leonheartmm
Senior Member
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't believe the Earth was literally created in 6 days or that it's 6,000 years old. I also don't literally believe that Rottweilers and Himalayans are falling out of the sky when someone says "Its raining cats and dogs". Most people know a metaphor when they hear one.Unlike Shaky, I don't tweak my religion's teaching about God and what God might be.
Like me and Devil King pointed out, he's a fad Buddhist.
I did address it.
Ijole guey. That's something a 12-year-old would say.
how do you know a metaphor when you hear one. the bible you read has been translated from greek which is a different language and had different styles of metaphors and semantics. jesus didnt speak greek to begin with which puts a second level to that claim. also, how do you differentiate between metaphor and factual statements in the bible? as i see it, there are many fantastical statements in the bible often havign to do with miraculous /physically impossible/supernatural things, so which ones do you try to reconcile with the natural reality that you se around you and which ones do you leave as they were{for instance, the resurrection of jesus is as physically impossible as the rapture or god creating the world in 6 days, yet you seem to think the first first one is fact while the second one is a metaphor}. seems to me that with the progressing psychological and logical complexity in the human race , the statements which obviously are nonsensical are said to be metaphors while others which are not complete logical contradictions are kept as literal. {e.g. there was no time before the universe was created and days on earth are an insignificant perceptual phenomenon dependant on time which didnt exist before creation. so it makes more sense to call this a metaphor{which still doesnt make sense since we dont know what the SYMBOLIC use of words like 7 days is referring to in actual reality} while resurrection of jesus does not challenge such basic concepts as space and time so it is left as it is.
in my oppinion, this is merely apologetic tries to reconcile the scriptures with the modern world which increasingly denies their validity. in reality, if a statement really IS true, then its meaning should be apparent and lucid to the readers WITHOUT the help of any scientific knowhow to reconcile it with. {e.g. if man was created from a congealed clot of blood, as is said in the quran, really refers to the process of creation of humans, than WITHOUT scientific knowhow, a person who reads it should be able to tell others the exact stages of human fetal development and how it looks. otherwise, it is just a vague enough statement that people can claim that the congealed clot of blood analogy refers to the fetus at so and so stage and perfectly describes it to a layman, while any more discoveries in the scientific theory would also simply be inculcated int he scriptural definition, which is vague enough to allow it. such statements in scriptures, hence have little to no validity}
also. your relegion and shaky's are worlds apart. you can be a christian and still be a buddhist according to the buddhist school of thought while it wud be unheard of in christianity. unlike christianity, buddh never preached to stop thinking or finding more and more out for themselves. the teaching are not set in stone and are a general guide to the world. buddhism has nothing much to say about god, it isnt deoendant on the idea and is non theistic neither opposing nor promoting it.
i do not think he is a fad buddhist, re rread my post, buddhism doesnt depend on the same type of fundamentals as christianity. the self righteousness found in christianity which drives followers to adhere to DOGMA and be quick to seperate themselves from other beleifs as well as label members heretics or hypocrites isnt present in any comparebale magnitude in buddhism as far as i know.