The Chain of Infallibility

[viole]

I'm not interested in word quibbles. Jesus-styled agape, dying that others might live, literally dying, literally being tortured, and then raised from the dead by the power of God.

Big deal. He knew that from the beginning, at least according to the stories.

Everybody would be ready to die, knowing in advance that she will return, after the weekend, as the commander in chief of the Universe. A bit of flogging in the middle, is still worth the price, I think.

Ciao

- viole

 

[buddhist]

That is extraordinary--you are the first non-Christian I've met who feels genuine, intrinsic affection for their enemies, and would lay down your life for their sake. That is wonderful, although you may already be born again (you are a former church attendee).

I'm sorry you put faith in unverifiable claims. My faith is reasoned and has to do with verifiable claims.

What verifiable claims?

...Jesus-styled agape, dying that others might live, literally dying ... has few if any "parallels" in Hinduism and Buddhism, unless you want to redefine "parallel" also. I appreciate that some monks have immolated themselves to protest certain injustices, but Buddhists and Hindus are nowhere in holy texts asked to love their enemies

There are countless examples in the Buddhist scriptures which teach Buddhists to love our enemies, e.g.:

"In this world, Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, Ancient and inexhaustible."
"Live in joy, In love, Even among those who hate."
"The True Master .. moves with love among the unloving"
""Look how he abused me and hurt me, How he threw me down and robbed me." Abandon such thoughts, and live in love." - Dhp

--nor has as been pointed to already--is "once for all salvation" offered within these traditions.

No it's not offered in Buddhism, because there is no parallel for "once for all salvation" in anything we can observe around us. Instead, we do see the benefit of learning, wisdom, practice, and self-help - all things which early Buddhism teaches.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Water before the stars? I mean, are you sure?

Ciao

- viole

I believe we've had this discussion. I believe your memory here is imperfect. I believe the Bible didn't use many terms for the 99% of readers over the millennia who didn't understand modern cosmology, but as I've already explained, there are cosmology theories that fit this narrative.

Just this week come new articles that the off-angle plane of the solar system objects may be described by the gravitational pull of a (yet undiscovered) planet. I've seen some beautiful explanations of a vast volume of water creating a quite similar gravitational pull that affected early creation (water outside of waters) OR

...you can say the Genesis narrative is written from an earthly observer's perspective. Our land masses all have water beneath them and as the Bible says (!) all the seas and waters are utterly connected.

I'm disappointed that I took time to mention some of the thousands, yes, thousands of past historical facts in the Bible verified by scholars, and then you go to an area where even Hebrew scholars debate word meanings to say, "look, science proves this is wrong". A more reasoned approach would compel you to deal with the fact that the Bible has thousands of fact checks we can use, before you fly off (pun unintended) to look at cosmology and the origins of the universe, which are very much still debated... by scientists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are believing only in that which you want to believe, so there's no way of going any further in this with you. Unfortunately, it's this "my way or the highway" approach that diminishes one's credibility. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that you found Jesus, but please don't let that belief put blinders on you.

This last sounds to me like a fallacy of attacking the debater rather than the facts being debated.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Big deal. He knew that from the beginning, at least according to the stories.

Everybody would be ready to die, knowing in advance that she will return, after the weekend, as the commander in chief of the Universe. A bit of flogging in the middle, is still worth the price, I think.

Ciao

- viole

I'm unsure this last merits a response, but you are making the crucifixion--forgetting also about the wrath of God poured upon Jesus Christ--sound "easy".

If you knew you would rise again, would you first drink a cup so vile you'd experience hematidrosis? Would you tell me how easy, how casual it is, to be beaten by a cohort of soldiers, stripped nude, spat upon, hairs pulled from your head and face, before you were scouraged, flogged, crucified, spat on, abandoned?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What verifiable claims?

There are countless examples in the Buddhist scriptures which teach Buddhists to love our enemies, e.g.:

"In this world, Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, Ancient and inexhaustible."
"Live in joy, In love, Even among those who hate."
"The True Master .. moves with love among the unloving"
""Look how he abused me and hurt me, How he threw me down and robbed me." Abandon such thoughts, and live in love." - Dhp


No it's not offered in Buddhism, because there is no parallel for "once for all salvation" in anything we can observe around us. Instead, we do see the benefit of learning, wisdom, practice, and self-help - all things which early Buddhism teaches.

I understand the difference between being admonished to love among haters and the power from above to actually love while you are being hated, persecuted and killed.

Again, though, you make statements that are hard for me to accept. You wrote above

all things which early Buddhism teaches

but you told me you reject the Bible teachings because you weren't there to see them written and have no personal knowledge of their writing. How do you know early Buddhist teachings are what you say they are, therefore, without using a time machine?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

For followers of revealed, faith-based religions (on the world stage, this generally refers to the Abrahamic religions) how do you handle the issue of infallibility?

What I mean is this: if your god was indeed perfect, and intended for his followers to correctly understand his perfect message, then he must have preserved a chain of infallibility which extends from god himself to the follower.

E.g. A "perfect" god must ensure that his chosen prophet is infallible; the prophet's writings (the holy books) must also be infallible; those who preserve those books must also be infallible; those who translates those books must also be infallible; those who expound the content of those books must also be infallible; those who read the books or the translations (the disciple) must also be infallible.

If there is any failure in that chain, does it not inherently prove that the imagined originator (the deity) is imperfect and fallible?

(It seems the Roman Catholic Church understood this problem from early on, and determined that infallibility proceeds through the Church, the Popes and Councils, the Bishops and their Priests - the authorized preservers, translators, and expounders of the "Message", etc.)

I would say that men even women can and even some of the recordings of the written words from God can be fallible. Yet I believe God is perfect.
Even reading some of the prophets doing imperfect math but it is "given" to them by God in some writings. Maybe it was changed? then we know people can have attempted to change it with some success. Anyways many writings to some writings have mistakes mostly preconceived notions--- old writings.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Adam and eve did they write some thing?
it was orally given.
Thus saying for example animals came before the creation of man was a mistake.

 

[buddhist]

I understand the difference between being admonished to love among haters and the power from above to actually love while you are being hated, persecuted and killed.

I see no difference. Can you prove that the love you have for your enemies actually originates from a "power from above"?

Again, though, you make statements that are hard for me to accept. You wrote above but you told me you reject the Bible teachings because you weren't there to see them written and have no personal knowledge of their writing.

Again, I've addressed this in one of my prior posts.

I accept the Buddhist teachings because I can verify them for myself in the here-and-now. E.g. I can know for myself that love dispels hate. I can know for myself that practicing the Eightfold Path reduces my suffering. I can see for myself the Law of Kamma in action. I can see for myself the Law of Rebirth in action. Etc.

On the other hand, I do not know for myself that Jesus died on the cross, I do not know for myself that Jesus was the son of god, I do not know for myself that Jesus was raised from the dead, I do not know for myself that god spoke from a burning bush, I do not know for myself that god delivered commandments on a mountain that must be obeyed, I do not know for myself that blood sacrifices removes sin, I do not know for myself that prophecies were given and then subsequently fulfilled, etc. All of these are stories and claims are locked in a point back in time and space which 1. I cannot verify for myself, yet 2. I am demanded to believe that these things truly happened with blind faith in order to obtain "salvation".

In early Buddhism, practice of the Teachings themselves - things which I can know for myself - is of primary importance to achieve the highest goal (nibbana).

In Christianity (like other faith-based religions), blind faith in the true historicity of persons and events recorded in the Bible - things which I cannot know for myself - is of primary importance to achieve the highest goal (salvation).

How do you know early Buddhist teachings are what you say they are, therefore, without using a time machine?

It doesn't matter who or where the Teachings came from. They're called the "Buddhist teachings" because they originated from the "Buddha", a title for the Awakened, Enlightened One, whomever that might be.

Whether these enlightened teachings originated 1 million, 2500, or 100 years ago, whether from Gotama, or Jesus, or Zeus, or Thor, or Epicurus, or Lao Tze, a monkey, an ant, or even an alien from another planet - that person or animal is "The Enlightened One", and he, she, or it deserves the title "Buddha"; the corresponding teachings are thus the "Buddhist teachings".

 

[buddhist]

I would say that men even women can and even some of the recordings of the written words from God can be fallible. Yet I believe God is perfect.
Even reading some of the prophets doing imperfect math but it is "given" to them by God in some writings. Maybe it was changed? then we know people can have attempted to change it with some success. Anyways many writings to some writings have mistakes mostly preconceived notions--- old writings.

Why would a perfect god deliver his message in such an imperfect manner? Does that not say something about his alleged "perfection"?

 

[viole]

I'm unsure this last merits a response, but you are making the crucifixion--forgetting also about the wrath of God poured upon Jesus Christ--sound "easy".

If you knew you would rise again, would you first drink a cup so vile you'd experience hematidrosis? Would you tell me how easy, how casual it is, to be beaten by a cohort of soldiers, stripped nude, spat upon, hairs pulled from your head and face, before you were scouraged, flogged, crucified, spat on, abandoned?

Knowing in advance that I will return as the ruler and judge of the Universe? Sure. Wouldn't you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

This last sounds to me like a fallacy of attacking the debater rather than the facts being debated.

You rarely debate using facts, and a cardinal rule of serious debate is that one doesn't take beliefs and elevate them as if they were slam-dunk facts.

Beliefs are beliefs and facts are facts, and it's impossible to have a serious debate with one who cannot tell the difference between the two and act accordingly. The issue of "love" is taught in pretty much all religions, and many of them include love of even an adversary.

You continue insult people here when you keep claiming that you know more than they do about their own religion. Even after they explain it to you, you again resort to dissing what they know, and that is highly insulting.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Why would a perfect god deliver his message in such an imperfect manner? Does that not say something about his alleged "perfection"?

well what if original was changed.
What if people just did it not God.

 

[buddhist]

well what if original was changed.
What if people just did it not God.

That was my original point with this thread ...

Why would a "perfect" god deliver his message in a such a way? The way which he presumably knew could be changed and corrupted?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

That was my original point with this thread ...

Why would a "perfect" god deliver his message in a such a way? The way which he presumably knew could be changed and corrupted?

Anyways could he not deliver? I believe that he can and the only thing we got is fractions of history that show that and texts that help sometimes or show what happens if you do this, which I am happy for what you at least have, and then even the book says that all the things that Jesus said or did could not be contained in a book. I think it's possible something's were added or changed as well. And some things your not going to find through a book but sometimes it goes unquestioned or excepted as infallible because the generation next; who ever changed the last; as no recourse because they are now same. Even if everything else isn't changed or at least most but on certain pieces or phrases if that changed it can have issues.

 

[buddhist]

Anyways could he not deliver? I believe that he can and the only thing we got is fractions of history that show that and texts that help sometimes or show what happens if you do this, which I am happy for what you at least have, and then even the book says that all the things that Jesus said or did could not be contained in a book. I think it's possible something's were added or changed as well. And some things your not going to find through a book but sometimes it goes unquestioned or excepted as infallible because the generation next; who ever changed the last; as no recourse because they are now same. Even if everything else isn't changed or at least most but on certain pieces or phrases if that changed it can have issues.

How can you trust that book if it can be changed, altered, or corrupted?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

For followers of revealed, faith-based religions (on the world stage, this generally refers to the Abrahamic religions) how do you handle the issue of infallibility?

What I mean is this: if your god was indeed perfect, and intended for his followers to correctly understand his perfect message, then he must have preserved a chain of infallibility which extends from god himself to the follower.

E.g. A "perfect" god must ensure that his chosen prophet is infallible; the prophet's writings (the holy books) must also be infallible; those who preserve those books must also be infallible; those who translates those books must also be infallible; those who expound the content of those books must also be infallible; those who read the books or the translations (the disciple) must also be infallible.

If there is any failure in that chain, does it not inherently prove that the imagined originator (the deity) is imperfect and fallible?

(It seems the Roman Catholic Church understood this problem from early on, and determined that infallibility proceeds through the Church, the Popes and Councils, the Bishops and their Priests - the authorized preservers, translators, and expounders of the "Message", etc.)

Imagine playing a game of cricket that no matter how often you played or against who you played,
that you always hit every ball for six and then bowled them all-out after 10 balls.
Would this 'infallible' game of cricket be more enjoyable than the game where you often lost?

Surely a more complete world includes imperfection?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

How can you trust that book if it can be changed, altered, or corrupted?

Given any text and I could say the same.

 

[buddhist]

Imagine playing a game of cricket that no matter how often you played or against who you played,
that you always hit every ball for six and then bowled them all-out after 10 balls.
Would this 'infallible' game of cricket be more enjoyable than the game where you often lost?

Surely a more complete world includes imperfection?

Are you saying imperfection is enjoyable ... for the disciples or for the deity?

It confuses the disciples, and casts doubt on the perfection of the deity.

 

[buddhist]

Given any text and I could say the same.

Exactly my point.