Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 12:31AM #11
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Jan 19, 2010 -- 12:27AM, in_my_opinion wrote:


"If some are manmade and others are true, how would one know which ones are true? Let me guess, "the scriptures say so"..."


It's not mutually exclusive. Philosophies like Confucianism and Taoism are also helpful, useful and truthful.


One way of knowing, although not being absolutely certain, is what the original writings themselves say. Yes, they're open to interpretation. Anything is. Am not aware of the latter two (Confucianism and Taoism) claiming religious authority. Humanity is not man-made, nor is the universe. But we produce things just as well as a star produces heavier elements.




To me, what you just said is the equivalent of "The universe exists because a shoelace and an elephant are friends." I can make no sense of it. Sorry.

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 1:31AM #12
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,704

"If some are manmade and others are true.."


Implies that the man-made are false.


Whereas was saying that the sources were not the same and the authority different.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 1:52AM #13
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,704

 



Jan 18, 2010 -- 5:01AM, in_my_opinion wrote:

 




In fact that notion of human fabrication is a fairly recent idea.



 


 


"So is the notion that the earth is round and billions of years old instead of flat and 6,000 years old. What's your point?"


One is a simple scientific notion about physical reality that is easy of proof and which is spoken in mathematics. The other is a statement of belief by some humans that the beliefs of other humans were a mere product of human thinking.


Notions about physical reality are not as complex as those of social reality and far more predictable. These social realms include economics, politics, education, and human languages express meaning in them.


Beyond the social realm lies another which is yet more difficult to know and is expressed in the languages we call music and art. This is where beauty, goodness, truth; can be best sought. But as some Buddhists clearly say, it is ultimately inexpressible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 11:44AM #14
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Okay, if you want to believe that social questions are far more complex than scientific questions, fine. I happen to disagree, but it's subjective so it doesn't matter, both opinions are valid.


But that wasn't my point. The point I was making is, just because a notion is new doesn't mean it's wrong. I thought that was pretty clear; guess I have to be more careful about what I say. Did you spotlight that one particular line because you took it seriously? Or did you understand the point I was trying to make, but just enjoy detailed arguments about tiny things? Tongue out

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 4:17PM #15
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,704

Okay, what is the central point with which we should deal?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 8:33PM #16
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:44AM, Intotheblue wrote:


The point I was making is, just because a notion is new doesn't mean it's wrong.





Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 9:42PM #17
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,704

True. But it is no guarantee of correctness, to be new, either. The phlogiston theory was new in 1667. The drug Thalidomide was new in the late 1950's and tragically heartbreaking. Those are just two examples.


The test of time is often the difference between what we believe and the results of applying those beliefs in action.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 10:31PM #18
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Jan 19, 2010 -- 9:42PM, in_my_opinion wrote:


True. But it is no guarantee of correctness, to be new, either. The phlogiston theory was new in 1667. The drug Thalidomide was new in the late 1950's and tragically heartbreaking. Those are just two examples.


The test of time is often the difference between what we believe and the results of applying those beliefs in action.




Yet you earlier claimed your religion was authentic because it's so new and therefore its original texts still exist. Wink


But anyway, just now you made my point. Neither newness nor oldness make-or-break a belief, theory, philosophy etc.


My head is seriously spinning after all these circular arguments. I've had to keep going back and trying to find what we were even supposed to be talking about in the first place. No offense but I'd like to get off this merry-go-round now...


 


God I hope this isn't a preview of what this board is going to be like...

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 11:12PM #19
in_my_opinion
Posts: 2,704

"Yet you earlier claimed your religion was authentic because it's so new and therefore its original texts still exist. Wink"


The Writings of the Faith are authentic. It was in response to your statements doubting the provenance of Scriptures. Have not made the syllogistic claim you say. Merely said that we have the advantage of recency and so our Scriptures are authentic. The authenticity of the Bahá'í Faith itself was never a part of that. 


 


"But anyway, just now you made my point. Neither newness nor oldness make-or-break a "belief, theory, philosophy etc."


Merely showed the advantage of testing whether empirical or chronological.


"My head is seriously spinning after all these circular arguments. I've had to keep going back and trying to find what we were even supposed to be talking about in the first place. No offense but I'd like to get off this merry-go-round now..."


It is obvious that you are certainly not enjoying our discourse.


"God I hope this isn't a preview of what this board is going to be like..."


Am still curious why you continue it.


It pains me to hear you suffer.


So, will not correspond with you; until and if, you are recovered sufficiently to ask for a response again.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 20, 2010 - 9:03PM #20
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

I already told you why I had continued.


Honestly I think you enjoy "seeing me suffer" as you put it (not that I'm suffering, but whatever). I think this is fun for you, which is fine, but I'm not amused. I have a lot of other crap going on right now and this is the last thing I care to spend my time on.


To the rest of you - Sorry for derailing the thread. Hopefully this nonsense will be avoided on the rest of this lovely new board.

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook