Everything about Buddhism

#61

IlDiavolo

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

5

IlDiavolo

10.01.2023 12:25AM

3

2

5

10.01.2023 12:25AM

One thing to rescue from budhism is the meditation which is a powerful tool to get to what they call Nirvana and it's not exclusive to this religion, I think it is also present in other asian religions which was spread all over the world for our delight.

I have to add to the definition you gave of Nirvana that it is also a state where you feel the oneness of man and universe, meaning that we and all that exists in this universe are one only conscioussness. According to some people's experiences, when the meditator manages to activate his pineal gland, which is the most difficult thing to reach when meditating, apart from happiness and peace, he can feel he is part of the whole universe, he feels what it feels to be a plant, an animal, a mountain and everything that exists in this universe at the same time, it's like an omnipresent experience. I've seen this is the same as the near-death experience, people that are dying feels a profound peace and happiness, and also that they are one with the universe which is very pleasant for them to the point that they wanted to stay there. It's as if our real "home" or consciouss state of being were after death.

I'm not sure if Buddhims claims we are one with the universe, I think it does, but as far as I can tell this belief that we are one consciousness that survives after death is based on the experience, contrary to christianity that holds beliefs on mere stories.

Topic's author

#62

Critical-Tim

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

3

2

7

Critical-Tim

10.01.2023 01:37AM

3

2

7

10.01.2023 01:37AM

-->

@IlDiavolo

That is fascinating. I can try to explain the psychological phenomenon of near-death experiences (NDEs), which are the conscious, semi-conscious or recollected experiences of someone who is approaching or has temporarily begun the process of dying. Remember this is merely a scientific perspective.

NDEs are not a figment of the imagination, but rather a result of changes in brain function during the process of dying. NDEs vary from case to case, but some common elements include:

Feelings of peacefulness or serenity
Vivid imagery, such as bright light, movement through a tunnel, or visions of events from one’s past
Out-of-body experiences, in which one feels removed from one’s physical body
Encounters with other beings, such as loved ones or anonymous entities perceived as angels

Some people may interpret these experiences in religious or spiritual terms, such as going to heaven or hell, meeting God or the devil, or having a life review. However, these interpretations are influenced by one’s personal beliefs, culture, and expectations.

NDEs can have profound effects on the experiencers’ lives. Some common after-effects include:

Loss of the fear of death and a strengthened belief in the afterlife
A new awareness of meaning and purpose in one’s life
A new sense of self with increased self-esteem
Changes in values, priorities, and relationships
Increased interest in spirituality and altruism

Topic's author

#63

Critical-Tim

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

3

2

7

Critical-Tim

10.01.2023 02:25AM

3

2

7

10.01.2023 02:25AM

-->

@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas

To make this simple I will list your options from comment 59, as recited below.

Here is my question to you:
Considering the numerous English Bible versions available, how can we discern which ones represent the direct words of God without human interpretation and establish a dependable dictionary standard to evaluate these translations, considering the diversity of definitions?

Here are your options:

All translations are the Holy word of God.
Only the exact words God spoke are the Holy word of God.

Option 1: All translations are the Holy word of God.

Verbal plenary inspiration: This view holds that every word of the original languages of the Bible was inspired by God, and that the Bible is without error in all matters of faith and practice. This view also holds that the best way to translate the Bible is to preserve the literal and grammatical features of the original languages as much as possible, while making minimal adjustments for readability and clarity. This view assumes that the original languages are the most accurate and reliable expression of God’s word, and that any deviation from them may compromise the meaning and authority of the Scripture. Some examples of translations that follow this view are the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Version.

Translation and Interpretation: This scenario holds true if translations are considered to preserve the Holy word of God. However, it's essential to recognize that translation inherently involves interpretation. In essence, translation demands a profound grasp of both the source and target languages, as well as the ability to discern the author's intent, cultural nuances, and contextual aspects of the text. Consequently, every translation encompasses an element of interpretation to faithfully convey the original text's essence and meaning in the target language. By qualifying translations which are interpretations as retaining the Holy Word of God you would be contradicting your stance that interpretation fails to retain God's Holy word.
The Translator's Prophetic Role: One potential solution to this dilemma is to believe that every translator acted as a prophet of God, ensuring an exact transmission of His words in the new translation.
Choosing a Dictionary for Interpretation: However, this raises the question of which dictionary should be used to interpret the words based on their definitions, all without introducing human judgment not explicitly stated by God's words.

Ultimately, to believe that all translations are the Holy Word of God, two paths emerge. The first entails accepting that translations are valid, and since translations inherently involve interpretations, interpretations must also be valid. This, however, contradicts the initial stance against interpretation's validity. The second path involves believing that all translators were prophets through whom God conveyed His exact words. However, this raises the question: which dictionary was intended by God, or are humans to decide how to interpret His word? Consequently, it becomes evident that interpretation is an integral component of the assertion that all translations constitute the Holy Word of God.

Option 2: Only the exact words God spoke are the Holy word of God.

Dynamic plenary inspiration: This view holds that every thought or concept of the original languages of the Bible was inspired by God, and that the Bible is without error in all matters of faith and practice. This view also holds that the best way to translate the Bible is to convey the meaning and function of the original languages in a natural and idiomatic way, while making necessary changes for cultural and contextual relevance. This view assumes that the original languages are not necessarily superior or inferior to other languages, and that God’s word can be faithfully communicated in different ways, as long as the message and purpose of the Scripture are maintained. Some examples of translations that follow this view are the New International Version, the New Living Translation, and the GOD’S WORD Translation.

In English Translation and Interpretation: If you only know English and are unfamiliar with the original languages of the Bible (such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), you're reading an English translation. As previously discussed, translation inherently involves interpretation. If this premise holds true, then the words you quote in English could be seen as invalidated by your own assertion that they cannot be interpreted. The paradox arises: How can one prove the invalidity of interpretations when that very claim is an interpretation itself?
Multilingual Expertise in English Discussions: Alternatively, if you possess knowledge of these original languages but choose to participate in an English context (assuming others only know English), it could be argued that you're not reading an interpretation but rather facilitating interpretation for the benefit of those who understand English.
Choosing a Dictionary for Interpretation: However, this still leaves the challenge of selecting a dictionary or standard for interpretation. Since all words require interpretation based on their meanings, maintaining a strict and literal stance on the Bible raises the question of which dictionary should be used. Advocating for a particular dictionary without direct scriptural guidance may be viewed as an erroneous human judgment. It involves choosing how to interpret God's words without explicit assurance from the scriptures, potentially conflicting with the belief in their divine origin.

Ultimately, to firmly believe that only the precise words spoken by God are His direct and holy word implies a significant realization. Reading the Bible in English, being a translation of His exact words, is, in essence, an interpretation rather than the direct conveyance of His words. Paradoxically, this understanding calls into question the validity of the verses presented, as they inadvertently become invalidated interpretations according to their own conclusion, resulting in self-contradiction. The alternative path arises in the event you possess the knowledge to read the Bible's original languages. Nevertheless, this path also presents a formidable challenge: determining the intended dictionary for interpreting the meaning of the words inscribed in the Bible.

Of course, there is option three, but it would directly contradict your claim in the first place.

Paraphrastic inspiration: This view holds that every idea or message of the original languages of the Bible was inspired by God, but that the Bible may contain errors or contradictions in matters of history, science, or culture. This view also holds that the best way to translate the Bible is to restate or summarize the original languages in one’s own words, while adding explanations or interpretations that may enhance the understanding or application of the Scripture. This view assumes that the original languages are not sufficient or clear enough for modern readers, and that God’s word can be improved or clarified by human creativity and insight. Some examples of translations that follow this view are The Living Bible, The Message, and The Passion Translation.

In conclusion: All roads lead to Rome (Human interpretation of definitions not explicitly stated by God)

Please don't avoid addressing this unless you concede. What do you think?

Topic's author

#64

Critical-Tim

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

3

2

7

Critical-Tim

10.01.2023 03:13AM

3

2

7

10.01.2023 03:13AM

-->

@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas

I am a TRUE Christian that follows our Jewish Jesus’ inspired words as God to the letter as He intended all of His Jewish Christians to do

How can you call yourself "a TRUE Christian who follows God's words to the letter" if you must use your erroneous human interpretations to understand their meanings, as you lack a God given dictionary?

Topic's author

#65

Critical-Tim

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

3

2

7

Critical-Tim

10.01.2023 05:42AM

3

2

7

10.01.2023 05:42AM

-->

@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas

You might even believe in a High Priest who conveys God's direct words and specifies the dictionary that God intends us to use. However, even if you have a Bible and a dictionary selected by God's words through a High Priest, you would still need to interpret the words using the definitions provided in the dictionary. This is because the words themselves lack inherent meaning and must undergo interpretation to acquire significance, underscoring the continued necessity of interpretation, aligning with my counter stance in comment 57, recited below.

Therefore, based on these arguments, it seems more likely that Peter is talking about the origin of prophecy, not its interpretation, in 2 Peter 1:20. However, this does not mean that interpretation is unimportant or irrelevant. On the contrary, Peter also warns his readers that some people twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). He urges them to be diligent and careful in studying and applying the Scriptures, and to avoid being carried away by error (2 Peter 3:17-18). He also reminds them that they have been given everything they need for life and godliness through the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:3). Therefore, as Christians, we should seek to understand and obey the Scriptures, which are God’s word to us, and which point us to Jesus Christ, who is God’s Word made flesh (John 1:14).

Ultimately, the fact you need a dictionary in the first place is evident that you must interpret the words.

Your choice to interpret them literally was not explicitly instructed by God but chosen with your human judgement.

Your accusations contain inherent contradictions. On one hand, you stress the importance of not interpreting, advocating for strict literal adherence. Yet, on the other hand, you insist on taking God's word literally, deeming any deviation as blasphemy. Is this not, in itself, a form of human judgment not explicitly dictated in the scripture? One might argue that such a stance, even if implied, delves into the realm of interpretation, moving beyond the domain of explicit and literal words. It becomes clear that these two positions cannot coexist harmoniously without inherent tensions and contradictions.

Topic's author

#66

Critical-Tim

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

3

2

7

Critical-Tim

10.01.2023 05:47AM

3

2

7

10.01.2023 05:47AM

-->

@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas

How much further must I go, and are you willing?

#67

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,051

3

6

zedvictor4

10.01.2023 06:19AM

3

6

10.01.2023 06:19AM

-->

@Critical-Tim

Well, I think that "no sub-text" sums up what I mean.

A deeper message hidden in words achieves what?

Other than confusion or misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

One can only fully understand a hidden message with deeper meaning if said message is literally explained.

Therefore it would be logical and sensible to be literal.

One would hope that a GOD would tell us exactly what it expects from us.

Topic's author

#68

Critical-Tim

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

3

2

7

Critical-Tim

10.01.2023 02:00PM

3

2

7

10.01.2023 02:00PM

-->

@zedvictor4

@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas

Reading the Bible only as literal would make things easier to understand, but the drawback is the application of knowledge becomes extremely limited to the exact and literal circumstance, rather than abstract and multi-applicable knowledge.

In Matthew 13:10-17 (NIV), Jesus' response to his disciples' question about why he spoke in parables is as follows:
"10 The disciples came to him and asked, 'Why do you speak to the people in parables?' 11 He replied, 'Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.' 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.'"

In this passage, Jesus explains that he uses parables to convey deeper spiritual truths to those who have the capacity to understand them, particularly his disciples. He contrasts those who have receptive hearts and minds to receive the message with those who have closed themselves off from understanding. The use of parables serves both to reveal and conceal the message, depending on the spiritual readiness of the listener.

To hear without hearing?

To see without seeing?

He could only mean those who don't wish to understand won't understand, implying that the meaning was not explicit or on the surface. Therefore, Jesus employed parables not as literal, straightforward teachings but as metaphorical and interpretive stories meant to engage listeners, encourage reflection, and convey profound spiritual insights. The metaphors and symbolism in parables often concealed the deeper meanings, making them accessible to those with a receptive and open-hearted approach to understanding.

I don't claim the entire scripture is interpretable, but at least some of it was meant to be, making a strictly literal approach ineffective to understand with our eyes and ears open as described above.

Topic's author

#69

Critical-Tim

Debates: 3

Posts: 902

3

2

7

Critical-Tim

10.01.2023 02:09PM

3

2

7

10.01.2023 02:09PM

-->

@zedvictor4

@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas

Ambiguity in the Bible serves as a deliberate choice to make the text broadly applicable. By not specifying every detail, the scripture becomes a source of wisdom and guidance that can adapt to various situations and cultures. On the other hand, precision, while providing clarity, often lacks context. When rules or guidance are too precise, they might only be applicable in very specific circumstances, limiting their usefulness.

Therefore, a balance between ambiguity and precision is essential. Ambiguity allows for the universality and adaptability of the message, while precision provides clarity when necessary. This balanced approach ensures that the Bible can offer guidance that is both clear and relevant, no matter the context or situation. It allows readers to apply the teachings of the scripture to their lives while considering the specific circumstances they face, striking a harmonious equilibrium between clarity and adaptability.

#70