Perspective from athiests/agnostics

[PerpetualStudent]

Because it has more logic and sense than the rest of them put together.

The tales of the bhudda are equally fantastic and the lineage of the tales and teaching even more questionable than the transmission of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. And as you mention many of the interpretations of bhuddism are religious. None of which gets away from the fact that there is no evidence of rebirth or a cosmic law of justice. You like this worldview so you grant it a benefit you do not grant the Christian worldview. That is inconsistent.

Looking at your posts throughout this thread I am puzzled. You started off hardcore scientific atheist, then you were saying you were stoic (but one who did not feel he owed the world any duty, Marcus Aurelius would disapprove) now you claim bhuddism (but with a bellicose approach to Christianity, something a zen bhuddist would consider an attachment). You attack following a religious tradition of morals (because each religion has committed atrocities). You also attack anyone following their own personal interpretation (how can you trust an individual not to come up with a crazy and dangerous interpretation?).

Altogether this makes me think you're more interested a fight for a fight's sake than any search for truth.

[UKShootist]

The tales of the bhudda are equally fantastic and the lineage of the tales and teaching even more questionable than the transmission of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. And as you mention many of the interpretations of bhuddism are religious. None of which gets away from the fact that there is no evidence of rebirth or a cosmic law of justice. You like this worldview so you grant it a benefit you do not grant the Christian worldview. That is inconsistent.

That, and the rest of it, is a somewhat biased opinion to say the least.

However...

I give neither Buddhism nor Christianity any benefit whatsoever. You rightly say that tales of Buddha are questionable, but no more or less than tales of Christianity or any other religion. There is no evidence of rebirth etc it's true. While there is evidence that Jesus and Mohammed existed there is no evidence whatever of any miracles or divinity attributable to them. Indeed in their case any evidence would point towards paranoid schizophrenia. What Zen Buddhism has is a logic that cannot be denied, even if it turns out to be wrong. I see no logic whatever in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. To me that gives Zen a head start. The fact that some humans have converted Buddhism to a religion and even worship him using prayer wheels that I Consider little short of insane is a failing of those humans and not of the Zen logic.

Looking at your posts throughout this thread I am puzzled. You started off hardcore scientific atheist, then you were saying you were stoic (but one who did not feel he owed the world any duty, Marcus Aurelius would disapprove)

I'm not sure about the hard core scientific atheist. More a hard core scientific agnostic. Not a stoic because I do not feel I owe the world any duty? Perhaps 42 years of serving my country and it's people as a serviceman, a police officers, and a Trading Standards enforcement officer might indicate otherwise. And I certainly didn't say I was a very good stoic.

now you claim bhuddism (but with a bellicose approach to Christianity, something a zen bhuddist would consider an attachment). You attack following a religious tradition of morals (because each religion has committed atrocities). You also attack anyone following their own personal interpretation (how can you trust an individual not to come up with a crazy and dangerous interpretation?).

Moi, bellicose? Hark who's talking. You accuse me of an aggressive attitude when all I offer are the reasons I object to statements made. For a start, if I assume that the 'Christ' in Christianity refers to Jesus then he seems like quite a decent bloke. I do object to many/most of the religious observances that some so called Christians seem to delight in, and why not? If they preach am I not entitled to answer? Why use the word 'attack' when I point out that it is impossible for an outsider to choose which Christian advice to follow? I certainly don't feel I attack anyone following their own personal interpretation, it's what I do with Buddhism after all, I merely point out that anyone's interpretation is likely to be different from anyone else and therefore lacks validity in equal measure.

Altogether this makes me think you're more interested a fight for a fight's sake than any search for truth.

Then at least you prove that you can be just as wrong as anyone else. Also, it takes two to fight, again, as you seem to want to prove for me.

[T_McD]

That will depend upon the morals in question. I can think of some excellent reasons for certain amoral pastimes when the morals in question are, well, questionable. By way of example there are activities that might be considered perfectly moral in the Western World that will get you killed PDQ in an Islamic one.

I should clarify, Following the basic moral principles of Christianity will serve you well in American society.

Love thy neighbor/golden rule, money management, plank in the eye, etc. (not an exhaustive list just what came to mind)

None of this proves the deity, but the principles are logical.

[PerpetualStudent]

I give neither Buddhism nor Christianity any benefit whatsoever.

To me that gives Zen a head start.

Right there. You give zen a headstart.

The fact that some humans have converted Buddhism to a religion and even worship him using prayer wheels that I Consider little short of insane is a failing of those humans and not of the Zen logic..

So your interpretation of zen bhuddism is the only one? Why should I choose yours to weigh in the balance instead of Mongolian bhuddism? Or the Tibetan?

I'm not sure about the hard core scientific atheist. More a hard core scientific agnostic.

I said hardcore atheist because you admitted that there is no conceivable evidence that could sway you to belief in a supernatural.

And I certainly didn't say I was a very good stoic.

While you can argue that your actions conflict with your words, you stated in this thread that you did not feel you owed anyone anything and that rather the world owed you something. This is in conflict to stoic philosophy.

I certainly don't feel I attack anyone following their own personal interpretation, it's what I do with Buddhism after all, I merely point out that anyone's interpretation is likely to be different from anyone else and therefore lacks validity in equal measure.

Ah, then I should dismiss your interpretation of zen bhuddism as well?

Also, it takes two to fight, again, as you seem to want to prove for me.

On the contrary most of your posts have not been aimed at me. I've raised philosophical objections to certain statements and you've generally dropped those arguments because you found other posts easier to fight with. I don't see evidence of searching or reasoning in your posts. Others in the this thread have had honest discussion and searching for the core differences, I don't see that in your posts. I see mocking of other's beliefs and backpedaling from your stated beliefs as soon as they are under threat from reason.

[UKShootist]

Right there. You give zen a headstart.
So your interpretation of zen bhuddism is the only one? Why should I choose yours to weigh in the balance instead of Mongolian bhuddism? Or the Tibetan?




I said hardcore atheist because you admitted that there is no conceivable evidence that could sway you to belief in a supernatural.

While you can argue that your actions conflict with your words, you stated in this thread that you did not feel you owed anyone anything and that rather the world owed you something. This is in conflict to stoic philosophy.

Ah, then I should dismiss your interpretation of zen bhuddism as well?

On the contrary most of your posts have not been aimed at me. I've raised philosophical objections to certain statements and you've generally dropped those arguments because you found other posts easier to fight with. I don't see evidence of searching or reasoning in your posts. Others in the this thread have had honest discussion and searching for the core differences, I don't see that in your posts. I see mocking of other's beliefs and backpedaling from your stated beliefs as soon as they are under threat from reason.

And it's me that is seeking the argument. OK. Whatever.

[Blackwater]

And there you prove my point. My statement about "It says so in this book" is perhaps not quite correct. I should perhaps have said "Because of what I think it says in this book."

You speak of your moonshiner as virtuous, and no doubt he was. Many people profess hearing God. One such was a man named Peter Sutcliffe. otherwise known as the Yorkshire Ripper, who murdered 13 woman and attempted to murder seven others on the orders of God, so he believed. That's what the voice said anyhow. Not so good but completely sincere as any preacher at least.

So, me, as a seeker of truth, who do I ask? You, or another Christian who happens to believe differently from you? This assuming I limit myself to enquiring about Christianity. I might ask help from a devout Muslim and I have met quite a few who seem to be very good people indeed, in fact I am certain they are. If I ask a hundred different Christians about this I am likely to receive about a hundred and ten different answers. Catholics? Presbyterians? Seventh Day Adventists? Quakers? Church of England? Eastern Orthodox? Baptists? Methodists? Anabaptists? Mennonites? Amish? Pentecostalists? Mormons? Who do I follow? Tell me which one is right and then tell me why all the others are wrong? quickly now, because my soul appears to be at hazard. Oddly enough I suspect I would receive more consistent answers at least from Muslims. An interesting thought but they would certainly not convince me.

The next advice, from those professing to be Christians at least, is for me to read the Bible, which I have, and to open my heart to God and or Jesus, which I have with all sincerity. Few people are more sincere that patients in the Coronary Care Unit! All this to no good effect. When it comes to saving my soul it appears that the game is rigged. No wonder I prefer my own philosophy.

If you want to equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer, then you have no desire nor intent to understand real faith, and we cannot help you or provide any service to you except as an outlet for your mischievous desire to provoke. This is not only an insult, but the most unholy and pretentious of asperions among them! If you don't want to know, don't, and don't bother those who do, or want to find further edification beyond that which they already possess.

That was wholly and completely facetious, and not addressed toward any good or worthy goal. If that's how you intend to work here, then we can play that game too. If you wish, let the games begin. Or let's gather ourselves here for a worthy purpose, and discuss these matters of faith without such utter insults. You get to choose.

[UKShootist]

If you want to equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer, then you have no desire nor intent to understand real faith, and we cannot help you or provide any service to you except as an outlet for your mischievous desire to provoke. This is not only an insult, but the most unholy and pretentious of asperions among them! If you don't want to know, don't, and don't bother those who do, or want to find further edification beyond that which they already possess.

That was wholly and completely facetious, and not addressed toward any good or worthy goal. If that's how you intend to work here, then we can play that game too. If you wish, let the games begin. Or let's gather ourselves here for a worthy purpose, and discuss these matters of faith without such utter insults. You get to choose.

An interesting, unexpected, and rather disappointing reply. I point out that a paranoid schizophrenic believes God has spoken to him and his belief is such that he is willing to murder for it. OK, he's crazy in common parlance but his belief is no less sincere than any other. I do not, have not, and will not, equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer. You take a step way too far in that accusation.If it makes you feel better, then consider that I would place Mohammed quite firmly alongside Peter Sutcliffe in regard to conversations with God. I'm merely pointing out that hearing the voice of God is not something unique to the faithful of anyone's preferred faith. When a person tells me that God has spoken to him my first thought is of schizophrenia. If you can accept that schizophrenia exists and can cause people to believe, utterly believe mind you, that God, or someone else has spoken, is speaking, to them, then how am I to deal with a person who says the same thing but who is not formally diagnosed as schizophrenic?

The point of my post was, who do I seek advice from? If I could travel in time should I go seek advice from Pope Alexander VI? Being a Pope he had a direct line of communication with God. He was also an utterly evil depraved man addicted to his own evils. It sometimes seems to me that the last people on earth that might help me find the road to truth about spiritual matters are the faithful.

[Blackwater]

I cannot consider such a possibility without considering it's equal and opposite.




Nirvana nothing? Not hardly. I think that your suggestion is one often heard among Christians who dare not face the truth that another quasi religious philosophy bears some potential for truth. Personally, I do not regard Buddhism as a religion although some sects have made it so. I consider it more of a philosophy of life. Christians consider the search for the truth as an option. A Buddhist, particularly a Zen Buddhist, has no option but to seek the truth though constant rebirths. It's like a trip to the top of a mountain. Everyone is going there whether they like to or not, they have no option, but some take the hard way straight up, others wander around and around, up and down, until the learn their goal is the top. Not the best analogy, but it'll do for now.

Ah! That first line reveals why you can't or won't find real Truth: You cannot, or will not, seriously consider the proposition of Christ's reality, and the reality of Truth, by seeking with your "heart" (that inner "heart of hearts" that true effort is always marked by). You're only conducting an intellectual exercise, and that's all. So it's no wonder you've concluded as you have.

Howevere, had you the will and intent to REALLY seek, with all your heart and all your might and all your soul, the real and everlasting Truth, then your results would almost surely be vastly different from the results you've obtained so far. And if the only satisfaction you've ever sought is mere "intellectual" satisfaction, then you've not even been barking up the right tree.

Now as to nirvanna not being "nothingness," then why do so many of its adherents declare otherwise? Buddha declared rather clearly and unmistakably that he believed it was our attachments to "things" and ideas and emotional needs is what caused all of man's suffering, up to and including war and genocide. Gautama lived in a time of anarchy and upheaval - of murder and mass executions - and his efforts were merely to provide a system of thought and meditation that would tame all this evil, and leave the Chinese culture he lived in a pathway to becoming a place where one could live without undue fear and caution. This, Gautama saw, necessitated the complete and utter detachments of a person from ALL (again, completely) personal attachments to anything or anybody, including ideas. If that's not "nothingness," what could be? I don't know who you've been reading, but there are at least two differing schools of Buddhism, and likely many, many more personal and private beliefs, and small groups who harp on one of the strings Gautama played, to the exclusion of all others. That's just the way willful humans tend to be in any large group. But other than that difference, your description of Buddhism is pretty much spot on, at least as I've come to understand it. So we're not completely separated on this matter.

The crucial point though, is that we're supposed to be considering Christian beliefs, and whether or not they're "silly" or serious and valid. We need to return to that.

[UKShootist]

Greetings. I assume we are back on speaking terms.

Ah! That first line reveals why you can't or won't find real Truth: You cannot, or will not, seriously consider the proposition of Christ's reality, and the reality of Truth, by seeking with your "heart" (that inner "heart of hearts" that true effort is always marked by). You're only conducting an intellectual exercise, and that's all. So it's no wonder you've concluded as you have.

Howevere, had you the will and intent to REALLY seek, with all your heart and all your might and all your soul, the real and everlasting Truth, then your results would almost surely be vastly different from the results you've obtained so far. And if the only satisfaction you've ever sought is mere "intellectual" satisfaction, then you've not even been barking up the right tree.

IF God gave me a heart ( of the spiritual variety) then he also gave me a brain. Both are presumably intended for use.

Now as to nirvanna not being "nothingness," then why do so many of its adherents declare otherwise?

Why do so many Christian 'adherents' have different opinions about Christianity? Perhaps one of them is right. Perhaps one Buddhist is right. Perhaps that one Buddhist is me.

Buddha declared rather clearly and unmistakably that he believed it was our attachments to "things" and ideas and emotional needs is what caused all of man's suffering, up to and including war and genocide. Gautama lived in a time of anarchy and upheaval - of murder and mass executions - and his efforts were merely to provide a system of thought and meditation that would tame all this evil, and leave the Chinese culture he lived in a pathway to becoming a place where one could live without undue fear and caution. This, Gautama saw, necessitated the complete and utter detachments of a person from ALL (again, completely) personal attachments to anything or anybody, including ideas. If that's not "nothingness," what could be? I don't know who you've been reading, but there are at least two differing schools of Buddhism, and likely many, many more personal and private beliefs, and small groups who harp on one of the strings Gautama played, to the exclusion of all others. That's just the way willful humans tend to be in any large group. But other than that difference, your description of Buddhism is pretty much spot on, at least as I've come to understand it. So we're not completely separated on this matter.

The crucial point though, is that we're supposed to be considering Christian beliefs, and whether or not they're "silly" or serious and valid. We need to return to that.

OK, here's what I see as the difference. If a winning argument (discussion, idea, revelation, call it what you will) arises then I can modify, or even delete, my beliefs, such as they are, about Buddhism without trauma. This might be because they are a constant work in progress. Indeed, I believe that to be the essence of Zen, the journey to the truth, which allows me consider all options (including schizophrenia). How might you cope if your belief was overturned by some such overwhelming discussion, idea, revelation, etc.?

But, to Christian beliefs, whether or not they are silly, serious or valid. I consider that much of the New Testament is certainly not silly. There is much nobility of spirit contained within it along with significant facts. Not all of it by any means, but probably a majority. In the Old Testament there may be parts that have some corroboration but for the most part I consider them allegorical at best, and mythological tales at worst. If anything is silly there it is the belief held by some that any of the more ridiculous tales have any basis in truth. That historians and archeologists might have evidence that, for instance, Jerusalem existed (let's keep it easy) is no proof of what happened there. Likewise with Nazareth. Unless of course you accept that the existence of the Temple of Aphrodite is proof that She once existed.

BTW, I believe Buddha spent most of his life in India. From memory I don't recall him travelling in China.

[Blackwater]

That’s all I needed. We cannot have a valid discussion based your personal out of body “experience”.

Why not? Because you can't accept my report of it?

[Blackwater]

Quoting Blackwater

"And anyway, my beliefs/convictions are NOT anchored in scripture. They're anchored in having had the experience of some sort of portal opening to another realm, and having Christ extend His hand to me, and my accepting it. The scriptures just provide edification. "

I was once mistaken for "Big Foot" by a bunch of drunken high school class mates. Their imaginations were just as real as yours. Neither story is believable. I know for a fact that I am NOT Big Foot....I know for a fact you cannot prove yours.

Ah! So it's "imagination" if I do it, and "concrete fact" when you post a belief of yours, no matter how obviously flawed your words may be???? Interesting. Very, very interesting.

[Blackwater]

I cannot consider such a possibility without considering it's equal and opposite.




Nirvana nothing? Not hardly. I think that your suggestion is one often heard among Christians who dare not face the truth that another quasi religious philosophy bears some potential for truth. Personally, I do not regard Buddhism as a religion although some sects have made it so. I consider it more of a philosophy of life. Christians consider the search for the truth as an option. A Buddhist, particularly a Zen Buddhist, has no option but to seek the truth though constant rebirths. It's like a trip to the top of a mountain. Everyone is going there whether they like to or not, they have no option, but some take the hard way straight up, others wander around and around, up and down, until the learn their goal is the top. Not the best analogy, but it'll do for now.

UK, Buddhism is not, as are many religions, a totally uniform and polarized belief system. What you describe is one of the variants of Buddhism, but not the largest one. So OK, I'll accept your version. But I'll stick to mine when considering Buddhism as a general rule. And going back to Gautama's time itself, he NEVER made ANY pretension to being a god, and he never fully revealed just exactly what Nirvana really is. But there too, I'll take your word for it that some of his followers years later discovered what it was and wrote about that. Are we square now???

[Blackwater]

UKShootist - There you have it! A wish for something that you desire to be true.

BW: Nope. It was just a statement of the parameters I would require in order to believe in a religion.

UK: Buddhism is quite capable of providing that also.

BW: Nope. It ain't. Buddhism is and until relatively recently, never claimed that Buddha was a divine god. He grew up in a time of horrible upheavals and general disarray. His only purpose was to try to bring a generally accepted standard of behavior in order to have a more civilized society, and much (hopefully) less war and murder, etc. I'd never be satisfied with a mere "advice giver" who wasn't any higher in status than I am now. Buddha was a very astute and learned brilliant man, but that's all he ever claimed to be. Some of his followers came along much later, and tried to elevate him to the level of a god, but I'm not sure he would have appreciated or allowed something like that. He was likely much too wise, and far too humble. And BTW, he always fought his "inner demons" all his life, and was constantly falling short of his efforts to diminish his desires. Married women were one of his great temptations that he seemingly never mastered.

UK: For me, I want entirely the truth. If I am to die and cease to exist, so be it. In that case I would be doing nothing that countless billions of people have done before me. Hardly a big deal. If there is life after death then I will find out when I die. All I ask is, as Australians say, a 'Fair Go' and I do believe I would be more likely than not to get one. Fairer than what is offered by Christians I would say.

BW: Indeed. it will be as you state. And as to asking for a "Fair Go," we're all given that. Some make use of it, and some merely brush beliefs aside and rely on their own intellects to "work it all out." But if indeed, there really IS a true Heaven, a realm beyond this mortal one, then who and what decides who gets to go there? After all, let just one sinful and self-arrogant entity inside, and it wouldn't be Heaven any more, would it? The Christian God wants only those who have chosen Him, and demonstrated a real and material desire to follow Him in His Heaven. Therefore, those who do not fall into that category must needs be relegated to another realm, and the only other one in existence is hell, where the devil himself resides. That's just how it works, and nothing could be more fair, since God gave all of us the option to choose which side we'd be on. His or Satan's. And not all evil APPEARS to be evil. Much of it appears, at least at first, to be relatively mild and almost innocuous. It'll never be quite as you desire it to be, but it's very real. Too many reliable accounts to think of this as just a game. It's as deadly serious as any undertaking we can tackle in this realm.

UK: An interesting thought is contained in Pascal's Wager.

BW: I forget presently just what that is. Wanna' enlighten me and jog my memory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

All the more interesting because it pretty much applies exactly to Zen Buddhism as much as Christianity. Possibly more so.[/QUOTE]

[Blackwater]

Because it has more logic and sense than the rest of them put together. There is sound evidence that both Jesus and Mohammed existed but none to contradict the possibility that they were deluded, or in the case of Mohammed, the world's biggest lying conman. Why do Mormons believe the tale that Joseph Smith told? And why might anyone equally believe the supernatural tales of the Bible?

OK. So if that's your belief, then the stage is yours. Explain for us plebian believers just how reincarnation makes more sense than Heaven and Hell. I await your response with anticipation.

[Blackwater]

That, and the rest of it, is a somewhat biased opinion to say the least.

However...

I give neither Buddhism nor Christianity any benefit whatsoever. You rightly say that tales of Buddha are questionable, but no more or less than tales of Christianity or any other religion. There is no evidence of rebirth etc it's true. While there is evidence that Jesus and Mohammed existed there is no evidence whatever of any miracles or divinity attributable to them. Indeed in their case any evidence would point towards paranoid schizophrenia. What Zen Buddhism has is a logic that cannot be denied, even if it turns out to be wrong. I see no logic whatever in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. To me that gives Zen a head start. The fact that some humans have converted Buddhism to a religion and even worship him using prayer wheels that I Consider little short of insane is a failing of those humans and not of the Zen logic.




I'm not sure about the hard core scientific atheist. More a hard core scientific agnostic. Not a stoic because I do not feel I owe the world any duty? Perhaps 42 years of serving my country and it's people as a serviceman, a police officers, and a Trading Standards enforcement officer might indicate otherwise. And I certainly didn't say I was a very good stoic.




Moi, bellicose? Hark who's talking. You accuse me of an aggressive attitude when all I offer are the reasons I object to statements made. For a start, if I assume that the 'Christ' in Christianity refers to Jesus then he seems like quite a decent bloke. I do object to many/most of the religious observances that some so called Christians seem to delight in, and why not? If they preach am I not entitled to answer? Why use the word 'attack' when I point out that it is impossible for an outsider to choose which Christian advice to follow? I certainly don't feel I attack anyone following their own personal interpretation, it's what I do with Buddhism after all, I merely point out that anyone's interpretation is likely to be different from anyone else and therefore lacks validity in equal measure.



Then at least you prove that you can be just as wrong as anyone else. Also, it takes two to fight, again, as you seem to want to prove for me.

Gee whiz, UK!!! None of us here owe you anything but the benefit of a doubt. But you're quickly defining yourself to not be deserving nor desirous of that benefit! You seem now to just want to parade your disbeliefs out in front of a bunch of true believers, and what purpose that could serve, other than padding your ego, is totally beyond me. Your views are piece-mealed together out of your doubts, and thus, are worth nothing - not even to your own self. So why does a man adopt such self-deprecating "philosophies" and attitudes?

I have a sense that somewhere along the line, your heart was broken, and that you've never really recovered from that. So now, you just take the opposite of whatever the established views may be, just to be contrary, and maybe to be spiteful to the Lord you once may have believed in. If that's true, then all you have to do is recognize that all of us get our hearts broken at some time or another. I lost the closest thing I'll ever have to having another son when he was killed in an auto accident not 300 yds. from my back door. He was a truly wonderful and gifted young man. He was 20 when he died. He and my son were born only a few sparse days apart. Yes, I know what a broken heart feels like, and the salty tears that one can't stop from coming and coming and coming. But sorrow need not destroy our faith. We have always known that life is delicate, and disappears in an instant. And the God who made us all has the right to take any of us home any time He pleases. If He wants a few youth for Heaven's choir, He has all the right to take them that anyone could possibly need. That's a hard truth to face, but really, not facing it is much worse.

Whatever be the source of your contrariness and egotistical positions, I sincerely hope that whatever the cause, you reconcile it before shuffling off this mortal coil. But in the end, it's all up to you, my friend. God bless you.

[Blackwater]

An interesting, unexpected, and rather disappointing reply. I point out that a paranoid schizophrenic believes God has spoken to him and his belief is such that he is willing to murder for it. OK, he's crazy in common parlance but his belief is no less sincere than any other. I do not, have not, and will not, equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer. You take a step way too far in that accusation.If it makes you feel better, then consider that I would place Mohammed quite firmly alongside Peter Sutcliffe in regard to conversations with God. I'm merely pointing out that hearing the voice of God is not something unique to the faithful of anyone's preferred faith. When a person tells me that God has spoken to him my first thought is of schizophrenia. If you can accept that schizophrenia exists and can cause people to believe, utterly believe mind you, that God, or someone else has spoken, is speaking, to them, then how am I to deal with a person who says the same thing but who is not formally diagnosed as schizophrenic?

The point of my post was, who do I seek advice from? If I could travel in time should I go seek advice from Pope Alexander VI? Being a Pope he had a direct line of communication with God. He was also an utterly evil depraved man addicted to his own evils. It sometimes seems to me that the last people on earth that might help me find the road to truth about spiritual matters are the faithful.

Sincerity and depth of belief does NOT equate to validity of belief. Real faith is proven and reliable and consistent. That is NOT the case in your example. And the "hearing of voices" as you describe them above, is NOT the same for a Christian in a conversion experience, and that of a paranoid schizophrenic. And BTW, I have a little experience with paranoid schizophrenics. I nearly had to shoot one once. I am glad I didn't have to pull the trigger. So yeah, I know paranoid schizophrenics, and I know Christians, and they are in NO way comparable. 'Nuff said.

[Blackwater]

UKShootist: Greetings. I assume we are back on speaking terms.

BW: Of course!

UK: IF God gave me a heart ( of the spiritual variety) then he also gave me a brain. Both are presumably intended for use.

BW: Fine, then use them, but NOT to find ways to negate Christian belief and orthodoxy, but to find your OWN path and beliefs within the very large canopy of Christianity. Then, it would truly be YOUR faith.

UK: Why do so many Christian 'adherents' have different opinions about Christianity? Perhaps one of them is right. Perhaps one Buddhist is right. Perhaps that one Buddhist is me.

BW: Simple! Because God is a huge entity, not unlike a huge, mountain sized diamond, and each of us is given to see only a relatively small number of facets, or maybe it's that a small number of those facets move us to the degree that we become "overstimulated," and become so self-absorbed that we try to establish our own little nook within Christianity called a "sect." And Buddha NEVER claimed the status of a god. Only his disciples, some 300 years or so later, tried to establish him as a god. But other Buddhists tend to strongly reject that belief, and they compose the much larger segment of Buddhism. Real religion has a god at its center. Other belief systems are merely philosophies. That's all.
UK: OK, here's what I see as the difference. If a winning argument (discussion, idea, revelation, call it what you will) arises then I can modify, or even delete, my beliefs, such as they are, about Buddhism without trauma. This might be because they are a constant work in progress. Indeed, I believe that to be the essence of Zen, the journey to the truth, which allows me consider all options (including schizophrenia). How might you cope if your belief was overturned by some such overwhelming discussion, idea, revelation, etc.?

BW: It'll never happen. Many have claimed in the past to have "disproven" Christianity and all other religions. C. S. Lewis, after being seriously wounded in WWI, came out at the end with a big chip on his shoulder due to the things he'd seen in the war. So, he went to one of England's finer universities with the specific intent of disproving Christianity, for which he had zero respect, and disproving the validity of ANY religion. He was about as ardent and insistent an atheist as you'd ever be able to find today. Most folks' beliefs today are far too wishy-washy to be as adamant as he was about his atheism. And he was awfully proud of it, too, and proclaimed it to any who'd listen to his harangues. And yet, in his effort to disprove religion of any kind, he became a Christian, and not only that, but a Catholic to boot! But go ahead and disprove it if you can. Nothing can really shake true Faith. It's much more of a conviction based on personal experience, than it is a mere "belief."

UK: t, to Christian beliefs, whether or not they are silly, serious or valid. I consider that much of the New Testament is certainly not silly. There is much nobility of spirit contained within it along with significant facts. Not all of it by any means, but probably a majority. In the Old Testament there may be parts that have some corroboration but for the most part I consider them allegorical at best, and mythological tales at worst. If anything is silly there it is the belief held by some that any of the more ridiculous tales have any basis in truth. That historians and archeologists might have evidence that, for instance, Jerusalem existed (let's keep it easy) is no proof of what happened there. Likewise with Nazareth. Unless of course you accept that the existence of the Temple of Aphrodite is proof that She once existed.

BW: If it's proofs you want, Christianity has more of them than any other religion that has ever existed on earth. We can point to the fact that the oldest manuscripts, written many centuries before Christ, precisely match the Bible we read today. We can point to various scientific proofs, that come right up to the threshold of proving God MUST exist, and that He must be a loving and good God, much as described in the Christian Bible and its traditional beliefs. And if such a God exists, then it only makes judicious sense that worshiping Him is our wise and proper place in relation to Him. Proofs abound. They're all around you and me. The only difference is the eyes that look upon them. Some are dull and laggard. Some are bright and perceptive. Some love, while others hate. And therein lies the difference. We all must choose between Love and Hatred. I choose Love. You may choose as you please.

UK: BTW, I believe Buddha spent most of his life in India. From memory I don't recall him travelling in China.

BW: He did indeed travel to India, according to my readings, but yes, he also made it back to China before he died, IIRC. He surely has a lot of adherents these days. Maybe because they've never been really appropriately exposed to good Christian theology, or the reasons we believe. Gautama was indeed a very brilliant man! He changed a whole nation from a warring and skirmishing bunch of rag-tag miscreants, to one of the most polite cultures (eventually) that has ever existed. But that's all he ever wanted - to make folks in his little nook of the world to be courteous and kind to one another. He never aspired to be regarded as a god, but called himself a "teacher." Christ, on the other hand, shocked everyone with his claim of being one with the Father! Quite a different proposition than Buddha ever offered his followers!

[1hole]

Disbelievers frequently suggest that "sincerity" of beliefs should make all religions equal. Truth is, sincerity of anything means nothing if it's wrong.

I recall reading a short story about a Frenchman in the late 1800s (IIRC) who wanted to fly. He worked and studied until he designed a set of bird wings he could wear on his arms and, if he could get enough wind, he could fly. It all appeared so reasonable he was totally sure it would work. So, he carefully made the wings, strapped them on on the top of a tall building and jumped; they scooped up the large parts of his body with shovels. He was very sure he was right but he wasn't .... RIP.

For those who really think, there's a good message in that story!

[UKShootist]

Disbelievers frequently suggest that "sincerity" of beliefs should make all religions equal. Truth is, sincerity of anything means nothing if it's wrong.

I do not believe that to be true in the slightest. On the contrary, I believe that is absolutely NOT true. Islam is an utterly evil political system that masquerades as a religion. I cannot say that about Christianity although I think that the Catholic Church has done it's best on that score.

I do believe that whatever a man's religion, if he has lead a good life he will not deserve eternal hell, or a second death, according to whichever is believed, merely for not accepting Jesus as his personal saviour. That is an entirely different thing.

I recall reading a short story about a Frenchman in the late 1800s (IIRC) who wanted to fly. He worked and studied until he designed a set of bird wings he could wear on his arms and, if he could get enough wind, he could fly. It all appeared so reasonable he was totally sure it would work. So, he carefully made the wings, wore on the top of a tall building and jumped; they scooped up the large parts of his body with shovels. He was very sure he was right but he wasn't .... RIP.

For those who really think, there's a good message in that story!

The message is, get your physics right before you bet your life on something. (The video if this hero departing from the first floor of the Eiffel Tower is still around on the Internet. Another bit of Scientific heresy even you use)



Or do you doubt that such a flight is impossible even today? No doubt many Christians of the time would have said that if God had intended man should fly then He would have given us wings, and promptly given up on the idea of flight as some sort of blasphemy. But no. You may have noticed airplanes overhead, hang gliders, paragliders, all sorts of airborne junk, even man made satellites travelling past out solar system, all brought to you by those terrible intellekshuall scientist chappies you so despise (when it's convenient).

Oh! The ultimate irony BTW. What killed him was a FAITH based upon ignorance. Had he studied just that bit harder and got the science right he could have made that flight.

[1hole]

.... OK, he's crazy in common parlance but his belief is no less sincere than any other.

So you happily (and correctly) judge him wrong but accord others your "respect" based on nothing more than their sincerity. And while you easily stipulate he is/was wrong, you are appalled at Christians who stipulate they/we are right. ???

Okay, ... we recognise your double standard even if you don't.

The point of my post was, who do I seek advice from? .... It sometimes seems to me that the last people on earth that might help me find the road to truth about spiritual matters are the faithful.

We finally agree on something.

Just a thought, you have repeatedly made it clear that there is nothing Christians can say or explain that you don't immediately reject out of hand. So, I wonder, if we should take your word (I don't) that you aren't a total troll, why in the world are you here amongst happy Christians where your own (supposed) intellect and knowledge of our God obviously far out shines ours?

Perhaps a Hindu guru with thousands of gods (take your choices from their long and variable list) might better answer your ever changing and convoluted questions. And he would probably respect you so much he would never tell you when you're wrong ... maybe.

You already know that no matter how intelligent and sincere you may be, you will remain hopelessly lost if you choose to follow the wrong God because there's only one that made you and only he has a blessed heaven.