Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😱

Not all religions are the same. Buddhism has added great befits to my life and the people around me. I know you were looking at the bigger picture, but I could help but chime in.

Trust me, I am not buying into his rhetoric. However, it would be nice if he would try to answer my questions.

Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.

Thank you. 😄 But most Christians and Muslims are also laid back and don't infringe on others rights. It's extremism that destroys a religion.

Hrm. True. LIberal Muslims and Christians usually take the best that religion has to offer and don't dwell on the literal wording that sometimes doesn't mesh with modern society.

Sometimes.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Hrm. True. LIberal Muslims and Christians usually take the best that religion has to offer and don't dwell on the literal wording that sometimes doesn't mesh with modern society.

Sometimes.

You are so skeptical. Even secularists sometimes screw things up. 😄

There's a possibility we're all wrong. I just don't see why people want to control, fight and kill each other to prove they they are right.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
There's a possibility we're all wrong. I just don't see why people want to control, fight and kill each other to prove they they are right.

Evolution.

There is a connection between aggression and reproduction. And then there are limited resources. This leads to that killing thing, you mentioned. Plus, killing is so easy. Controlling is what is hard.

That explains the tribal mentality.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That explains the tribal mentality.

We now find ourselves in a completely different environment (cities and infrastructure) then the one we evolved in. The question is, can we survive this new environment.

Wait... was there a topic? 😕

I forget. GIA hasn't returned since we questioned his profound knowledge.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I forget. GIA hasn't returned since we questioned his profound knowledge.

That seems to be spreading.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
the [Adam and Eve] story has many more personifications then just [the talking "snake"].

Like God walking in the garden.
This is a personification of God, but not really God.

It is not literal.

How do you know it's not literal? Ignoring Jesus as God walking among men in the form of a man, there are also, arguably, Old Testament references of God the Father doing so. Here is one of the more striking accounts to suggest that:

Genesis 32:24

24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. 25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. 26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. 27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. 28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. 29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032:22-32

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

[Parrots, myna birds, and parakeets] do not really talk.
They simply imitate.

That's why I put the word "talk" in quotes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

there HAVE been a few genius parrots that after a life time of training have talked. But their intelligence is more akin to the of a child.

You're contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

What? Why capitalize now?

😕
When would you like me to capitalize?

(Teasing.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Why capitalize "now"?

(Serious.)
Because it's easy to forget just how "absurd" and "ridiculous" things we take for granted in the present were considered in the past before they were found to be correct.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
(Serious.)
Because it's easy to forget just how "absurd" and "ridiculous" things we take for granted in the present were considered in the past before they were found to be correct.

Fun fact: the things we found absurd and ridiculous which were later proven right weren't faith-based assertions from singular sources. They were usually scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon.

There's a huge difference from disbelief in concepts of gravity, radio waves, or genetics versus disbelief in Middle-Eastern mythology.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How do you know it's not literal? Ignoring Jesus as God walking among men in the form of a man, there are also, arguably, Old Testament references of God the Father doing so. Here is one of the more striking accounts to suggest that:

Personifications are never to be taken literally.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That's why I put the word "talk" in quotes.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're contradicting yourself.

Absolutes are their own cage. However, we are not talking about a domesticated genius snake that was trained to talk.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
(Serious.)
Because it's easy to forget just how "absurd" and "ridiculous" things we take for granted in the present were considered in the past before they were found to be correct.

Ignorance is not evidence for magic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Personifications are never to be taken literally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Absolutes are their own cage.

mmm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
... you agree then that the snake could not have talked to Eve?

1) Modern-day standard snake, selected from the known species of today, absent the extraordinary, don't think that could have talked to Eve.

2) Pre-flood snake, of a now-extinct variety of animal, with the ability to imitate human speech like myna birds, parrots, and parakeets of today ... ?

-- would partially explain why there's little suggestion of Eve being absolutely flabbergasted by a snake talking to her ...

-- might explain why Hebrew/Jewish/Greek/Bible/whatever writings suggest the snake crawling on its belly after the affair was not the state of affairs before
(much like the gliding snake shown in the video before apparently spends most of ITS time in TREES as opposed to on the ground like other snakes)

3) Pre-flood snake, with the ability to imitate human speech like special bird species of today, "controlled" by someone else, or used as a visual mouthpiece,
even to Adam playing a trick on Eve via ventriloquism, if you want to go that route ... ("Bible as History by William Poundstone"-style approach)

4) King James Version of the Bible, traditional interpretation ...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Ignorance is not evidence for magic.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.
Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles.
Actually, according to a philosopher like Steven R. Covey, some belief systems yield good things in people's lives
and benefit society BECAUSE they are in alignment with natural principles.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?

Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your religion needs to take responsibility for its past or you're destined to repeat it.

Wait, did you just say you need to apologize for the people killed in Myanmar last year by Buddhists, or did I misunderstand you?

😕

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Associated Press
July 11, 2013 9:24 AM

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) — A Myanmar court sentenced seven Buddhists to between three and 15 years in jail for their roles in a massacre at an Islamic boarding school that left dozens of students and teachers dead, while a Muslim convicted in one related killing received a life sentence.

In all, 24 Buddhists and five Muslims have been sentenced to jail this week for their roles in sectarian rioting March 20 and 21 in the central Myanmar town of Meikhtila. The violence killed at least 43 people and left 12,000 displaced, most of them Muslim.

Previously, few Buddhists had been prosecuted in connection with a wave of sectarian violence that has left more than 250 people dead and 140,000 others fleeing their homes over the past year in this predominantly Buddhist country. Muslims have been prosecuted more frequently, even though they make up the vast majority of the victims.

The state-run Keymon daily said eight people — seven Buddhists and one Muslim — were convicted Wednesday in Meikhtila district court for crimes connected to the massacre at the Mingalar Zayone Islamic Boarding School, where 36 of the deaths from the March rioting occurred.

Buddhist mobs torched the school, Muslim businesses and all but one of the city's 13 mosques following a dispute between a Muslim and a Buddhist at a gold shop and the burning death of a Buddhist monk by four Muslim men. While security forces stood by, a mob attacked Muslims with machetes, metal pipes, chains and stones as they tried to escape the burning school, leaving 32 teenage students and four teachers dead ...

http://news.yahoo.com/myanmar-jails-buddhists-islamic-school-massacre-132411600.html

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
mmm

Do you really think that the word “never” is an absolute? You are taking the word “never” to literally. It’s like a stop sign. If you interpret the word “stop” literally, then you would be stuck at the interception, because you could never go.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
[1) Modern-day standard snake, selected from the known species of today, absent the extraordinary, don't think that could have talked to Eve.

2) Pre-flood snake, of a now-extinct variety of animal, with the ability to imitate human speech like myna birds, parrots, and parakeets of today ... ?

This is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
[-- would partially explain why there's little suggestion of Eve being absolutely flabbergasted by a snake talking to her ...

Have you ever seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Wasn’t it strange that nobody thought it odd that a bunny was engaged to a dancing girl? Wow, long time ago humans and bunnies must have gotten married, but only if I use your logic. The story of Adam and Eve is a fictional story, and in fictional stories people don’t act oddly when confronted by personifications.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
-- might explain why Hebrew/Jewish/Greek/Bible/whatever writings suggest the snake crawling on its belly after the affair was not the state of affairs before
(much like the gliding snake shown in the video before apparently spends most of ITS time in TREES as opposed to on the ground like other snakes)

The bible is not a biology book.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
3) Pre-flood snake, with the ability to imitate human speech like special bird species of today, "controlled" by someone else, or used as a visual mouthpiece,
even to Adam playing a trick on Eve via ventriloquism, if you want to go that route ... ("Bible as History by William Poundstone"-style approach)

And unicorns only dance in the spring time.
You are coming to a faulty conclusion because you haven’t proven that the story of Adam and Eve is real. If the story is not real, then your conclusions are nonsense. Just like the unicorns.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Ignorance is not evidence against what you're calling magic, either.

I wasn’t using that as evidence. I was using the fact that the story of Adam and Eve contains personifications. That was my evidence.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Wait, did you just say you need to apologize for the people killed in Myanmar last year by Buddhists, or did I misunderstand you?...

Humans do evil things, even Buddhists. I still call then Buddhists, and their Karma is part of Buddhism. I don't do what you do. You go through hoops of illogic to say that Catholics are not Christians. I have never said that other schools of Buddhism are not part of Buddhism. I don’t have the authority to do that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you really think that the word “never” is an absolute? You are taking the word “never” to [too] literally.

Googling the word yields the following on my browser:

nev·er
ˈnevər/
adverb
adverb: never

1.
at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever.
"they had never been camping in their lives"
synonyms: not ever, at no time, not at any time, not once; More
literaryne'er
"his room is never tidy"
antonyms: always
2.
not at all.
"he never turned up"
synonyms: not at all, certainly not, not for a moment, under no circumstances, on no account, nevermore; More

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are taking the word “never” to literally. It’s like a stop sign. If you interpret the word “stop” literally, then you would be stuck at the interception, because you could never go.

Fallacy of equivocation?

There is more than one definition for the word "stop", Shaky:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

stop
verb \ˈstäp\

: to not move, walk, etc., after doing so before

: to cause (someone or something) to not move, walk, etc., after doing so before

: to not do something that you have been doing before : to not continue doing something

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 2 covers the case of the car.

So you're wrong in one sense about this.

Let's take the opposite tack, though.
Let's say you're right, despite what we just read above.

What tells you that you should make your car "go" again?
How do you know you should do so without being explicitly told?

Give me a serious answer, please.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

This is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary proof.

Which is a Catch-22.

Is anyone currently looking for such an animal?
Would they recognize it once they came upon it from the state of its current remains?
If a scientist today came upon a fossil of, say, an African Grey Parrot, and did not know this animal spoke, how would he discover that fact?

You cannot even now scientifically prove to me what you had for breakfast on May 23, 1994, can you? But that was a 20 minute event that occurred less than 20 years ago. How would you prove a 20 minute event that occurred well over 2,000 years ago?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Have you ever seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Yes.

I love that movie.

It's one of my favorites.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wasn’t it strange that nobody thought it odd that a bunny was engaged to a dancing girl?

Someone did.

The main protagonist of the story, Eddie Valiant.
Recall the scene in which he was so amazed Betty Boop had to close his mouth.
I can probably find a YouTube clip for you if you don't remember.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Humans do evil things, even Buddhists. I still call then [them] Buddhists, and their Karma is part of Buddhism.
I don't do what you do.
You go through hoops of illogic to say that Catholics are not Christians.
I have never said that other schools of Buddhism are not part of Buddhism. I don’t have the authority to do that.

I'm beginning to suspect that, not only do you not believe God can be found in a book, as, IIRC, you said earlier in this thread,
you haven't actually READ any of the books people claim God can be found in.
Certainly not an Authorized King James version of the Bible.

(Which would nearly perfectly explain why you believe as you do.)

Earlier, for instance, in this very thread, you told me that the story of Lilith predated the Adam and Eve story.
In actuality, it is the Lilith story that followed afterwards.
The Adam and Eve account can be found in the original Jewish Bible (aka "the Tanakh"😉.

---------------------------------------

Here, Shaky.

Read some of what the Bible itself has to say on the subject of being Christian or not:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils?
and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+7:21-23