Posted by:
janeeliot
(
)
Date: March 22, 2012 12:37AM
lulu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> janeeliot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sorry lulu. I shouldn't have thrown you so many
> > curve balls.
>
> (friendly chuckle) I would say you were the batter
> and hitting foul balls.
Thanks for patronizing me. I appreciate it.
>
> I do think there are many great
> > posters on this site, but I was being sarcastic
> at
> > that moment in time. But thanks for the perhaps
> > undeserved welcome.
>
> All welcomes here are deserved.
>
>
> >
> > I completely disagree. If Buddha didn't
> transcend
> > being human, then he isn't Buddha,
>
>
> But Buddha's own point was that you don't need a
> transcendant Buddha. It's nice that he came
> along, taught some stuff, set an example and
> transcended but on his own terms he was not
> absoluting necessary to you individually reaching
> nirvana in the way that you need Jesus' atonement
> to be saved. Serious, Buddha taught the opposite,
> if you meet me on the road, kill me. What does
> that mean?
>
I think Buddha is reassuringly exotic, foreign, and basically an unknown quantity -- and no one here is angry at him. I think many Buddhists would argue that the supernatural elements in his story are hugely important and cannot be tossed out so casually. I also think many verions of Christianity have existed, such as the gnostic, which have not stressed either a divine Jesus or a need for Jesus as a savior. One of the nice things about becoming familiar with the historic Jesus is it helps you sort out what has accumulated over the years with anything a historic Jesus might possibly have meant. For example, even if we could assume he said, "I am the way and the light," (and I don't think we can assume it), there are plenty of unsupernatural possible meanings. In fact, I think it is a bit of stretch to go from that to "You have to be a good Catholic to get into heaven!" Really. Seems like a reach to me. It is, actually, a very Buddha-like pronouncement. Many Christians demonination have said we need Jesus as our personal savior. I am less convinced that historic Jesus said anything of the sort. Think about it -- The way -- the Tao. And light has always been knowledge, life, the sun. If it were credited to Buddha, you would probably drool.
>
> > it seems to me,
> > just as if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he
> > wasn't a Christ.
>
> We may have to disagree. But in almost all types
> of Buddhism, Buddha is not a salvific figure like
> Jesus is. I can make it to nirvana without him.
> In fact, once I have learned what he has to teach,
> he instructs me to ignore him.
>
> > My point, which I should have
> > made more directly, is that you would be
> stunned
> > how many historical figures we would lose if we
> > just applied the same odd standards I find here
> > applied to the historic Jesus. Among a long
> list
> > -- including -- as I said -- every religious
> > person in history, we would also lose the first
> > kings of Egypt,
>
> That we would be stunned is not proof of
> existence. It's not a historical argument from
> empirical evidence.
It is empirical evidence that convinced historians there was a historic Jesus! Aaaaahhhhhhh! And my point is that I don't see you guys out there saying, "How do we know there was really a historic Buddha?!!? Huh? How can we?" Actually, I don't see how we can know. But let's face it, no one around here has gotten his panties in a twist about Buddha -- so frankly everyone couldn't care less if there is no particular evidence he lived! No one believes the first Egyptian kings didn't really live because they were supposedly fathered by the gods. People just take it for granted -- as they should. I mean -- if you are going to hold this standard you should apply it evenly throughout history -- instead of obsessing about Jesus as some special case. I think the posters on this thread would not believe he lived if he published his long-form birth certificate. They would say -- oh, I can tell it's a computer forgery!
>
> > as well as all of European
> > aristocracy. Denying Elizabeth II exists
> because
>
> Elizabeth II exists because there is empirical
> evidence. I just saw her on youtube in her yellow
> hat at the royal wedding. She's the Supreme
> Governor of the Church of England because there's
> an act of parlement that you can go hold in your
> hands. That's really not a good analogy.
>
> But whether a historical figure, Jesus originally
> started that church in Judah, that's a different
> question.
>
> > -- hey -- we all know she doesn't represent god
> on
> > earth -- there not being a god -- just gets too
> > weird.
>
>
> And as for Buddha, there is absolutely no
> > more evidence there was a historic Buddha than
> > there is there was a historic Jesus.
>
> I'd say the evidence for Jesus is a little better
> than for Buddha. But still, we went over this in
> the prior thread, just because there was not
> Buddha does not mean there had to be a Jesus.
>
> Dismissing
> > Plato because he wrote about Atlantis, and
> there
> > wasn't an Atlantis, not quite the way the story
> > has come down to us, also seems daft.
>
> Again you have the analogy backwards. There being
> no Atlantis does not disprove Plato's existance.
> A question about Plato's existance would be based
> on extant contemporary accounts about Plato. But
> even if he did not exist, Platonic philosphy on
> its own terms could be valid, it does not need the
> death, atonement and resurection of a real human
> being.
>
> > I suggest
> > everyone make peace with the pervasiveness of
> myth
> > in human culture and human history – and get
> on
> > with your life.
>
> I agree, everyone should make peace with the
> pervasive myth (your word) of Jesus, but some
> peoples' peace will be that the historical
> evidence is not convinicing.
>
> >
> > If you are going to come up these strange
> > standards,
>
> Specifically, what standard do you claim is
> strange, extant, contemporarly recorded witnesses.
> That's not strange at all.
>
> you are going to have to apply them
> > across the board.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Not to do so is too damning
>
> I agree
>
> >as
> > evidence you just have this anger thing with
> Jesus
> > -- whatever that is about.
>
> Again, just because someone is pissed with Jesus
> isn't proof that he exists.