Guest Valk0010 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Assuming what your saying is correct, it would mean some combo of followings things would be correct. We should all be consider ourselves damned by just existing, and resign ourselves to torment. If we are experiencing a illusion, we have no way of knowing what is really true. Therefore everything becomes meaningless and without need. If we are expected to believe things without evidence or reason to believe in it, then we are asked to be victims of error. And who says you should believe ANYTHING? I say, believe in nothing. If there is no evidence for anything then believe in nothing, but what you were saying was to believe without evidence which is absurd. And by what do you say, human logic is flawed? By what basis, what evidence? It can be flawed but that is not the same as it? Saying all life is a illusion to cut it short is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Assuming what your saying is correct, it would mean some combo of followings things would be correct. We should all be consider ourselves damned by just existing, and resign ourselves to torment. If we are experiencing a illusion, we have no way of knowing what is really true. Therefore everything becomes meaningless and without need. If we are expected to believe things without evidence or reason to believe in it, then we are asked to be victims of error. And who says you should believe ANYTHING? I say, believe in nothing. If there is no evidence for anything then believe in nothing, but what you were saying was to believe without evidence which is absurd. And by what do you say, human logic is flawed? By what basis, what evidence? It can be flawed but that is not the same as it? Saying all life is a illusion to cut it short is nonsense. Please refer to the OP. I am not making a statement of belief. I am exploring the possibilities of the answer to a theological question based on what Buddha said. I then pointed out the flaws in the logic. I then concluded that religion is flawed. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Assuming what your saying is correct, it would mean some combo of followings things would be correct. We should all be consider ourselves damned by just existing, and resign ourselves to torment. If we are experiencing a illusion, we have no way of knowing what is really true. Therefore everything becomes meaningless and without need. If we are expected to believe things without evidence or reason to believe in it, then we are asked to be victims of error. And who says you should believe ANYTHING? I say, believe in nothing. If there is no evidence for anything then believe in nothing, but what you were saying was to believe without evidence which is absurd. And by what do you say, human logic is flawed? By what basis, what evidence? It can be flawed but that is not the same as it? Saying all life is a illusion to cut it short is nonsense. I'm not saying it, I'm saying that's what Buddha said. It's an entire philosophy and it's called "Maya." I am merely exploring the possibilities. I'm not here to tell anyone to believe anything. I'm pointing out that religion is flawed. I guess you missed that. It was probably a little kneejerk on my part to sound intense. I am just pointing out at least how it looks from my end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 I was pointing out how absurd Buddhist philosophy is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 and also, I am not making a statement of belief. I am exploring the possibilities of the answer to a theological question based on what Buddha said. I then pointed out the flaws in the logic. I then concluded that religion is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I was pointing out how absurd Buddhist philosophy is. Ahh then I got confuzzled my apologies!!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Ohh and Panda, cause I know your a nice lady I am wondering more about the hell and the poetry thing since you mentioned it? I would like it if I could get a response to the post and explain how I am wrong. Its a interesting way to look at it, even if I am not convinced of it. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 You are correct about Genesis. I checked my facts and I assumed incorrectly because I read it somewhere once. Silly me. Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and is incorrect. I should clarify here that I didn't mean to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell. I meant to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell as eternal punishment. The concept of ‘eternal punishment in hell' is a doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 400 A.D. Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell. The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the following Hebrew and Greek words. Mistranslations of the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek words hades, tartarus and gehenna, to mean hell. Mistranslations of the time-related Hebrew word owlam and the time-related Greek words aion and aionios, to mean everlasting when relating to God’s future punishment of unbelievers. In the third century, Origen of Alexandria formulated a teaching he termed apokatastasis (restoration). According to this doctrine, all sinners—and indeed all of the fallen angels, including Satan himself—would be, through Christ’s grace, brought to salvation in the end. There might be hellfire, Origen thought, but it cannot be everlasting, for if it were, sin would prove more powerful than grace. Well, the official church reacted against Origen’s universalism, for she saw it as insufficiently respectful of freedom, both human and angelic. If God’s grace is simply irresistible, then the real freedom to reject God’s love appears compromised. In the wake of this condemnation, other theologians moved practically to the other extreme. St. Augustine, fifth century bishop of Hippo, held that original sin had produced amassa damnata (a damned mass) of human beings, out of which God, in his inscrutable grace, has deigned to pick a few privileged souls. Thus, Augustine clearly believed that the vast majority of the human race would be damned to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in holding that a very large number of people are Hell-bound; he even taught that among the pleasures that the saints in heaven enjoy is the contemplation of the suffering of the damned! Thank you for the challenge. It keeps me intellectually honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wester Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I think you misinterpret Buddhism. I never understood them to be claiming that everything - including the ground of being - is an illusion, but that it is our perceptions of the ground of being that are the illusion. The 8 fold path challenges one to "see the world as it truly is," and to that end, they are ascribing a challenge to one's perception rather than to being itself. Second, the perception or sensation of time - being coming into existence, being as temporal and incarnate for a short moment, and then passing away belies claims of a permanent, fixed reality. In that sense, everything temporally "flows" rather than temporally "is" and this is the nature of what you seem to be describing as the "illusion" that nothing exists. I think the buddhists think that things do in fact exist, just only in a different sort of way that you are describing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 I think you misinterpret Buddhism. I never understood them to be claiming that everything - including the ground of being - is an illusion, but that it is our perceptions of the ground of being that are the illusion. The 8 fold path challenges one to "see the world as it truly is," and to that end, they are ascribing a challenge to one's perception rather than to being itself. Second, the perception or sensation of time - being coming into existence, being as temporal and incarnate for a short moment, and then passing away belies claims of a permanent, fixed reality. In that sense, everything temporally "flows" rather than temporally "is" and this is the nature of what you seem to be describing as the "illusion" that nothing exists. I think the buddhists think that things do in fact exist, just only in a different sort of way that you are describing. I think I mistakenly referred to Maya as a Buddhist concept. It is Hindu in origin. The major aspects of Hinduism are maya, karma and dharma. The concepts also play major roles in Buddhism. Maya is the belief that everything, which one sees in this world is illusion, a product of the individual's own failed interpretation and self-delusion. It is one of the foundations of the Hindu faith. Hinayana Buddhists also believe in maya. It cannot be said, however, that Buddhist doctrine (as a whole) either supports or denies maya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 It's crazy how many different forms of Buddhism there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Because he's a class A ass pirate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 thanks panda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 No problem. It's fun to learn about this stuff. Everyone else in the class just does the minimum to get by and it's awful. There are 2 other A students in our class besides me, and 32 students. Last week on our Christianity test, over half the class failed. Ironic, isn't it? I got 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts