Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, I don’t like the giving of references, now? 😑 😑
mmm
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
bluewaterrider, why do you always defer to someone else when you are asked a question. Do you NOT have any of your own ideas?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWhat about the rest of the stuff?
What about my question?
…and don’t ask me what question!
mmm
"I want you to answer my question, but I won't tell you what that question is"?
From the context and hints you've given the past 30 hours, though, I can gather one thing you're asking is/was
"What did you think of my answer that the Adam and Eve story MUST be fictional because it uses personification?
My response is that I don't think it's valid.
One reason is, as I pointed out before, if the Bible/Tanakh etcetera is true,
man was created in God's image, not vice versa.
I know that you hold the opposite view; you've posted as much in your profile as your biography; a strange thing for a Buddhist to post indeed.
(I took a screen capture and highlighted that line if you have difficulty remembering it, and you can see it at the bottom.)
But that's the Biblical view.
The Bible as history, if you will.
You ALSO err in claiming personification is the exclusive feature of fiction.
It is not.
And I am not at all sure you are aware of that.
In point of fact, there is a whole genre popular today called creative nonfiction, and, of course, I am providing a link for you and excerpts from the same to back that up:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creative nonfiction requires that you write true and factual narratives, not fiction. You’ll want to present the truth and facts in a compelling, entertaining, and memorable way so that others will be inspired to read your story. To write any of these forms of creative nonfiction, you have many techniques to choose from, such as scene, summary, personal reflection ...
In creative nonfiction, there are five popular narrative structures or shapes:
Narrative structure: Telling the story chronologically, from beginning to end.
Braided Structure: Telling a story by weaving or combining two, sometimes three, narratives or stories.
Collage: Using a thematic and segmented approach that combines a quotation or two, poem, scene, metaphor, simile, allusion, personification, image, vignette, anecdote, a short, short, true story, with an epiphany.
Frame: Telling a story by opening with a particular scene or reflecting and closing with a particular scene or reflection.
Narrative with Flashback: Telling a story using scene, summary, reflection, and flashbacks.
As well ... you can experiment with the narrative structure, resulting in a new structure or shape ... "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://davehood59.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/writing-creative-nonfiction-a-toolbox-of-techniques/
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In other words, you were using what is called a fallacy of equivocation to try and mess with me, and it was YOU who were actually trying to cause trouble 😬 ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacious reasoningEquivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"😉, this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Don't worry guys! All other scriptures are relevant to everyone here but the Bible has no merit, Instead of getting smarter and working together people want to dumb themselves down.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"I want you to answer my question, but I won't tell you what that question is"? [/B]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
From the context and hints you've given the past 30 hours, though, I can gather one thing you're asking is/was [/B]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
My response is that I don't think it's valid. [/B]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
One reason is, as I pointed out before, if the Bible/Tanakh etcetera is true,
man was created in God's image, not vice versa. [/B]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I know that you hold the opposite view; you've posted as much in your profile as your biography; a strange thing for a Buddhist to post indeed. [/B]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
(I took a screen capture and highlighted that line if you have difficulty remembering it, and you can see it at the bottom.) [/B]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
But that's the Biblical view.
The Bible as history, if you will. [/B]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You ALSO err in claiming personification is the exclusive feature of fiction.
It is not.
And I am not at all sure you are aware of that.
In point of fact, there is a whole genre popular today called creative nonfiction, and, of course, I am providing a link for you and excerpts from the same to back that up:
[/B]
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So since you consider rampant personification to be okay to use in a 'historical' work that is supposed to tell the absolute truth about creation, why don't you educate us on the valid reasons why said work should be considered sound at all?Or is that not in your bag of quotes?
As I stated back on page 5, Moose:
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm not trying to prove to you that the story of Adam and Eve is real.
On the other hand, I AM testing out how strong the evidence against it is, at least as the posters in this forum can present it.
So far, at least in the case of Shakyamunison and yourself, it has not been that strong.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. You answer my question first.
I did answer your question, Shakyamunison.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This seems like something a pervert would do. Are you a pervert?
I'm familiar with the practice of KMC members using name-calling and ad hominems as "debate" tactics.
It's often used by younger posters, after all.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible as a lie, if you will.
You never DID look up the book mentioned in this thread, did you?
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t589476.html
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, Gone with the Wind would fit this. The Civil War really did happen, but that does not mean that Scarlett O’Hara was real.
Gone with the Wind does NOT fit the definition of Creative NonFiction.
Re-read the first few lines of the excerpt I gave:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creative nonfiction requires that you write true and factual narratives, not fiction.
You’ll want to present the truth and facts in a compelling, entertaining, and memorable way
so that others will be inspired to read your story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://davehood59.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/writing-creative-nonfiction-a-toolbox-of-techniques/
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would God have a name? And why would humans know that name? Therefore I must conclude that Yahweh, Allah or Jehovah are gods.
Moses said he needed to give his people a name, he said "I am that I am" Moses said thats not going to work for these mortal's, He said my name is "I am that I am" but you may call me Yahweh.
Originally posted by Supra
First, the best thing to do is place the moose on ignore, he's not worth your time.
I confess I am mystified as to why the moderators let Moose insult and flame people the way he does. Even NemeBro called him on it in the Titanic Gospel thread.
On the other hand, it's not just Moose reading this thread and I'm quite familiar now with his program:
1. use emotionally charging language. anger and fluster opponent if possible
2. misrepresent opponent viewpoint(s)
3. press hard problems by presenting false dichotomies
4. use what Noam Chomsky might call the fallacy of concision to try to thwart people holding non-mainstream views.
5. try to employ false time pressure. "answer this by next response, else I leave and declare myself the winner", etcetera
6. dodge, obfuscate, and/or misdirect, even as you accuse your opponent of the same
7. falsely claim initiative, the "right" to be the one asking questions
8. employ the help of others
Again, though, I recognize what Moose is doing, so it's largely wasted on me.
Frankly, about the only things I want from Moose at the moment are for him to answer for himself instead of having Shaky do it, and, secondly, clarify what supposed question or questions he's asked that I've not yet answered.
Your can't argue with crazy man, I really want to save you the trouble I went through and just place him on ignore. In the end nothing you say makes a difference to him. He will troll you to no end. Just hit ignore on him and save yourself the head ache.
Shaky on the other hand is cool, just be cool with him and he will cool with you.
Originally posted by Supra
Shaky is worth talking to, at first I didn't understand him but he means well and is actually pretty cool.
This is actually presenting me with a hard challenge, the idea that Shaky may indeed be sincere about the things he does.
For the following, posted on page 1 of his thread in this forum, is the apparent foundation of his beliefs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical Buddhism
Here is a gosh from "The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin"
This is the fundamental doctrine of my religion
On Attaining Buddhahood
- Issho Jobutsu Sho -
If you wish to free yourself from the sufferings of birth and death you have endured through eternity and attain supreme enlightenment in this lifetime, you must awaken to the mystic truth which has always been within your life. This truth is Myoho-renge-kyo. Chanting Myoho-renge-kyo will therefore enable you to grasp the mystic truth within you. Myoho-renge-kyo is the king of sutras, flawless in both letter and principle. Its words are the reality of life, and the reality of life is the Mystic Law (Myoho). It is called the Mystic Law because it explains the mutually inclusive relationship of life and all phenomena. That is why this sutra is the wisdom of all Buddhas.
Life at each moment encompasses both body and spirit and both self and environment of all sentient beings in every condition of life, as well as insentient beings -- plants, sky and earth, on down to the most minute particles of dust. Life at each moment permeates the universe and is revealed in all phenomena. One awakened to this truth himself embodies this relationship. However, even though you chant and believe in Myoho-renge-kyo, if you think the Law is outside yourself, you are embracing not the Mystic Law but some inferior teaching. "Inferior teachings" means those other than this sutra, which are all provisional and transient. No provisional teaching leads directly to enlightenment, and without the direct path to enlightenment you cannot attain Buddhahood, even if you practice lifetime after lifetime for countless aeons. Attaining Buddhahood in this lifetime is then impossible. Therefore, when you chant the Mystic Law and recite the Lotus Sutra, you must summon up deep conviction that Myoho-renge-kyo is your life itself.
You must never seek any of Shakyamuni's teachings or the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the universe outside yourself. Your mastery of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of mortal sufferings in the least unless you perceive the nature of your own life. If you seek enlightenment outside yourself, any discipline or good deed will be meaningless. For example, a poor man cannot earn a penny just by counting his neighbor's wealth, even if he does so night and day. That is why Miao-lo states, "Unless one perceives the nature of his life, he cannot eradicate his evil karma." He means here that unless one perceives the nature of his life, his practice will become an endless, painful austerity. Miao-lo therefore condemns such students of Buddhism as non-Buddhist. He refers to the passage in the Maka Shikan, "Although they study Buddhism, their views revert to those of non-Buddhists."
Whether you chant the Buddha's name, recite the sutra or merely offer flowers and incense, all your virtuous acts will implant benefits in your life. With this conviction you should put your faith into practice. For example, the Jomyo Sutra says the Buddha's enlightenment is to be found in human life, thus showing that common mortals can attain Buddhahood and that the sufferings of birth and death can be transformed into nirvana. It further states that if the minds of the people are impure, their land is also impure, but if their minds are pure, so is their land. There are not two lands, pure or impure in themselves. The difference lies solely in the good or evil of our minds.
It is the same with a Buddha and a common mortal. While deluded, one is called a common mortal, but once enlightened, he is called a Buddha. Even a tarnished mirror will shine like a jewel if it is polished. A mind which presently is clouded by illusions originating from the innate darkness of life is like a tarnished mirror, but once it is polished it will become clear, reflecting the enlightenment of immutable truth. Arouse deep faith and polish your mirror night and day. How should you polish it? Only by chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
What then does myo signify? It is simply the mysterious nature of our lives from moment to moment, which the mind cannot comprehend nor words express. When you look into your own mind at any moment, you perceive neither color nor form to verify that it exists. Yet you still cannot say it does not exist, for many differing thoughts continually occur to you. Life is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both. It is the mystic entity of the Middle Way that is the reality of all things. Myo is the name given to the mystic nature of life, and ho to its manifestations.
Renge, the lotus flower, symbolizes the wonder of this Law. Once you realize that your own life is the Mystic Law, you will realize that so are the lives of all others. That realization is the mystic kyo, or sutra. It is the king of sutras, the direct path to enlightenment, for it explains that the entity of our minds, from which spring both good and evil, is in fact the entity of the Mystic Law. If you have deep faith in this truth and chant Myoho-renge-kyo, you are certain to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime. That is why the sutra states, "After my death, you must embrace this sutra. Those who do so shall travel the straight road to Buddhahood."4 Never doubt in the slightest, but keep your faith and attain enlightenment in this lifetime. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
Respectfully,
Nichiren
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t386032.html
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
As I stated back on page 5, Moose:http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=5
On the other hand, I AM testing out how strong the evidence against it is, at least as the posters in this forum can present it.
So far, at least in the case of Shakyamunison and yourself, it has not been that strong.
This is called 'shifting the burden of proof'. And by lazily doing it, without owning up to your support of the Biblical side of things, you're being incredibly dishonest.
I hope that was simple enough for you to understand and doesn't require elaboration.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This is called 'shifting the burden of proof'. And by lazily doing it, without owning up to your support of the Biblical side of things, you're being incredibly dishonest.I hope that was simple enough for you to understand and doesn't require elaboration.
I've never followed the rationale of this argument.
If the goal of your logic is uncovering the truth, it shouldn't matter which side you approach it from, should it?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've never followed the rationale of this argument.If the goal of your logic is uncovering the truth, it shouldn't matter which side you approach it from, should it?
I can't believe I have to explain this.
You have two people:
1. Person A says "God did all this wondrous stuff. This book tells us so!"
2. Person B says "That's rubbish. What proof do you have besides a book of dubious parentage and nothing testable or tangible?"
3. You say person B needs to 'prove up'.
If you like pictures, I can do that too.