If Buddha Speaks ! Perhaps you should listen

Huh? How does this statement even make sense?

sounds pretty whacky to me

 

Hey - you still have not responded to post 20 - and that (A) follows logically from (B) is not whacky - just logic.

 

Giftedone, you bring up too many deep issues in your opening post. It is not really practicably possible to respond to so many questions like that in one discussion. Each answer would require a complicated long explanation to convince you.

Why don't you try asking one big question at a time, without bombarding us with so many big questions?


Now, the thread title has the name Buddha in it, so I presume you want to talk about Buddha?

 

I did ask you one question in post 20 - but you went into hiding and will not respond.

 

See post #41.

 

When God speaks to a formal and lawful eyewitness, He first needs to identify Himself by doing something humans won't be able to do. Conveniently, 1) to tell a future, and 2) to break our physics laws. Prophecies and miracles are for such. That's why God's formal eyewitnesses are called the prophets. When an eyewitness is authenticated, God speaks a prophecy through the prophet's mouth, or performs a miracle through the witness' hands. This is to confirm the witness that a message he received is from God.

For the record,

Acts 14:3 (NIV2011)
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.

We can't possibly verify a history. At least, such a methodology is mentioned explicitly. God identifies Himself by doing something humans can't for a message to convey.

 

I think you are going overboard in how you read into that.

Absolute proof is not required for someone to reasonably act on a message.

Sometimes the message only highlights things the person should already have known, based on their conscience. Other times the message carries a prediction that correlates with events enough that it should reasonably influence someone's decision in a situation, even if it does not rise to the level of fully convincing proof.

 

I think that you underestimated why an eyewitness of God is called a prophet but not something else inside the world of the Jews.
Would you care to provide an explanation!

That said. How should this be read into in your opinion?

"who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to..."

 

"confirming the message with signs and wonders" is not necessarily confirming the message with irrefutable proof of God's existence.

That's where you draw a mistake. You mistakenly think these "signs and wonders" are to prove the existence of God, beyond all reasonable doubt, and only then can you buy the message.

No, sometimes it only takes a little cajoling for people to be open to a message.
Like "Wait a minute, maybe I should stop and consider this".

They are not following the message all just because the existence of God has suddenly been proved to them beyond any doubt.

 

And so what if we prove the existence of God - what difference does it make to the central question of the OP.

Let us assume that God intervenes from time to time - giving humans some Truth - of course we have no way of knowing when this is - how many interventions - and so on.

Does it matter where this truth comes from - since we have no way of knowing whether one's favorite source is the "Gods Truth".

 

It depends of course on how you define Truth, and what sort of truth exactly.
Christians believe that God and Jesus are "The Truth". So in one sense, it would inherently by definition matter where that "Truth" was coming from.
(As it says in Matthew 7:17-20)

The language you are using is kind of vague, so it is difficult to give you an answer that is not likewise.

 

No it doesn't - the question is deliberately set up so that how Truth is defined doesn't matter - Buzzzzz - Fail - irrelevant.

God and Jesus are entities - they are not "A Truth" nor "The Truth" Saying God is Truth - is a statement of NOTHING - it tells us ZERO about what "The Truth" is.

Now if you say - Jesus said ( X) .. and therefor I take (X) as Truth. That is something different

The question on the table is do you think God cares whether you learned (X) from Jesus, or learned (X) from Buddha ?

Hopefully this post clarifies things a bit.

So when Jesus says "I am the Way - I am the Truth" - things he doesn't say in the earlier Gospels (Matt/Mark) should factor into your calculation - as should the influence of Pauline doctrine in John.

What does this mean ? "Faith Alone" - Sola Fide ? - and this is the path to the Truth
Or is he saying "My Teachings are the Way - The Truth" and so on.

I don't follow "Jesus" - I follow the teachings of Jesus - and further - I believe that Jesus and God are smart enough to figure that Faith Without Works is useless and dead.

Just my opinion - if you go down a few lines further in the passage you cited Matt 7 - In your passage Jesus states that is by someones works that someone is recognized by God

He then says that it is not the hearers of the word (those that have faith) that have a solid foundation - but the doers of the word

When you add in Matt 25 - sheep and goats parable - where Jesus is Judging - (this is another way in which Jesus is "The way" - no way into heaven but through Jesus") but having ZERO to do with Sola Fide)

Jesus separates the Sheep from the Goats on the basis of works. Those that knew Jesus - but did no good works do not get in. Those that did not know Jesus but did good works were welcomed through the gates..

That is the way - the light - the Truth at least according to Jesus.

 

It matters very much. You can identify something as truth, even though another religious person does not identify it as the ultimate truth.
Unless you are willing to see things the same way that a believing religious person sees things, you will never understand what this "Truth" you refer to is.

If you want to go make up your own "truth", it may likely not be the actual truth.

 

I'll tell you what. Let's suppose in the extremely hypothetical scenario that we are talking about the same exact "Truth". In that hypothetical scenario, then no, the source would not matter.
But the reality (or what religious people deem to be the reality) renders this a moot point. Since you will not be able to find the real "Truth" from any source.

There, your question has been answered.

 

Well, I think maybe, if you reduce Jesus down to only his teachings, you have perhaps missed the main point. (at least from a Christian perspective)

The idea in Christianity, as I explained in another thread, is that you realistically are incapable of adequately following the teachings without following the deity.

 

My answer to the poll question is: A hypothetical concept cannot be offended.

 

We could start a whole separate thread about this, but faith & works are inextricably intertwined.

The only time you'll ever have faith without works is in some extreme situation, where someone is in an extremely restrictive prison situation, or is about to imminently die.

I personally will not disagree with you, but it would be foolish to not try to know on that basis. Because knowing and works are also very closely intertwined. And there might be some (or many) who might not be able to keep to the works without the knowing.

 

My personal answer to that is that your reply is obviously redundant, and thus borders on trolling (because it is so superfluous). I started a thread in the past about this topic.

Every atheist who replies to every religious thread that "there is no God", is obviously trolling. Posting a needless reply that is off-topic and seems aimed at derailing the discussion.

Now, Thought Criminal, I personally respect you as a member. (That is certainly not the case with every member) So I will cut you some slack. Think about that.

 

I just answered the poll question. There is a saying: if you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

I don't understand the name-calling. I'm on record here for defending people's right to their religious beliefs. I just thought that I'd test the waters for reciprocation.

 

The above has nothing to do with the question .. ZERO - This is not about the perception of individuals - this is about what God thinks.

Two people coming to the same Truth from different directions

 

You seem not to understand that this scenario has ZERO to do with what Truth is. The situation is not hypothetical - as it happens every day - people arriving to the same Truth by different paths.

Take the Golden Rule for Example - or figuring out that killing your neighbor is wrong

 

One does not need an ounce of faith to do good works - to others faith and works are combined as you suggest.

The question on the table is whether or not the one without faith is treated differently than one with faith - at the pearly gates.

 

My understanding of what we are told is: The criminal who believes in God, with all his heart, is welcome in heaven; while the just and pure man, who doesn't believe, is out of luck.

 

Yes - unfortunately Christianity does not well follow the teachings of its namesake.

 

Does God Take Offense if Truth comes from the wrong place?
No, because either there is no "God" to take offense or "truth" doesn't come from "wrong".