Misconceptions of Christianity 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…no, not unfeeling but observant. Everything is felt, and everything is seen [for what it is]. Yes, the notion that the ‘self’ does not exist independantly is universal, and applies to everyone. Again, detachment does not result in not-feeling feelings. The feelings will be there, but you won’t…
[/quote]
Before I respond to that could you explain this first
“The feelings will be there, but you won’t…”

[quote]You seem to think I am missing the philosophy. The truth is to understand it you have to accept dialectic philosophy. Which is “it is this and that”. I don’t accept dialectic philosophy. I accept the law of non contradiction philosophy and that is what I am using to come to these conclusions.

The argument really should be which do we use to evaluate buddhism

If you are good with ending the conversation so am I. It was interesting to actually have to defend my logic on it. Philosophy is the area that I always feel the most uncertain about.[/quote]

…how is dialectic philosophy different from christian philosophy [for instance]? I’m good continueing, but if you don’t feel like it, okay. This little talk actually inspired me to revisit buddhist philosophy…[/quote]

Not sure how to answer that.

Christianity isn’t a philosophy, but it can contain philosophy in it. It can be and has been measured by philosophy. So that would be the difference.

Now dialectic philosophy would say Christianity and Buddhism are compatible.
Where as the this or that philosophy would say they are not.

I am good to continue at this point.

362

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]I doubt this will mean too much to you, but I came to pretty much the same conclusions about Buddhism when 98% of the world still didn’t have computers in their houses and it required books to study anything.[/quote]

…i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…

Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…[/quote]

Do you still think that is my intention?

I was 4 in 84 so my book reading was limited. I got my first atari 2600 in 86 I think and my Nintendo in late 89.

363

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Ephrem, you are truly amazing. LOL. Thou art a glorious, perpetual spin machine.

I can’t wait to continue this.

What I find absolutely hilarious, however, is how you keep referring to “fairness” and other such standards in the very course of this argument.

Don’t you have even the slightest shiver of a blush when your’re appealing to an objective sense of, say, fairness in the midst of an argument about the objectivity of values?
[/quote]

deep sigh …i can’t find the word “fairness” anywhere in our exchange katz, please point it out to me if you will. Also, please refute my points or concede defeat, altough you never will do both ofcourse…[/quote]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Play fair, and i play along, otherwise i’m out…
[/quote]

Ephrem, ahem ^^

I can cite others but I really don’t want to embarrass you. Throughout this entire exchange you appealed to objective standards of fairness, honesty, truth, etc. LOL!

364

…man, you sure know how to fuck up the layout, lol!

…if i say they’ve become physical responses to stimuli without the illusion of someone having them, would that make more sense?

[quote]…how is dialectic philosophy different from christian philosophy [for instance]? I’m good continueing, but if you don’t feel like it, okay. This little talk actually inspired me to revisit buddhist philosophy…

Not sure how to answer that.

Christianity isn’t a philosophy, but it can contain philosophy in it. It can be and has been measured by philosophy. So that would be the difference.

Now dialectic philosophy would say Christianity and Buddhism are compatible.
Where as the this or that philosophy would say they are not.

I am good to continue at this point.

[/quote]

…but nevertheless, christianity also has a goal in mind for it’s followers? Or isn’t that what you meant?

365

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]I doubt this will mean too much to you, but I came to pretty much the same conclusions about Buddhism when 98% of the world still didn’t have computers in their houses and it required books to study anything.[/quote]

…i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…

Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…[/quote]

Do you still think that is my intention?

I was 4 in 84 so my book reading was limited. I got my first atari 2600 in 86 I think and my Nintendo in late 89.[/quote]

…i don’t know. I’m prejudiced to think that any other kind of philosophy or religion can’t be on equal footing with christianity in an american christian schoolroom. I even think it’s great to teach comparative religion classes in school; i didn’t know they did that anymore. But again, those are my preconceptions, and they’re pretty often wrong, lol…

366

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; Buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…

Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…[/quote]

All the different philosophies and religions of the world are fascinating to study. I read Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant and Kierkegaard (and others years back), but your homeboy Van Til taught me that there are really only 2 world views. There is the view of the fallen autonomous man who sinfully begins without and inevitably ends without the triune God of the bible regardless of what specific packaging he sells it to himself in and the view of the new creature in Christ whose resurrected life tells him that absolutely everything begins with the triune God of the bible.

2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men. 2 + 2 = 4 means something totally different to the man who sees the mind of God behind the order in the universe than it does to the man who refuses to. What’s the point? The point is whether you call it Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, Marxism, agnosticism or atheism it all comes down to a different paint job on the same vehicle.

367

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Ephrem, you are truly amazing. LOL. Thou art a glorious, perpetual spin machine.

I can’t wait to continue this.

What I find absolutely hilarious, however, is how you keep referring to “fairness” and other such standards in the very course of this argument.

Don’t you have even the slightest shiver of a blush when your’re appealing to an objective sense of, say, fairness in the midst of an argument about the objectivity of values?
[/quote]

deep sigh …i can’t find the word “fairness” anywhere in our exchange katz, please point it out to me if you will. Also, please refute my points or concede defeat, altough you never will do both ofcourse…[/quote]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Play fair, and i play along, otherwise i’m out…
[/quote]

Ephrem, ahem ^^

I can cite others but I really don’t want to embarrass you. Throughout this entire exchange you appealed to objective standards of fairness, honesty, truth, etc. LOL! [/quote]

…okay, you got me there. I thought you refered to our MMPORG-fantasy we had going. But howcome it’s odd for me to ask for honest debating all of a sudden, when you obviously can’t grasp the meaning of that concept? And why are you deflecting the issue from your inability to adress my points to the insinuation that i play unfairly? Why not just discuss the topic at hand?

ugh

368

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; Buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…

Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…[/quote]
All the different philosophies and religions of the world are fascinating to study. I read Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant and Kierkegaard (and others years back), but your homeboy Van Til taught me that there are really only 2 world views. There is the view of the fallen autonomous man who sinfully begins without and inevitably ends without the triune God of the bible regardless of what specific packaging he sells it to himself in and the view of the new creature in Christ whose resurrected life tells him that absolutely everything begins with the triune God of the bible.

2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men. 2 + 2 = 4 means something totally different to the man who sees the mind of God behind the order in the universe than it does to the man who refuses to. What’s the point? The point is whether you call it Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, Marxism, agnosticism or atheism it all comes down to a different paint job on the same vehicle.[/quote]

…that’s what any religous fanatic would say about his religion…

369

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Ephrem, you are truly amazing. LOL. Thou art a glorious, perpetual spin machine.

I can’t wait to continue this.

What I find absolutely hilarious, however, is how you keep referring to “fairness” and other such standards in the very course of this argument.

Don’t you have even the slightest shiver of a blush when your’re appealing to an objective sense of, say, fairness in the midst of an argument about the objectivity of values?
[/quote]

deep sigh …i can’t find the word “fairness” anywhere in our exchange katz, please point it out to me if you will. Also, please refute my points or concede defeat, altough you never will do both ofcourse…[/quote]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Play fair, and i play along, otherwise i’m out…
[/quote]

Ephrem, ahem ^^

I can cite others but I really don’t want to embarrass you. Throughout this entire exchange you appealed to objective standards of fairness, honesty, truth, etc. LOL! [/quote]

…okay, you got me there. I thought you refered to our MMPORG-fantasy we had going. But howcome it’s odd for me to ask for honest debating all of a sudden, when you obviously can’t grasp the meaning of that concept? And why are you deflecting the issue from your inability to adress my points to the insinuation that i play unfairly? Why not just discuss the topic at hand?

ugh
[/quote]

LOL! I’m not not saying you “play unfairly.” So why are you saying that I am? Hmmm?

However, the fact that you think this post is “off topic” is itself an indication that you are quite lost in this immediate post, and the discussion generally. That’s okay, though, I’m a patient dude. :slight_smile:

Let me see if I can make this clear:

Eph - when you appeal to “honesty”, or “fairness”, or “truth” in the midst of an argument - which is fine in my book btw - you are appealing to a non-relative (re: absolute) understanding of honesty, fairness, or truth.

Do you understand that^^ or does it escape you? Fine if you don’t - just askin’

What I was pointing out, is how hilarious that is that you were appealing to these standards in the midst of an argument where you are also denying that you believe there to be any absolute values.

Comprende, amigo?

Or, are you merely trying to drive me mad? :slight_smile:

370

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; Buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…

Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…[/quote]
All the different philosophies and religions of the world are fascinating to study. I read Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant and Kierkegaard (and others years back), but your homeboy Van Til taught me that there are really only 2 world views. There is the view of the fallen autonomous man who sinfully begins without and inevitably ends without the triune God of the bible regardless of what specific packaging he sells it to himself in and the view of the new creature in Christ whose resurrected life tells him that absolutely everything begins with the triune God of the bible.

2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men. 2 + 2 = 4 means something totally different to the man who sees the mind of God behind the order in the universe than it does to the man who refuses to. What’s the point? The point is whether you call it Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, Marxism, agnosticism or atheism it all comes down to a different paint job on the same vehicle.[/quote]

…that’s what any religous fanatic would say about his religion…
[/quote]
Are you disagreeing with the general premise of my post?

372

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…man, you sure know how to fuck up the layout, lol!
[/quote]
I double and tripled checked that the each quote statement had a closing remark. It just didn’t want to play nice.

perhaps, but that is not the goal of the 2nd and 3rd noble truth. The idea is to remove them.
Look at the oral traditions of Buddha himself. He left his family and didn’t reunite with them until they came looking for him. There is an attempt to remove your self from the emotions that are accompanied with relationships.

The problem is the eight fold path is at odds with the noble truths. Buddhism is ok with this because all eastern religions enjoy contradiction. They embrace them at the core. Even the idea of attaining nirvana is a problem, because you have to desire it with out desiring it.

[quote]…how is dialectic philosophy different from christian philosophy [for instance]? I’m good continueing, but if you don’t feel like it, okay. This little talk actually inspired me to revisit buddhist philosophy…

Not sure how to answer that.

Christianity isn’t a philosophy, but it can contain philosophy in it. It can be and has been measured by philosophy. So that would be the difference.

Now dialectic philosophy would say Christianity and Buddhism are compatible.
Where as the this or that philosophy would say they are not.

I am good to continue at this point.

[/quote]

[quote]
…but nevertheless, christianity also has a goal in mind for it’s followers? Or isn’t that what you meant?[/quote]

Christianity has a goal for the redemption of man.

373

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …okay haney, if you feel this way, then so be it, but to me you seem to want to arrive at a preconceived destination for whatever reason…
[/quote]I doubt this will mean too much to you, but I came to pretty much the same conclusions about Buddhism when 98% of the world still didn’t have computers in their houses and it required books to study anything.[/quote]

…i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…

Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…[/quote]

Do you still think that is my intention?

I was 4 in 84 so my book reading was limited. I got my first atari 2600 in 86 I think and my Nintendo in late 89.[/quote]

…i don’t know. I’m prejudiced to think that any other kind of philosophy or religion can’t be on equal footing with christianity in an american christian schoolroom. I even think it’s great to teach comparative religion classes in school; i didn’t know they did that anymore. But again, those are my preconceptions, and they’re pretty often wrong, lol…
[/quote]

It depends on who you are talking too. I am always open to the truth.

374

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I take no real joy in saying this, but Haney is way off the mark on his reading of Buddhism, while ephrem is doing a pretty good job.

No way in hell am I going to get into the discusion it would take to “prove” this, but I want to make one point as to my own uderstanding of this:

The dissolution of one’s ego does not mean that one (and by extension all others also) cease to exist. Quite the opposite; the illusionary “boundaries” / walls that seem to seperate “me” from “you” dissolve, making us all one and the same entity.

Yeah, it’s a punk thing to do to make that statement and bail out, but it’s what I’m choosig to do nonetheless.

Haney, please don’t think you’ve “grasped” Buddhism from some introductory reading about it.[/quote]

sigh

  1. It is a punk thing to do, but I understand.
  2. I am not representing the philosophy of how buddhism reconciles itself. I have stated that over and over again. So why make a judgment that I have only have an introductory reading of it.
  3. I am taking the premise of buddhism’s four noble truths and taking them to their logical conclusion which Ephrem has stated I am right on the surface. Why am I right on the surface? because I am not trying to look through the buddhist philosophy. Which is a dialectic philosophic view point. Which I don’t accept because it is to conforming too what you want it to be.
375

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…man, you sure know how to fuck up the layout, lol!
[/quote]
I double and tripled checked that the each quote statement had a closing remark. It just didn’t want to play nice.

perhaps, but that is not the goal of the 2nd and 3rd noble truth. The idea is to remove them.
Look at the oral traditions of Buddha himself. He left his family and didn’t reunite with them until they came looking for him. There is an attempt to remove your self from the emotions that are accompanied with relationships.

The problem is the eight fold path is at odds with the noble truths. Buddhism is ok with this because all eastern religions enjoy contradiction. They embrace them at the core. Even the idea of attaining nirvana is a problem, because you have to desire it with out desiring it.

[quote]…how is dialectic philosophy different from christian philosophy [for instance]? I’m good continueing, but if you don’t feel like it, okay. This little talk actually inspired me to revisit buddhist philosophy…

Not sure how to answer that.

Christianity isn’t a philosophy, but it can contain philosophy in it. It can be and has been measured by philosophy. So that would be the difference.

Now dialectic philosophy would say Christianity and Buddhism are compatible.
Where as the this or that philosophy would say they are not.

I am good to continue at this point.

[/quote]

[quote]
…but nevertheless, christianity also has a goal in mind for it’s followers? Or isn’t that what you meant?[/quote]

Christianity has a goal for the redemption of man. [/quote]

I’ve found that Christianity is the answer to why we have to suffer, and why we have to die. :slight_smile:

376

P.S. I am reading Dimiter, by William Peter Blatty. The guy that wrote The Exorcist and Legion anyone read this guy? Heard this book is supposed to be beyond anything written, yet.

377

I know you guys are really digging the moral relativism talk, but what about contraception! Everyone loves contraception, well at least to talk about it. I mean who would think something as silly as a very funny shaped and thin balloon could cause so much tuff right?

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml

Great article on contraception, and not just because she is Catholic, but because it goes back to the early thinkers on the topic.

378

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …i got the impression that haney wanted his conclusion to negatively reflect on buddhism, but yes; Buddhism has a goal, Nirvana, and its philosophy is aimed at achieving that goal…

Edit: i got my first Atari 600 [i think it was] in '84. Books only until then…[/quote]
All the different philosophies and religions of the world are fascinating to study. I read Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant and Kierkegaard (and others years back), but your homeboy Van Til taught me that there are really only 2 world views. There is the view of the fallen autonomous man who sinfully begins without and inevitably ends without the triune God of the bible regardless of what specific packaging he sells it to himself in and the view of the new creature in Christ whose resurrected life tells him that absolutely everything begins with the triune God of the bible.

2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men. 2 + 2 = 4 means something totally different to the man who sees the mind of God behind the order in the universe than it does to the man who refuses to. What’s the point? The point is whether you call it Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, Marxism, agnosticism or atheism it all comes down to a different paint job on the same vehicle.[/quote]

…that’s what any religous fanatic would say about his religion…
[/quote]
Are you disagreeing with the general premise of my post?[/quote]

…and the general premiss of that post is?

379

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…man, you sure know how to fuck up the layout, lol!
[/quote]
I double and tripled checked that the each quote statement had a closing remark. It just didn’t want to play nice.

perhaps, but that is not the goal of the 2nd and 3rd noble truth. The idea is to remove them.
Look at the oral traditions of Buddha himself. He left his family and didn’t reunite with them until they came looking for him. There is an attempt to remove your self from the emotions that are accompanied with relationships.

The problem is the eight fold path is at odds with the noble truths. Buddhism is ok with this because all eastern religions enjoy contradiction. They embrace them at the core. Even the idea of attaining nirvana is a problem, because you have to desire it with out desiring it.

[quote]…how is dialectic philosophy different from christian philosophy [for instance]? I’m good continueing, but if you don’t feel like it, okay. This little talk actually inspired me to revisit buddhist philosophy…

Not sure how to answer that.

Christianity isn’t a philosophy, but it can contain philosophy in it. It can be and has been measured by philosophy. So that would be the difference.

Now dialectic philosophy would say Christianity and Buddhism are compatible.
Where as the this or that philosophy would say they are not.

I am good to continue at this point.

[/quote]

[quote]
…but nevertheless, christianity also has a goal in mind for it’s followers? Or isn’t that what you meant?[/quote]

Christianity has a goal for the redemption of man. [/quote]

…well haney, i can only reiterate that there’s more to buddhism than what you deduced, but that requires a thread of it’s own, and i’m not up for that at the moment…

380

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …and the general premiss of that post is?
[/quote]
“2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men.”

[quote]ephrem wrote in the arrest the pope thread:
…for me personally, humankind is the only kind of animal that is able, within limits, to make a conscious choice whether an act benefits the tribe or not, and it’s this ability to choose that’s the foundation of morality. Many, if not all, acts of ‘evil’ are the result of a sick mind; a mind whose ability to make the appropriate choice is obscured by trauma or fascination…[/quote]You wanna talk about a subjective leap in the name of self comfort? Then again you already said your view of life was subjective, a thing I praised you for due to it’s honesty.