling convention have significance, like magic vs. magick, or is it just to help people get the pronunciation right?
Magic vs magick does have meaning, but to me when I see Celtic I have images of a basketball team (pronounced "seltics" or a crappy $3.oo CD of low-grade keyboard remakes. The "K" in Keltic to me connects them to the Keltoi people of ancient Europe.
That makes a certain amount of sense. Well not personally (I don't get along with most of my family) but in in principle. Do you view the relationships as hierarchical, communal, something of a mix?
It's really more like a friendship and familial bond. If you've ever met a group of people alone in the world that only have a couple other people that they consider their family, it's more of that nature for the most part. For most pagans I know, their relation to their gods are very personal. It's one of the things I like best about my path, the independence and personalization. If you don't like a fancy deity, there are other options.
I also celebrate the eight holy days of the year. Most people celebrate these holidays as well unkowingly, as they have evolved and taken on different meanings with time.
I was just shopping for one of them a few days ago! :)
I give yule presents and get christmas presents and I'm just fine with that. :D
Actually that's something I respect about the whole pathfinder system. We all get to voice our opinions. I really was irritated that 4th edition was the way it is, but that's a different thread.
Or to put it the short way, the Tower of Bable is a pourquoi myth. To me, these are the product of the most admirable of human impulses: to know things.Does not make it less true.
Being in the Bible does not make it more true. And this is where, for poor Moff, I go on the offensive on the Bible. For me there seem to be a lot of discrepancies and things that do not make a lot of sense in the Bible. When I compare them to scientific or philosophical explanations, the secular ideas make more sense. There just seems to be more evidence (non-conclusive as it may be) that the Bible is created and inspired by man.
|
Why Slate thinks the minaret ban in Switzerland isn't crazy.
Hmm. The article seems to make the point that the decision is understandable in context, but conspicuously avoids making any judgment one way or the other about whether it was a good idea.
It does make some good observations about the state of immigration and assimilation (or lack thereof) in a lot of European countries. Unfortunately, I think the Swiss may have missed an opportunity to set themselves apart from the rest of the EU and try to adopt a more assimilative (is that a word?) approach, and instead adopted a policy similar to the banning of headscarves in schools in France, which, I think, won't yield the results that the governments were hoping for.
They may have been hoping for a form of forced assimilation, but I don't think that kind of thing can be forced. Instead, I think it will result in minority populations becoming even more marginalized, and the problems will only increase.
|
Being in the Bible does not make it more true. And this is where, for poor Moff, I go on the offensive on the Bible. For me there seem to be a lot of discrepancies and things that do not make a lot of sense in the Bible. When I compare them to scientific or philosophical explanations, the secular ideas make more sense. There just seems to be more evidence (non-conclusive as it may be) that the Bible is created and inspired by man.
Poor, poor Moff...
??
The Tower of Babel story is interesting on a number of counts. I truly have no idea about how factual it is, and again, I'm not sure if it was meant to be. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Different people will take different things from the story. On one hand it's about mankind attempting to be gods themselves. On the other hand it's an origin story about languages.
What I find interesting are the similarities that science finds. According to science (as near as I can tell), the human (Homo-Sapiens) species originated in Africa. Everything was fine and dandy for thousands of years and then (suddenly?) there appeared to have been a massive "Out of Africa" migration. Which in some ways sounds rather similar (to me) to the Tower of Babel story. I'm not saying that it is. I'm also not saying that this is proof of the Bible. I just think that it's interesting.
Any of the stories up to the "patriarchs" in the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt toward "factual", historical accuracy. Even some of the stories surrounding the patriarchs have more to do with making a point rather than preserving historical accuracy. (But then there's the story about the spotted and unspotted goats -- which has been proven to be genetically true although had nothing to do with putting a special branch in the water.)
If you continue to try and put a four thousand year old text into a "factual", "scientific" box, you will most likely be disappointed. It was primarily set up to give religious guidance to an ancient culture. Try to appreciate it for what it is -- not tear it apart for what it isn't.
We should all worship the Earth. She is the only one who loves us. Nobody else would put up with us infesting them for as long as she has.
|
|
It's called Son of Fourms are way too Long. No politics or religion allowed.Of course not Kirth. I even realize there are social conservatives who deserve derision. I just get tired of the same people on these threads who feel a need to cut down religion at every single opportunity they can get.Amen to that, brother. Maybe you and I need to start a thread for "people who don't give a rat's ass that they don't agree on politics or religion, because they don't mind kicking back with a Shiner and shootin' the breeze with each other anyway."
Except in jest.
|
|
That depends on what one means by true.Or to put it the short way, the Tower of Bable is a pourquoi myth. To me, these are the product of the most admirable of human impulses: to know things.Does not make it less true.
Are all facts true? Is all truth fact? Did I pull this out of a fortune cookie?
|
|
Except in jest.It's called Son of Fourms are way too Long. No politics or religion allowed.Of course not Kirth. I even realize there are social conservatives who deserve derision. I just get tired of the same people on these threads who feel a need to cut down religion at every single opportunity they can get.Amen to that, brother. Maybe you and I need to start a thread for "people who don't give a rat's ass that they don't agree on politics or religion, because they don't mind kicking back with a Shiner and shootin' the breeze with each other anyway."
I wish the political alias thread, our in-house political humor forum, got a little more traffic. My Dick Cheney alias gets so lonely...
|
|
Okay, I found this quote today from Thomas Kuhn and I wondered what you guys and gals thought of it. It was in a book on the development of the Scientific Revolution.
One reason science is social is that it is a difficult task to create a plausible and satisfying scientific culture, and therefore any science... is usually the product of many contributors. For this reason sciences are most effectively sustained by dedicated specialists. The second reason that sciences are social is that the universal problem of science is confidence -- the need to convince people that its teachings are true and that its practices are effective.
I wish the political alias thread, our in-house political humor forum, got a little more traffic. My Dick Cheney alias gets so lonely...Except in jest.It's called Son of Fourms are way too Long. No politics or religion allowed.Of course not Kirth. I even realize there are social conservatives who deserve derision. I just get tired of the same people on these threads who feel a need to cut down religion at every single opportunity they can get.Amen to that, brother. Maybe you and I need to start a thread for "people who don't give a rat's ass that they don't agree on politics or religion, because they don't mind kicking back with a Shiner and shootin' the breeze with each other anyway."
That's because he shoots his friends.
That's because he shoots his friends.I wish the political alias thread, our in-house political humor forum, got a little more traffic. My Dick Cheney alias gets so lonely...Except in jest.It's called Son of Fourms are way too Long. No politics or religion allowed.Of course not Kirth. I even realize there are social conservatives who deserve derision. I just get tired of the same people on these threads who feel a need to cut down religion at every single opportunity they can get.Amen to that, brother. Maybe you and I need to start a thread for "people who don't give a rat's ass that they don't agree on politics or religion, because they don't mind kicking back with a Shiner and shootin' the breeze with each other anyway."
I know, but I forgave them once they apologized to me.
|
|
Being in the Bible does not make it more true. And this is where, for poor Moff, I go on the offensive on the Bible. For me there seem to be a lot of discrepancies and things that do not make a lot of sense in the Bible. When I compare them to scientific or philosophical explanations, the secular ideas make more sense. There just seems to be more evidence (non-conclusive as it may be) that the Bible is created and inspired by man.Or to put it the short way, the Tower of Bable is a pourquoi myth. To me, these are the product of the most admirable of human impulses: to know things.Does not make it less true.
Archeology is the search for facts, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. - Dr Jones
Maybe we should invert that here. This is the search for truth if you want facts the science class is down the hall.
Any of the stories up to the "patriarchs" in the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt toward "factual", historical accuracy.
If the Bible is just stories with morals, why should it be given any more weight than any other fable? If it is only the Old Testament that takes artistic licensed, why should I be any more inclined to believe the New Testament is fact?
If some books are not literal and others are, it must be nice to be able to easily discern the difference.
Buddhism seems filled with stories which are not meant to be taken literally (correct me if I am wrong, Kirth). I do not have a problem with that because Buddhism does not try to tell me it is the word of god or that there is only one true way to find happiness.
Buddhism seems filled with stories which are not meant to be taken literally (correct me if I am wrong, Kirth). I do not have a problem with that because Buddhism does not try to tell me it is the word of god or that there is only one true way to find happiness.
Any Buddhist who claims that some dude was truly and literally born from a lotus flower is a total loon, in my opinion.
Archeology is the search for facts, not truth.
O.k., CJ, I will bite. How do you define truth and facts?
Any Buddhist who claims that some dude was truly and literally born from a lotus flower is a total loon, in my opinion.
So what is the purpose of the story that Buddha was born from a lotus flower? Is it just artistic license or is there some other meaning in it?
|
|
If the Bible is just stories with morals, ...
I did not say the Bible is just stories with morals. In fact, the story in question has rather little to do with morals.
In addition, you seem to be confusing the entire Old Testament with Genesis.
In your mind, what is the "moral" of nearly all the "fables" of the Old Testament? Especially since you seem to imply that every story therein is a "fable".
O.k. Then everything outside of Gensis is to be taken literally?
So what is the purpose of the story that Buddha was born from a lotus flower? Is it just artistic license or is there some other meaning in it?
Hindu belief features all kinds of births from lotus flowers (e.g., the goddess Lakshmi, born from a lotus that sprang from Vishnu's forehead, or Brahama, sitting on a lotus springing from Vishnu's navel).
There is no story of the Buddha himself being born from one that I'm aware of, but an awful lot of Hindu symbolism and terminology got carried over to Buddhist language, and the lotus flower retained its "sacred" status. There is this quote: “As a lotus flower is born in water, grows in water and rises out of water to stand above it unsoiled, so I, born in the world, raised in the world having overcome the world, live unsoiled by the world.”
|
|
To be truthful, there is very little exterior evidence of the state of Isreal prior to 1500BC and even then it is only mentioned on an egyptian text of one of the pharoahs conquests. There is no record of Isrealites being slaves in Egypt, no exterior evidence of an exodus from egypt, no exterior evidence of 40 years in the desert. We do find some old ruins in Isreal that may date back to that time. But the only real evidence of Isreal pre greek conquest, is minimal.
|
|
Archeology is the search for facts, not truth.O.k., CJ, I will bite. How do you define truth and facts?
For these purposes:
Truth: ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened, known by actual experience or observation.
Archeology is the search for facts, not truth.O.k., CJ, I will bite. How do you define truth and facts?For these purposes:
Truth: ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened, known by actual experience or observation.
Can the truth be observed? Maybe some small portion of it? The rest being beyond our comprehension?
|
|
Can the truth be observed? Maybe some small portion of it? The rest being beyond our comprehension?Archeology is the search for facts, not truth.O.k., CJ, I will bite. How do you define truth and facts?For these purposes:
Truth: ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened, known by actual experience or observation.
Many things, not all, are beyond our current level of comprehension. Somethings we will never be able to fathom. Science will be able to ascertain the facts of many things. It will however never be able to do so with all things. Not everything is observable. Truth is, whether we choose to believe it or in it or not. Whether we choose different routes to it or not. Truth is.
Truth is, whether we choose to believe it or in it or not. Whether we choose different routes to it or not. Truth is.
I guess the real question is, if we decide we know what the "Truth" is (because of a book or revelation or whatever), and it conflicts with the facts... then what? That seems to be the bone of contention: whether we selectively ignore facts in favor of our understanding of Truth, or whether our vision of Truth needs to be flexible enough to incorporate facts.
|
|
Truth is, whether we choose to believe it or in it or not. Whether we choose different routes to it or not. Truth is.I guess the real question is, if we decide we know what the "Truth" is (because of a book or revelation or whatever), and it conflicts with the facts... then what? That seems to be the bone of contention: whether we selectively ignore facts in favor of our understanding of Truth, or whether our vision of Truth needs to be flexible enough to incorporate facts.
Then like what we are doing now, we discuss it. We may not come to a conclusion but we did give it our best try.
Old saying: There are three sides to every argument, Yours, Mine and the Truth.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to contemplation of the truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know Himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." - John Paul II
Old saying: There are three sides to every argument, Yours, Mine and the Truth.
That's not a bad saying. What really bothers me in particular is the alarming number of people of all descriptions who take that and say, "I know the Truth and you don't, so therefore my side of the argument is the Truth, and yours must be wrong."
|
|
Old saying: There are three sides to every argument, Yours, Mine and the Truth.That's not a bad saying. What really bothers me in particular is the alarming number of people of all descriptions who take that and say, "I know the Truth and you don't, so therefore my side of the argument is the Truth, and yours must be wrong."
You are very correct sir. I have found that the people who scream the loudest, that their way is the only way, tend to be the ones who in fact know the truth the least.