Do you think that God had sent the wrong people for guidance?

[cardaway]

Yes, very true, Cardaway. I would go so far as to say there are some truths that are for all practical purposes "absolute." I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The issue, though, is when people assume that the entire set of their beliefs constitute the entire set of those absolute truths. Generally, those absolute truths are a small subset of any one belief system.

Exactly. Murder, rape, stealing... pretty absolute. Dress codes, diet, rituals... not so much.

 

[hokiefan33]

Sorry to disagree, but this is one of the biggest piles of horse crap I've seen come down the highway in a while.

To answer your question: The only way to believe in black-and-white is to assume that your own perspective trumps that of everyone else -- in other words, to commit the sin of hubris. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists... to assert that there is an absolute Truth (that isn't theirs ) would be to assert that those hundreds of millions of people are deluded, and to assume that would be morally wrong.

First off, that's not answering my question. A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed, b/c I phrased my question in a "yes/no" manner. Either there IS such a thing as absolute truth, or there IS NOT. Which is it? You're arguing that there IS NOT, b/c you say that if there were, then basically some people's beliefs would then be "right", and some would be "wrong", and you say that would be "morally wrong."
You're own argument defeats itself. First, as to whether there is absolute truth or not. Take these statements, for example. 2+2=4. The Earth revolves around the sun. We need oxygen in the air to survive. These are absolute truths, whether you are Baptist or Buddhist, b/c there is nobody on Earth for whom these statements would NOT be true. Therefore, they are always absolutely true. Now, they don't correspond to any religious belief, or any belief system in general, but that doesn't mean that they still aren't absolute truths, right?
Second, you say that "there are hundreds of millions of Buddhists... to assert that there is an absolute Truth (that isn't theirs ) would be to assert that those hundreds of millions of people are deluded, and to assume that would be morally wrong." Well, in order for it to be "morally wrong", there has to be some standard that defines "right" and "wrong", or you can't say it's wrong, b/c you have nothing to compare it to! So if it's "morally wrong" to assert something such as an absolute religious truth (which might run contrary to the Buddhist beliefs), what is it "morally wrong" according to? What is the basis for it being wrong? Your morals? My morals? Morals in general? What if people's morals are different (and we know they are)? What then, what is the standard? I think the argument crumbles...

Each person has an unequivocal human right to pursue their search for Truth on their own terms. We establish societies so that people can live together while pursuing this search individually. Where societies exists with people who cannot tolerate others pursuing that search in their own way, we have strife. Luckily, we live in a society where, at least on paper, that type of intolerance is unacceptable.

I agree that each person has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I'm not arguing that anyone be "forced" to believe anything, b/c then it's not a "belief" but something that you have been forced to accept under pressure. However, that doesn't mean that some people can't be "right", while others are "wrong." You seem to not want to say that anyone is right or wrong. Why? Does it hurt someone's feelings? If someone says "2+2=5", do you tell them that's true if that's what they want to believe, or do you tell them that is wrong? I suppose what you are now thinking is that 2+2=4 has been and can be proven, while the existence of God cannot be proven by the pagan scientists who choose to look for ANY means available to explain things OTHER than God. So I assume your argument might then be "it's only absolutely true if it can be proven to be absolutely true." Might that be it?

 

[hokiefan33]

Respect for the beliefs of others is an implicit obligation, but only so far as that respect is returned. When folks seek to protect their right to live within themselves in accordance with their own beliefs, I'm first in queue to defend their right. When folks seek to impinge on the rights of others to live within themsevles in accordance with their own beliefs, I'm first in queue to object.

Again, I don't disagree with most of this. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you choose to believe. But just b/c you believe it, that doesn't necessarily mean it is "right", does it? If you think it does, what is your basis for thinking that?

Rather, what is reasonable to expect is to grant that Buddhist truth to a Buddhist is the same as Biblical truth is to you.

Absolutely not. No way. What is it "reasonable" based upon, what you believe? What they believe? What I believe? What is your basis for it being reasonable? I'll grant that the Buddhist has the right to believe what they want to believe, but I will NEVER grant that WHAT they believe IS THE SAME AS what I believe, b/c by definition of what we believe, we don't believe in the same things.[/quote]

It's a matter of scope. If you believe in an absolute truth "for you" then it is absolute for you -- but technically isn't completely absolute.

Agreed. Absolute truth is only absolute if it applies to everyone. And there ARE things for which this is true. And I personally believe that religion is one area in which this applies.

 

[simpilotswife]

Agreed. Absolute truth is only absolute if it applies to everyone. And there ARE things for which this is true. And I personally believe that religion is one area in which this applies.

But that is an absolute truth for you and not for everyone else. Even within Christianity truths are not absolute across the spectrum. Just ask a Catholic versus a Baptist versus a Mormon.

 

[bicker]

hokiefan33: You will need to revise your remarks to show that you have the level of maturity necessary to engage in a discussion such as this before I address any of your comments.

 

[scubamouse]

Yes, very true, Cardaway. I would go so far as to say there are some truths that are for all practical purposes "absolute." I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The issue, though, is when people assume that the entire set of their beliefs constitute the entire set of those absolute truths. Generally, those absolute truths are a small subset of any one belief system.

it was clear to me but I didn't think you were using big words i agree w/you and cardaway.

oh and I love this site but it doesn't deal a whole lot in absolutes :

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

 

[hokiefan33]

hokiefan33: You will need to revise your remarks to show that you have the level of maturity necessary to engage in a discussion such as this before I address any of your comments.

Honestly, I could care less whether you address my comments or not. I've think they've been sufficient to show that your thoughts on reality, the universe, "truth", etc... are crap. I'm not real concerned with what you think my level of maturity is. This pantheist way of thinking is just insane, if you ask me, but again, it's your right to believe in it. I think one day you'll wish you hadn't, but it IS your right.

 

[bicker]

Thanks for making your position clear. I'll respect your right to be as intolerant as you wish (calling concepts you don't like "horse crap" or "insane"), as long as you keep your perspectives from interfering in my life.

 

[WDWHound]

A few thoughts:

A beleive in absolute truth. Things are the way they are. The way we observe and what we see as a result changes, but the thing we observe does not change (except for the effect that our observation might have on it but lets leave that particular cat in its box for now),

I beleive that no man has the power to accurately observe or understand absolute truth completely. Therin lies much the problem, because no one can speak with absolute authority as to exactly how things work (this is a very fundemental Christian teaching by the way).

I beleive that some beleifs must be right and some beliefs must be wrong, simply because many beleifs are contradictory. (Karma exists or it doesn't, Jesus was the Son of God or he wasn't). I also believe that the observation issue makes it really, really hard to speak to what is right and wrong.

I beleive my beliefs are correct (or I wouldnt really beleive them), and I expect and respect that those with opposing beleifs also feel that their beliefs are correct. The fact that each of us feel the other is wrong (at least on some points) should not preclude respect for each others beleifs.

 

[hokiefan33]

Thanks for making your position clear. I'll respect your right to be as intolerant as you wish (calling concepts you don't like "horse crap" or "insane"), as long as you keep your perspectives from interfering in my life.

You're welcome for making my position clear. Seems I DON'T need to revise my comments in order for you to respond to me...

Intolerant. There's that word again. I LOVE IT! It, along with "close-minded" are 2 of my FAVORITE words in the English language! If you think my opinion about your opinion is intolerant, then you also think that everyone's opinion that doesn't match someone else's opinion on something is also intolerance. So basically we're all intolerant for having opinions that differ. Got it, makes a LOT of sense. Good one. Pantheism at its very finest. Have no opinions, b/c there's no absolutes, but when an opinion disagrees with pantheism, it then becomes an absolute falsehood, and is intolerant. Right.

And my perspectives can't possibly interfere in your life. You don't know me, and I don't know you. So unless you listen to what I say, which I imagine you won't, it won't interfere. Don't worry.

 

[WDWHound]

All Prophets were sent by Allah for the guidance of mankind. Do you think that God had sent the wrong people for guidance?

As for the original question, God did not send the wrong people, he simply sent people. With the exception of Jesus, they all had their warts and flaws. Thats the beauty of it. In choosing people like David for Holy purpose, God is showing us that we too can serve God in powerful ways despite our warts and flaws. We don't have to be perfect, only repentant and willing to do the best we can for God. If God never accepted men who screwed up mightly, no man could ever get the chance to serve mightly.

Good to see you back, yasooa. I hope this isn't another post and run, and that you will stick around to discuss your faith with us.

 

[cardaway]

Religion in based on faith. Anything based on faith is not by defintion a fact.

Does truth = fact? IMO, yes.

 

[hokiefan33]

Religion in based on faith. Anything based on faith is not by defintion a fact.

Does truth = fact? IMO, yes.

Of course, nobody knows what cardaway actually believes about religion (Christianity, the Bible to be true/false, Jesus as the only way, one true God, etc...) b/c he never takes a stand on anything, just takes his pot shots from the sidelines or from the middle of the fence.

People may not agree with me or what I believe about my religion, but at least they know where I stand in my beliefs.

 

[WDWHound]

Religion in based on faith. Anything based on faith is not by defintion a fact.

Does truth = fact? IMO, yes.

I understand what you are saying, but facts are facts even before we prove them. They are simply unproven facts. Reality does not giuve one whit whther or not we have proven it yet. There are many facts abouyt the way the universe functions now that we have not yet even begun to understand or prove, but they are still true right now.

Also, faith is not just a wild guess as too the way things ware. True faith is not blind faith. Faith is based on the real experiences of the beleiver that bear out their faith. Like all observations, this feedback is relative to the beleiver, but that does not make it true or untrue.

 

[WDWHound]

Of course, nobody knows what cardaway actually believes about religion (Christianity, the Bible to be true/false, Jesus as the only way, one true God, etc...) b/c he never takes a stand on anything, just takes his pot shots from the sidelines or from the middle of the fence.

People may not agree with me or what I believe about my religion, but at least they know where I stand in my beliefs.

Actually, Cardaway has indeed shared some of his beleifs with us in a clear fashion.

He believes in God.
He believes all faiths are attempts to understand God, and are therefore pretty much equal.
He Beleives all faiths are attempts to understand that which we do yet really know.

Mike, please correct me if I am wrong on any of this. I do not want to misrepresent you here.

 

[hokiefan33]

Actually, Cardaway has indeed shared some of his beleifs with us in a clear fashion.

He believes in God.
He believes all faiths are attempts to understand God, and are therefore pretty much equal.
He Beleives all faiths are attempts to understand that which we do yet really know.

Mike, please correct me if I am wrong on any of this. I do not want to misrepresent you here.

That's too general - a lot of people believe that! Which God does he believe in? The God of the Holy Bible? The god of the Muslims? Allah? Buddah? What about salvation? How do you attain it? Are there numerous ways, or one as the Bible says? Are some religions "right" and others "wrong", with respect to their beliefs about God and salvation? THOSE are beliefs - what is stated above are just generalities that a lot of people have.

 

[WDWHound]

That's too general - a lot of people believe that! Which God does he believe in? The God of the Holy Bible? The god of the Muslims? Allah? Buddah? What about salvation? How do you attain it? Are there numerous ways, or one as the Bible says? Are some religions "right" and others "wrong", with respect to their beliefs about God and salvation? THOSE are beliefs - what is stated above are just generalities that a lot of people have.

No, its not too general, at least not to qualify as a faith. You and I would disagree with it, but Univeralism is a faith. The belief that all faiths are ways of describing the same thing may be common, but so what? Christianityb is a common beleif too. You ask him to pick a God, but what if he feels they are all different viewsd of the same God. Many people beleive that when a faith such as Christianity gets too specific, it is going beyond what we can know. Of course you and I would disagree because its is very very fdifferent than what we beleive, but cant you at least understand the basis for a faith like Caraway's?

(Again, I hope I am getting it right. My appologies if I have mistated your views Mike).

 

[scubamouse]

No, its not too general, at least not to qualify as a faith. You and I would disagree with it, but Univeralism is a faith. The belief that all faiths are ways of describing the same thing may be common, but so what? Christianityb is a common beleif too. You ask him to pick a God, but what if he feels they are all different viewsd of the same God. Many people beleive that when a faith such as Christianity gets too specific, it is going beyond what we can know. Of course you and I would disagree because its is very very fdifferent than what we beleive, but cant you at least understand the basis for a faith like Caraway's?

(Again, I hope I am getting it right. My appologies if I have mistated your views Mike).

I'm Christian (although to some I'd venture Episcopalian doesn't count) and there are many times when I think Universalism is the only explanation. No it's not in the Bible but humans have spen2 2 millenia killing eachother in the name of their God and maybe there's one God and He has delivered multiple paths to Him to see if any of us focus on the love and understanding within each faith.

I can't wrap my head around a God that allows all the Jews, Hindus and Muslims to burn for all eternity because they don't accept Jesus as their savior. Jesus may be my path but I'm not ready to say that he's the only path.

 

[hokiefan33]

No, its not too general, at least not to qualify as a faith. You and I would disagree with it, but Univeralism is a faith. The belief that all faiths are ways of describing the same thing may be common, but so what? Christianityb is a common beleif too. You ask him to pick a God, but what if he feels they are all different viewsd of the same God. Many people beleive that when a faith such as Christianity gets too specific, it is going beyond what we can know. Of course you and I would disagree because its is very very fdifferent than what we beleive, but cant you at least understand the basis for a faith like Caraway's?

(Again, I hope I am getting it right. My appologies if I have mistated your views Mike).

I disagree, I think what you said above about his beliefs (again, don't know why HE won't say it, but for whatever reason he just won't) is quite general. I'm just asking him to pick a side of the fence, and state what he believes, whether it agrees with me or not (and I'm sure it doesn't). I'm not asking him to pick a god, I'm asking him to say what he believes about god. He may believe that there are many gods; that's his choice, whether I agree with it or not. But at least if he says it, then you know that's what he believes. To say you "believe in God" is not good enough, b/c you have not defined "God", and the "God" of the Bible is NOT THE SAME as the god of other religions, by definition of their attributes and what is believed about them!

I could have reasonably guessed universalism, however...

 

[hokiefan33]

I'm Christian (although to some I'd venture Episcopalian doesn't count) and there are many times when I think Universalism is the only explanation. No it's not in the Bible but humans have spen2 2 millenia killing eachother in the name of their God and maybe there's one God and He has delivered multiple paths to Him to see if any of us focus on the love and understanding within each faith.

I can't wrap my head around a God that allows all the Jews, Hindus and Muslims to burn for all eternity because they don't accept Jesus as their savior. Jesus may be my path but I'm not ready to say that he's the only path.

I would have to say that I'm not sure you know exactly WHAT you believe. How can you believe Christianity, but think that Universalism is the only explanation for many things? By doing that, you are not relying on your faith in God's mighty abilities to explain things, but the fact that if you can't tangibly prove it or if it doesn't make sense, it must not be God but something else. How is that even a Christian belief? It's not.

Humans have killed other humans in the name of God, that is true. But do you realize that a conservative estimate of the number of people killed in such "religious" wars as the Crusades, the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials is less than 500k? Look at the number of people killed by atheist or agnostic movements, or those who headed movements who held those beliefs, such as Hitler or Stalin? They number in the tens, if not hundreds, of MILLIONS. So who do you think more people were killed in the name of? God, or no God?

You use words like "maybe" and "I can't wrap my head around" to describe your beliefs. Why are you not sure? Faith makes you sure, when you don't think you can tangibly prove it. If you believe Jesus is the path, you must have a reason for believing that, which I assume is the Bible. And if you use the Bible as your basis, you also have to know that the Bible says Jesus is the ONLY way, not just A way, and there's a big difference between the 2!