Only the “sola scriptura” Christians, those separated from the Catholic Church, derive all their teachings from the Bible.
From the perpective of the Catholic Church, it is the author of the New Testament. Some of the beliefs of the Catholic Church are in the Bible. The Catholic Church gave birth to the New Testament, so it does not get its teachings there because they already were there before the NT came into being.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;47592]It is amazing that you are in your 50’s. I am 30, Nietzsche is in his teens and the others seem to be mid to late 20’s.
I guess it is true that age does not equal maturity.[/QUOTE]
It certainly doesn’t apply to me. Maturity is not my goal. I plan to become more and more immature as I grow older. I am of the baby boomer generation. We are the generation who refuses to grow up.
If Nietzsche is so young, perhaps we should not be having discussions with him late in the evening and encouraging him to stay up past his bed time.
[QUOTE=thomas;47599]Only the “sola scriptura” Christians, those separated from the Catholic Church, derive all their teachings from the Bible.
From the perpective of the Catholic Church, it is the author of the New Testament. Some of the beliefs of the Catholic Church are in the Bible. The Catholic Church gave birth to the New Testament, so it does not get its teachings there because they already were there before the NT came into being.[/QUOTE]
I see. I would rather not get into the semantics debate again though. And I didn’t make my post clear enough to start something on that again. Too bad you can’t edit old posts…:D.
[QUOTE=thomas;47601]It certainly doesn’t apply to me. Maturity is not my goal. I plan to become more and more immature as I grow older. I am of the baby boomer generation. We are the generation who refuses to grow up.
If Nietzsche is so young, perhaps we should not be having discussions with him late in the evening and encouraging him to stay up past his bed time.[/QUOTE]
Haha. It is fine…thinking about AP Chemistry final I have tomorrow
Quote SD…Personal experiences is only reliable evidence if it is peer reviewed and comes from reliable sources. I am sorry some Christian claiming they talk to god is not reliable evidence. On the other hand, states of consciousness which have been studied by psychologists and mapped out using phenomological methods is reliable evidence. Quote
[QUOTE][/QUOTE]
The individual has all the proof they require, they had this profound experience, it occurred within the faith they had chosen to belong to…and then you come along and say to them…,“No let me tell you that your faith has done X, Y, Z , and it is still influencing in a bad way today, do not follow Islam, Islam is not the way”…
…the individual will just rise up against you. So your way will create a war…
Also, I have some questions on Hinduism and how it seems to be “verified” by modern science and the only rational way to self-realization.
There are certain aspects of Hinduism I find hard to view as “verified” or “based on reason or empirical fact”. These are:
1.) Reincarnation. What are the evidence for reincarnation? I know rebirth has has to do with accumulated karma and spiritual immaturity, but I can’t just accept this as an absolute truth because I do not know the rationale enough, and I do not know much of any empirical evidence.
2.) Hinduism has gods. How is believing in these gods different from believing in an Abrahamic god?
3.) How come Hindus can claim that Buddhists are wrong, and Hindus right when it comes to “no-self”/total emptiness (sorry for not knowing the correct term) and “the self”, if both strands base their “belief” on experiences from deep meditation?
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;47593]At the same time, I regret have those dim-witted trolls on my ignore list. There remains no one to trash in a debate, no one to give me the emotion of pure and unmitigated happiness when my crushed opponents begin to expose their true Western/Christianized selves…then again, such fodder satisfies my soul superficially. This forum needs to be cleaned up and reinstated and repopulated with those who have shown evolutionary development beyond the typical Australopithecine.[/QUOTE]
Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute. ~Josh Billings
Also, I have some questions on Hinduism and how it seems to be “verified” by modern science and the only rational way to self-realization.
There are certain aspects of Hinduism I find hard to view as “verified” or “based on reason or empirical fact”. These are:
1.) Reincarnation. What are the evidence for reincarnation? I know rebirth has has to do with accumulated karma and spiritual immaturity, but I can’t just accept this as an absolute truth because I do not know the rationale enough, and I do not know much of any empirical evidence.
2.) Hinduism has gods. How is believing in these gods different from believing in an Abrahamic god?
3.) How come Hindus can claim that Buddhists are wrong, and Hindus right when it comes to “no-self”/total emptiness (sorry for not knowing the correct term) and “the self”, if both strands base their “belief” on experiences from deep meditation?[/QUOTE]
1). Idk either. Different Hindu sects offer different rationalizations for it. Check them out.
2). Wait, who said it was different? The motivations and reasons for worshiping are certainly different.
3). I claim Buddhists are wrong? I certainly don’t. It actually goes both ways Seeker. There are Hindus and Buddhists alike that claim correctness with respect to their own theories on the Self. In the case of Hindus, it varies from sect to sect. You just don’t see that in everyday Western media, which fawns on Buddhists as overly tolerant and Hindus as casteist bigots. A Buddhist can have discriminatory views you know.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;47753]I claim Buddhists are wrong? I certainly don’t.[/QUOTE]
I never said you did :). These are just general questions of mine.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;47753]
2). Wait, who said it was different? The motivations and reasons for worshiping are certainly different.[/QUOTE]
OK- Then tell me about how the “reasons for worshipping” differ. SD has on several occasions attacked “the Abrahamics” for basing their religion upon mere faith. How is worshipping Shiva etc not resorting to faith in the same way as Christians, Muslims and Jews do? But then again, this belief in gods is not universal within Hinduism, right? Is believing in gods as a Hindu a consequence of the “ritualization” of Hinduism then?
There are certain aspects of Hinduism I find hard to view as “verified” or “based on reason or empirical fact”. These are:
1.) Reincarnation. What are the evidence for reincarnation? I know rebirth has has to do with accumulated karma and spiritual immaturity, but I can’t just accept this as an absolute truth because I do not know the rationale enough, and I do not know much of any empirical evidence.
I will present you 3 types of evidence: 1) Empirical 2) Rational and 3) Phenomenological
The empirical evidence is of three types:
The scientific studies of OBES and NDE’s which have have proven that the mind can exist separate from the body. Studies have also been able to physically measure the presence of disembodied minds.(I use the word mind, because soul to me means the atman or self, which is distinct from the mind)
The scientific studies into reincarnation by investigating past life memories, birth marks. The best study is by Ian Stevenson, who has done cross-cultural studies with over 2000 subjects. His seminal work is, “20 cases suggestive of reincarnation”
The proof that the wavefunction in QM is collapsed by the observer, thus entailing the necessarily priority of the observer prior to matter. This proves the pre-existence of the soul prior to body(which is matter)
Rational proof:
The rational proof is the absolute irreducibility of consciousness and matter, which in philosophy of mind is known as the hard problem of consciousness.
If they are not reducible to one another, they cannot be the same substance and therefore matter and consciousness are only in association with one another, but not combined together. Henceforth, it follows that consciousness only comes into association with matter(bodies) and can just as easily disassociate from it and reassociate with another material(another body)
Phenomenological proof:
The ultimate phenomenological proof if being able to leave your body and see your body outside of you. This is a commonly reported experience and thus carries weight of being a real experience. This experience can also be systematically induced using mental techniques(Monroe method etc) hemi-sync and magnetic fields.
2.) Hinduism has gods. How is believing in these gods different from believing in an Abrahamic god?
The difference is Hinduism knows that all personal gods are false constructions. In Hinduism there are two types of god concepts: Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman means god with attributes, forms and description. Such as a god with a body, with emotions and a history(various combinations and permutationa are possible) This type of god concept is considered a temporal concept of god for a devotee who can accept a possible infinite number of Saguna Brahmans(god as mother, father, lover, son, teacher, animal) as an object for their devotion. Nirguna Brahman means god without attributes, forms and description. Such as notions of “absolute” “infinite” “self” “existence” these are all impersonal concepts of god. This is considered the true god concept, but a concept too abstract for the common person.
The “self” is the truest concept of god in Hinduism. Thus all Hindu effort is towards attaining realization of the self.
3.) How come Hindus can claim that Buddhists are wrong, and Hindus right when it comes to “no-self”/total emptiness (sorry for not knowing the correct term) and “the self”, if both strands base their “belief” on experiences from deep meditation?
The no-self concept comes from an interpretation of the teachings of Buddha and not from deep meditation. It is easy to prove that the self exists because without the self you could not explain the fact of experience, knowledge and memory. There is obviously an experiencer, knower and rememberer to explain those facts. If you were to doubt that such a self exists, then you would require a doubter to doubt.
The no-self doctrine is illogical. Most buddhists only pay it lip service.
The individual has all the proof they require, they had this profound experience, it occurred within the faith they had chosen to belong to…and then you come along and say to them…,“No let me tell you that your faith has done X, Y, Z , and it is still influencing in a bad way today, do not follow Islam, Islam is not the way”…
…the individual will just rise up against you. So your way will create a war…
Sorry individual experiences that are not peer-reviewed is not evidence. If one person saw the Lockness monster it is not evidence, but if 1000 people see the Lockness monster at once, then that is evidence.
One experience can be dismissed as a hoax, self-deception or hallucination but the experience of 1000 people seeing the same cannot be dismissed with the same reasons.
[QUOTE=theseeker;47763]OK- Then tell me about how the “reasons for worshipping” differ. SD has on several occasions attacked “the Abrahamics” for basing their religion upon mere faith. How is worshipping Shiva etc not resorting to faith in the same way as Christians, Muslims and Jews do? But then again, this belief in gods is not universal within Hinduism, right? Is believing in gods as a Hindu a consequence of the “ritualization” of Hinduism then?[/QUOTE]
Oh but SD and I have “attacked” this aspect of Hinduism. It is called Bhakti Hinduism. Devotional Hinduism to be exact. This is the Hinduism with all of its rituals, gods, idol worship, and so forth and the kind of Hinduism from which other derivative interpretations have sprouted. It is the most prevalent aspect today, unfortunately, but not the only side of Hinduism. There are other philosophical sects within Hinduism you know. They have already been mentioned by Surya Deva in other threads and posts.
Cheers, SD. This clears some doubts up.
I had an OBE myself, but I never reached the conclusion that it was itself the evidence of reincarnation. Actually, what you are presenting is not the proof of reincarnation per se. Rather, reincarnation is basically a very valid assumption stemming from the “[B]phenomenological fact[/B]” that we are not our bodies.
Gods as subjective constructs, check.
Notion of no-self not derived from deep-meditation but through book-reading, check.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;47769]Sorry individual experiences that are not peer-reviewed is not evidence. If one person saw the Lockness monster it is not evidence, but if 1000 people see the Lockness monster at once, then that is evidence.
One experience can be dismissed as a hoax, self-deception or hallucination but the experience of 1000 people seeing the same cannot be dismissed with the same reasons.[/QUOTE]
So according to you Kareng, if this individual experience with the divine influences whole civilizations to wipe out other civilizations and cultures with religions antithetical to the former’s, it would be wrong to stand up against it because it would create war? Are you asking us to bear exploitation and subjugation with a smiling face and flowers for the Western world? So would you want us to not dispute an individual, lets say of the Westboro Baptist Church, who goes around spreading hate speech against homosexuals even though it is his/her experience that leads him/her to act accordingly? Or a missionary who goes around converting Indians and teaching them to hate India and Hinduism simply because he is convinced, through his individual experiences, that Christianity is the only way and all other paths are false?
Don’t be a fool. Individual experiences can be flawed. Not everything is subjective.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;47769]Sorry individual experiences that are not peer-reviewed is not evidence. If one person saw the Lockness monster it is not evidence, but if 1000 people see the Lockness monster at once, then that is evidence.
One experience can be dismissed as a hoax, self-deception or hallucination but the experience of 1000 people seeing the same cannot be dismissed with the same reasons.[/QUOTE]
Okay so what about 1000 experiencers all experiencing the same thing?
[QUOTE=kareng;47781]Okay so what about 1000 experiencers all experiencing the same thing?[/QUOTE]If you read the post you will see that he gives the example that:
If a 1000 people “experienced” the Loch Ness monster, then one would be able to call it evidence.
[QUOTE=theseeker;47783]If you read the post you will see that he gives the example that:
If a 1000 people “experienced” the Loch Ness monster, then one would be able to call it evidence.[/QUOTE]
What about 1000 people who experience the same thing on killing/not tolerating infidels/heathens/pagans, destroying their idols and temples, hating homosexuals, asserting the supremacy of their religion over all others, and what not? I think that it is evidence and is most certainly valid since the number of people who experience the same thing certainly outweighs the negative qualities of the teachings themselves. Therefore, it must be accepted and tolerated. Damn. Who knew life could be so simple as that…tolerating everything even when the thing you’re tolerating preaches intolerance.
[QUOTE=theseeker;47775]Cheers, SD. This clears some doubts up.
I had an OBE myself, but I never reached the conclusion that it was itself the evidence of reincarnation. Actually, what you are presenting is not the proof of reincarnation per se. Rather, reincarnation is basically a very valid assumption stemming from the “[B]phenomenological fact[/B]” that we are not our bodies.[/quote]
The next question to consider is why and how does conscousness get associated with matter. You are not your body, but yet your apparent reality is one of embodiment . What causes this to take place? The answer is desire. Your embodied existence is the manifestation of desire which is the seed from which the body to experience your objects of desires manifests.
It is understood, I think, that the mind is not the body. Then it should also be understood that the disembodied mind has within it the desires/intentions. A desire or intention requires an object of desire or intention to fulfill it e.g., the desire for smoking requires a cig. However, the disembodied mind cannot fulfil any of these desires because it does not have a body or the object to experience it.
This is why the disembodied mind continues to reincarnate to fulfill its desires until there is no longer any desire left. Then because the cause of desire is absent the effect of reincarnation is also absent.
It is found in empirical studies studying psychosomatic effects how mental things can cause manifestation in the body. The cause for this is that mind is prior to body and more fundamental than it is(obeying the cause and effect axiom that the effect is always more grosser than the cause) It is the cause for the manifestation of body in the first place. Similaly, when the mind has become disembodied, the desires in the mind(dispositions/intentions) cause the mind to once again come back to the physical plane of reality in search of a body in order to experience those desires.
Studies into ghosts corroborates the above reasoning. Ghosts are found to haunt places in which the deceased had a strong attachment with. In Hindu language: the desires still inherent within the disembodied mind of the deceased cause that mind to come back in search of its object of desire.
[QUOTE=theseeker;47783]If you read the post you will see that he gives the example that:
If a 1000 people “experienced” the Loch Ness monster, then one would be able to call it evidence.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for pointing that out…