2008-07-28, 14:03 | Link #1162 |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
You asked an obvious question. What do you think would be my obvious reply?
Similarly, "Do good, avoid evil, keep your mind pure." It's so obvious that anyone can think of it. How many people do you know who practise it? |
2008-07-28, 14:20 | Link #1163 |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
If that is the case, you are right, you cannot have any kind of scientific answer, because, currently there is no scientific way to explain the beginning of existence, and without that, no one can answer your question. Still, even if you have no way to understand the origin of that, if you follow the known history, you can try to come up with a partially satisfactory answer (such as preserving the balance in the nature). Would that mean a lot? I don't think so, as we may not even be considered as a notable existence within the vastness of the (known and unknown) universe.
|
2008-07-28, 15:14 | Link #1166 |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Then it wasn't really as obvious as it seemed, was it? Similarly, simply because training your mind seems like an obviously generic answer, what makes you think it's an easy answer?
Simple =/= easy. What to study? Why study? To search for the Truth? Why? Because the Truth would make you happy? But what if you can't find it? Those are questions for you to answer, not me. I think I've already found what I want, but what I want is not necessarily want you want. As I've said, revelation is personal. I find I don't need to be a genius to be happy. I only need to be me. And I think it was you who once pointed out that good and evil is an aesthetic choice. Which means morality is a personal opinion. So why ask me what is good and evil? Ask yourself, if it matters to you. If it doesn't, then the question is moot, isn't it? |
2008-07-28, 15:19 | Link #1167 | ||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2008-07-28, 15:26 | Link #1168 |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Heh. All that I've said was not meant to convince you in the first place. I've already known from past experiences what you're like.
A whole lot of words to not answer at all? Perhaps you're right. They do say that the older a person gets, the more long-winded they become. |
2008-07-28, 19:28 | Link #1170 | |||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Still, given the premise of the Bible, I do not see how the Garden of Eden cannot be taken literally. (This ties into the part of my post which you have chosen not to address.) Quote:
Quote:
This is why both testaments are in the Bible instead of only one. Even if you are dealing with one of the testaments, the answer may be more clearly addressed in the other testament. Or the topic may connect both testaments together. But either way, I used the Old Testament anyway and got the same answer. So choose that answer if you insist. Quote:
|
|||||
2008-07-29, 08:38 | Link #1171 | |||
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2008-07-29, 18:24 | Link #1172 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
The usual notes are that the Old Testament is a cobbled together collection of scripts describing the mytho-history of a small struggling arabic tribe (the people of Judaism being one of many tribes in the region) and that the New Testament is a set of discussions and parables written by people who called themselves Jews and later on, "Christians" discussing the impacts of the man they called the Messiah and the Apostles who put forth their interpretation of what it all meant. This dual collection got a "super-level-up" when the Roman Emperor was convinced by certain events (he won a war) to make Christianity the official state religion -- after that the engine was the Roman Imperial State itself (which never really fell so much as balkanized into many mini-states who still were influenced by the Holy Roman Church until the Reformation and the Protestant movement kicked off).
Each collection has suffered through various translations (as the Dead Sea scrolls and other artifacts attest, resulted in occasional extreme misinterpretation of earlier meaning). The King James version may be poetic... but :P. And Christians have split into multiple sects in a long historical debate depending on how individuals have interpreted or weighed particular pieces of the collection. (the shorter than the book it needs but longer than the Monty Python "Shoe" metaphorical discussion of religious history)
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2008-07-29 at 19:57. |
2008-07-31, 02:30 | Link #1174 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Usually when a person talks like that, it means he or she implies that what was written by said people cannot be trusted at face value. Quote:
Any metaphor would have to be clear for it to be useful. The purpose of a metaphor is to help explain the object for which it is a metaphor. As such, the Garden of Eden would be a poor metaphor due to its description. Quote:
Whatever your views may be on the difference between Old Testament and New Testament has nothing to do with this particular question. Especially since both testaments lead me to the same conclusion. |
|||
2008-07-31, 03:08 | Link #1175 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Genesis was written to reach the audience of its day using cultural metaphors familiar to its audience. Many concepts can be easily misinterpreted by present day audiences filtered through several language translations. Those translations were also conducted by people who had their own preconceived notions and agendas (e.g. the "virgin birth" which the oldest texts simply do not mention but which had become a critical part of Church mythos, or the failure to realize that the use of individual name actually was a allegory for an entire tribe). (note: readers less familiar with Christianity might find this link useful for Christian terms and this link useful for an introduction to metaphorical languages)
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2008-07-31 at 03:36. |
|
2008-07-31, 11:24 | Link #1178 |
French Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: I live in France ! xD
|
I'm a bouddhist and i am "fier" to be that.
Why ? Because, the bouddha's religion it's not a really religion. There aren't obligations for the persons who praticed that. So, if you don't understand, it's normal, i'm french ... |
2008-07-31, 12:08 | Link #1179 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Well... Buddhism is and isn't a religion by Western standards. It sort of depends on which form of Buddhism is being discussed since several forms have absorbed or integrated with pre-buddhist religions that were in the area (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism, Japan's swirl of Shinto and Buddhism, several Indonesian versions of Buddhism, etc).
More concrete descriptions of Buddhism don't tend to be cluttered with speculation on the afterlife so much as how to live here and now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism and http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm ... those links are fair starting points.
__________________
|
2008-07-31, 12:17 | Link #1180 |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Oh my goodness. I followed your second link and learnt, for the first time, that the Boy Scouts of America expels Atheists, Agnostics and homosexuals.
I find that extremely hilarious because of this: Hint: Read the title very carefully. |
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
Thread Tools | |
|
|