The Chain of Infallibility

[Ben Avraham]

Benjamin the son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David and Caleb the son of David.
- Talmud

You must be ashamed! You can't even be serious when discussing so serious a topic. If you were Jewish, I would say that you were causing "hilul HaShem."

 

[Tumah]

You must be ashamed! You can't even be serious when discussing so serious a topic. If you were Jewish, I would say that you were causing "hilul HaShem."

The one that should be ashamed is the one who has no knowledge of Jewish literature, while pretending to espouse Jewish beliefs. You asked for people who never sinned. The Talmud provides a handy list of four people.
You can argue with the Talmud if you like. Just don't do it under the guise of "Jewish belief".

 

[buddhist]

Have I ever said here that when we sin, we have done it against HaShem? No, the Biblical definition for sin is the transgression of the Law. When we sin therefore, we sin against our own selves. Ourself and others. Then, according to the law of cause & effect we, somehow must pay for the consequences thereof. It is impossible for a human to offend God with his or her sin. We end up as the cause of our own punishment. Now, your lord Buddha, not meaning an offense to you, was never a perfect man. It is against the nature of being human to think of humans as perfect beings.

No offense to you or your HaShem, but I disagree with your lord God and his alleged laws.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No offense to you or your HaShem, but I disagree with your lord God and his alleged laws.

Sorry, it means nothing to say that you disagree with the Creator of the universe. You must specify what you disagree with and why. I am not a prophet to know what is in your mind.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The one that should be ashamed is the one who has no knowledge of Jewish literature, while pretending to espouse Jewish beliefs. You asked for people who never sinned. The Talmud provides a handy list of four people. You can argue with the Talmud if you like. Just don't do it under the guise of "Jewish belief".

First and foremost, my Jewish literature is the Tanach, aka the Torah, the Neviim and the Ketuvim. If any thing else you call Jewish Literature contradicts the Tanach, I can do without it. No offense meant.

 

[Tumah]

First and foremost, my Jewish literature is the Tanach, aka the Torah, the Neviim and the Ketuvim. If any thing else you call Jewish Literature contradicts the Tanach, I can do without it. No offense meant.

Great. So would you kindly change your religion to Karaite? So that people don't mistake your views for authentic Judaism.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No offense to you or your HaShem, but I disagree with your lord God and his alleged laws.

All right! One of His laws prohibits to commit murder. Why do you disagree with that Law from HaShem? Another law given by HaShem in the Decalogue prohibits to steal. Why do you disagree with that law? Well, according to what you have said above, you disagree with His laws. Can you give an answer to my questions why you disagree with those laws I have just mentioned?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Great. So would you kindly change your religion to Karaite? So that people don't mistake your views for authentic Judaism.

What you said to justify your position is not authentic Judaism. Any form of Judaism that stands in contradiction to the Tanach aka Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim is not authentic Judaism.

 

[Tumah]

What you said to justify your position is not authentic Judaism. Any form of Judaism that stands in contradiction to the Tanach aka Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim is not authentic Judaism.

Judaism (without any modifier) is the religion of the Talmud. People that originate from Jews and only believe in the Tanach to the exclusion of the Talmud are called Karaites or Karaite Jews. Its as simple as that. You are by definition a Karaite, so why confuse people by not indicating that you don't follow the Talmud like Jews do?

The only possible reason I can think of, is because you also want to embrace Jesus' teachings and Karaites don't do that. The only thing is, neither do we. So the only thing I can come up with, is that you're relying on Messianic Jews' (ie. Christians) views about what Judaism is about, to keep calling your religion Judaism.

You have already displayed numerous times, your ignorance of the Talmud. So you have no basis to make any claim about whether the Talmud does or does not contradict the Tanach. At the most, you can say that it contradicts your personal interpretation of it. Which isn't saying much at all.

 

[buddhist]

Sorry, it means nothing to say that you disagree with the Creator of the universe. You must specify what you disagree with and why. I am not a prophet to know what is in your mind.

I disagree with your idea of the "creator of the universe" and his laws, and that we must obey his alleged laws.

The point of this thread was the whole chain of infallibility - if you're not a prophet for your god, then how can you be sure of what he truly wants, or suggest likewise with any measure of authority?

 

[buddhist]

All right! One of His laws prohibits to commit murder. Why do you disagree with that Law from HaShem? Another law given by HaShem in the Decalogue prohibits to steal. Why do you disagree with that law? Well, according to what you have said above, you disagree with His laws. Can you give an answer to my questions why you disagree with those laws I have just mentioned?

Both violate the Law of Suffering and the Law of Kamma. I know for myself the truth of suffering, and how I avoid suffering every moment of my life. I also know for myself the truth of kamma - cause and effect, relevant effects produced by associated causes. Therefore I do not steal from others, or murder, because I understand how it would cause me suffering, and cause similar suffering in others, and how I would reap unskillful effects from such unskillful causes.

I follow such precepts because I know such things directly for myself, not because a god allegedly declared them.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Both violate the Law of Suffering and the Law of Kamma. I know for myself the truth of suffering, and how I avoid suffering every moment of my life. I also know for myself the truth of kamma - cause and effect, relevant effects produced by associated causes. Therefore I do not steal from others, or murder, because I understand how it would cause me suffering, and cause similar suffering in others, and how I would reap unskillful effects from such unskillful causes.

I follow such precepts because I know such things directly for myself, not because a god allegedly declared them.

Oh! Now, I understand. You disagree with those laws I mentioned only because they are in the Jewish Scriptures and, perhaps any thing Jewish you must be horrified with the idea to agree
with. I was familiar with that attitude; but only mistaken to think that this kind of anti-Jewish sensitivity was present only among Christians and Moslems.

 

[buddhist]

Oh! Now, I understand. You disagree with those laws I mentioned only because they are in the Jewish Scriptures and, perhaps any thing Jewish you must be horrified with the idea to agree
with. I was familiar with that attitude; but only mistaken to think that this kind of anti-Jewish sensitivity was present only among Christians and Moslems.

Really?

I hold the same argument with Christians, Muslims, and any other faith-based religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would respond that I would disbelieve, because Krishna and "the Great Spirit" are specific personalities, and their teachings depend on the reality of the personalities (the foundations).

Whereas the Buddhist teachings themselves are the foundation because of their intrinsic enlightened value, therefore the person(s) who thought of them are called the "Buddha".

E.g. Krishna *must* be real (faith) -> therefore his teachings are real.
vs.
The Buddhist teachings have intrinsic value (personal knowledge) -> therefore the "Buddha" existed.

That seems circular to me - my faith seems real so the Buddha, for whom I have no evidence for, seems real.

My faith is 1) The Bible seemed reasonable, although it contained supernatural events. 2) Research confirmed archaeology and history confirm the accuracy of the Bible (except for some of the supernatural elements). 3) Bible prophecies have come true as recently as the last 100 years, so the Bible is evidenced as further reliable...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let's make a deal. You show me one; and I say, no more than one prophecy about Jesus as the Messiah in the Tanach, and I'll give you my word that I'll become a Christian. Now, to explain to you why I am being so bold, the Messiah cannot be an individual because, the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) Besides, according to Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord, aka Israel the Son of God, if you read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My Son," said the Lord. Now, if you still want to look for that prophecy go right ahead and do it. If I failed to explain to you what the text is talking about, I'll
reconsider my boldness.

So you aren't asking. You are being rhetorical. What if instead I demonstrated where you misinterpret one of the concepts above?

 

[buddhist]

That seems circular to me - my faith seems real so the Buddha, for whom I have no evidence for, seems real.

No, it's more like: The enlightened truths which Buddhism teaches I can and have known for myself, therefore their discoverer was the Enlightened One.

My faith is 1) The Bible seemed reasonable, although it contained supernatural events. 2) Research confirmed archaeology and history confirm the accuracy of the Bible (except for some of the supernatural elements). 3) Bible prophecies have come true as recently as the last 100 years, so the Bible is evidenced as further reliable...

I can say the exact same things about the Buddhist scriptures; they seem reasonable, research confirms archaeology of the early-Buddhist era; and Buddhist prophecies have come true as well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it's more like: The enlightened truths which Buddhism teaches I can and have known for myself, therefore their discoverer was the Enlightened One.

I can say the exact same things about the Buddhist scriptures; they seem reasonable, research confirms archaeology of the early-Buddhist era; and Buddhist prophecies have come true as well.

You can say what you like but... only Bible prophecy has literal, specific fulfillment.

 

[buddhist]

You can say what you like but... only Bible prophecy has literal, specific fulfillment.

OK, you can keep on telling yourself that

Besides, even if there were prophecies and even if they were fulfilled, they are not a mark that the originator is "God". If I somehow managed to communicate with ants, and tell them that in 20 generations a colony will be destroyed with a flood, and then when 20 ant generations have passed, I come back and throw a bucket of water on their anthill, does that make me the Everlasting Almighty God & Creator?

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK, you can keep on telling yourself that

Besides, even if there were prophecies and even if they were fulfilled, they are not a mark that the originator is "God". If I somehow managed to communicate with ants, and tell them that in 20 generations a colony will be destroyed with a flood, and then when 20 ant generations have passed, I come back and throw a bucket of water on their anthill, does that make me the Everlasting Almighty God & Creator?

I'm sensing a double standard: I don't have evidence that prophecies came true because I refer to archaeology, independent scholars, writers outside the scriptures, etc. but you can verify Buddhism from personal, anecdotal experience...

It would probably make you a divine if you could become an ant and tell them the prophecies and also throw the water on their anthill--that would require humbling yourself to the level of an ant and also great power!

 

[buddhist]

I'm sensing a double standard: I don't have evidence that prophecies came true because I refer to archaeology, independent scholars, writers outside the scriptures, etc. but you can verify Buddhism from personal, anecdotal experience...

It would probably make you a divine if you could become an ant and tell them the prophecies and also throw the water on their anthill--that would require humbling yourself to the level of an ant and also great power!

No, there is no double standard. It is two different standards.

Buddhism is about personal verification of universal truths in the here-and-now.
Christianity and other faith-based religions are based on blind faith in alleged historical facts.