Faith w/ Out Works: Do Works Save?

Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,607
Maybe people in the East reincarnate, but those in the West do not.(?)

Krishna, who some Hindus consider to be a full incarnation (purna avatar) of Vishnu, stated to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita that “You and I, Arjuna, have passed through many births. I know them all, even if you do not.” (4) Thus Krishna himself declared that he had incarnated previously.
So a person who believes in reincarnation will be reincarnated, because they believe in reincarnation, and a Christian will die and be judged, because they believe in death and judgement? That is taking subjective philosophy to its extreme, isn't it? Is there not one objective reality, and many subjective interpretations?
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
So a person who believes in reincarnation will be reincarnated, because they believe in reincarnation, and a Christian will die and be judged, because they believe in death and judgement? That is taking subjective philosophy to its extreme, isn't it? Is there not one objective reality, and many subjective interpretations?
Maybe we have to go back to using reason.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -- Buddha
 
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,607
Maybe we have to go back to using reason.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -- Buddha
Where do the reason and common sense of individuals originate? Is it a product of evolution?
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
Where do the reason and common sense of individuals originate? Is it a product of evolution?
I don't know. The point was, we have two "holy scriptures" saying two different things. Buddha suggested using reason and common sense even with his own teaching. Maybe we should use it whether we know where it comes from or not.
 
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,607
I don't know. The point was, we have two "holy scriptures" saying two different things. Buddha suggested using reason and common sense even with his own teaching. Maybe we should use it whether we know where it comes from or not.
If there are claims being made, they must be investigated to see if they are substantiated. If a claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it must be discarded. All claims can't be correct. The majority must be false, a minority may contain part of the truth, and only one contains the entire truth.
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
If there are claims being made, they must be investigated to see if they are substantiated. If a claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it must be discarded. All claims can't be correct. The majority must be false, a minority may contain part of the truth, and only one contains the entire truth.
In my "search for Truth", I've found some truth in just about everything. But, there are contradictions in all the world's "scripture", too. I've learned not to get attached to any particular one.
 
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,607
In my "search for Truth", I've found some truth in just about everything. But, there are contradictions in all the world's "scripture", too. I've learned not to get attached to any particular one.
If you have all these claims, and you accept each one as true in its own right, never discarding one in favour of another, or never regarding one as inferior to another, you'll never get the answer to your question. You'll have a mismatched jumble of philosophies that may each provide a small glimmer of truth, but never the whole truth. And isn't the truth worth fighting for?
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
If you have all these claims, and you accept each one as true in its own right, never discarding one in favour of another, or never regarding one as inferior to another, you'll never get the answer to your question. You'll have a mismatched jumble of philosophies that may each provide a small glimmer of truth, but never the whole truth. And isn't the truth worth fighting for?
I've come to the conclusion that nowhere is there a monopoly on truth. I may change my mind in the future.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,961
Maybe we have to go back to using reason.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -- Buddha
Have you noticed that what some people regard as reasonable and sensible can sometimes be neither? If our own hearts are the final compass by which we steer, are we not in danger of the ultimate in self referential subjectivism?
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
Have you noticed that what some people regard as reasonable and sensible can sometimes be neither? If our own hearts are the final compass by which we steer, are we not in danger of the ultimate in self referential subjectivism?
I don't think we have a choice. Even blind belief involves personal preference.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,961
I don't think we have a choice. Even blind belief involves personal preference.
I find the definitions of guilt and shame come to bear on this question. A person can be morally guilty yet feel no shame, having suppressed their own conscience. Another person can feel ashamed when they have done nothing wrong because the company they keep and the value they have for group approval. We are not always our own best guides for truth and justice. Even if the song lyric says “listen to your heart”, God takes a different view...

Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?”



The word used here for deceitful is very curious. It is the ‘aqov. It comes from the same root where we get the word Jacob which means to grab by the heel. It is from this story of Jacob that we have come to believe that the word ‘aqov means to be deceitful as Jacob was deceitful to his brother and deceit seems to fit the context. The problem is that our understanding of ‘aqov is really guesswork. It is rooted in an old Semitic word meaning simply a heel. Every modern translation, with few exceptions will render ‘aqov as deceitful. Yet the Septuagint uses the Greek word bathuno which has the idea of deep hidden things. It is used for something that is above man’s scrutiny particularly in reference to divine counsel. Bathuno is often used to express the deep sea. People in ancient times did not have modern diving equipment and what lay under the vast seas was always a mystery left to speculation.



How did the seven translators of the Septuagint arrive at the Greek word bathuno for ‘aqov without consulting each other? Something was very obvious to them in ancient times that is not so easily apparent to us in modern times. What is the relationship between the heel and things so deep that we cannot understand it. I suppose in a way you could say bathuno carries the idea of deceit as deceit involves hiding the truth from someone and therefore would mean things not understood, but I think that is stretching it to put the word deceit to bathuno. Deceit shows intent to hold back knowledge. Bathuno shows no intent, it is just knowledge that we cannot comprehend.



I would be willing to argue and debate that ‘aqov should not be rendered as deceit but that we should find a modern English word that would more appropriately express the idea of knowledge that is hidden. So what does that have in relationship to the heel. The heel is the first part of your foot that touches the ground when you are walking. Oriental culture believed that with every step you take a part of your spirit or knowledge is left in the ground that you step on. This belief was so strong that disciples or student would literally fall down on the ground and roll in the foot prints of their master hoping to sop up every trace of knowledge from his master. They felt that knowledge that their master had and could or would not express would be left in his footprints and hence they would gather up that knowledge that passed through his heel as the heel being the first part of his foot to touch the ground and thus it would release the deepest knowledge. Based on this, I would render this passage to read not that the heart is deceitful, but that the heart contains knowledge that is so deep that we cannot comprehend it. That would fit the context where the verse ends with who could know it?



The word desperately wicked, in my opinion, is a rather unfortunate rendering. The word in Hebrew has really nothing to do with the idea of wickedness. It is not one of the many ra words used to express evil or wickedness. The word is ‘anesh. In my first book, A Hebrew Teacher’s Search for the Heart of God I asked the publisher to create a cover for the book which had a picture of some Hebrew script or a portion from the Hebrew Bible. I then asked to have a graphic artist draw a heart in the center of this Hebrew passage with the words I love you in the center of the heart and then shaped at the bottom of the heart would be an arrow pointing to some word in that Hebrew Script. I did not specify any particular word as I just wanted to express that the Word of God was an expression of God’s love for us. The graphic artist, whom I understood did not study Hebrew, picked out a picture of a random portion of the Bible in Hebrew and pointed the arrow randomly to some word. When I got the proofs, I couldn’t believe the word that the graphic artist picked. Either he was sensitive to the Spirit of God or there was an amazing coincidence but the word the arrow was pointing to was ha‘aneshim, which is simply the word ‘anesh with an article and a plural ending meaning weak and helpless mankind. Somehow it didn’t surprise me that the book became a best seller as I could not help but think that God was giving His input into the Book.



Back to the word ‘anesh which means mankind in a state of weakness and helplessness. I suppose you could get wicked out of that, but a better and more accurate English word would be vulnerable. Thus, I do not read this passage as the heart being deceitful and wicked, but the heart has a depth of knowledge that makes it vulnerable and who can know it. But soft, look at that word to know, it is yada, which is an intimate knowing and, oh my gosh, it is a participle. What this is saying is that we go about our everyday business unware of the deep secrets of one’s heart. This is referring to not only our heart but that of others.



A husband will say something to his wife or do something and she suddenly becomes upset with him. The poor slob stands there with his mouth open clueless as to what he said or did that was so wrong. He is clueless because he does not understand her heart. I remember when I was a pastor my church celebrated the 60th wedding anniversary of a couple in our church. I asked the husband what was the most challenging thing in his marriage for him and he said, “Trying to understand my wife, and I am still trying.” The most challenging and exciting aspect of a marriage is trying to understand each other’s heart, it is a lifelong process. Making it more difficult is that we don’t understand our hearts in the first place.



Yet, our hearts our desperately ‘anesh or vulnerable. Our hearts are easily broken by those who do not understand it or take the time to try to understand it. In my disability bus yesterday I drove an elderly woman home that was almost in tears as she said, “I don’t understand how people can be so cruel and unkind.” That is when I thought of Jeremiah 17:9 and my answer was from the words of Jeremiah, our hearts are so desperately vulnerable and no one can understand it and thus they will do things that break our hearts. Yet, there is one person who knows our hearts and that person is God and in knowing our hearts better than we can know it, we are guaranteed that he will not do or say anything that will break our hearts. If we feel God has broken our heart, it is only because we do not understand our own heart and its vulnerabilities. God hasn’t broken our hearts, we have broken our own hearts due to our lack of understanding the ‘aqov or depths or our hearts.

Source
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
I find the definitions of guilt and shame come to bear on this question. A person can be morally guilty yet feel no shame, having suppressed their own conscience. Another person can feel ashamed when they have done nothing wrong because the company they keep and the value they have for group approval. We are not always our own best guides for truth and justice. Even if the song lyric says “listen to your heart”, God takes a different view...

Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?”



The word used here for deceitful is very curious. It is the ‘aqov. It comes from the same root where we get the word Jacob which means to grab by the heel. It is from this story of Jacob that we have come to believe that the word ‘aqov means to be deceitful as Jacob was deceitful to his brother and deceit seems to fit the context. The problem is that our understanding of ‘aqov is really guesswork. It is rooted in an old Semitic word meaning simply a heel. Every modern translation, with few exceptions will render ‘aqov as deceitful. Yet the Septuagint uses the Greek word bathuno which has the idea of deep hidden things. It is used for something that is above man’s scrutiny particularly in reference to divine counsel. Bathuno is often used to express the deep sea. People in ancient times did not have modern diving equipment and what lay under the vast seas was always a mystery left to speculation.



How did the seven translators of the Septuagint arrive at the Greek word bathuno for ‘aqov without consulting each other? Something was very obvious to them in ancient times that is not so easily apparent to us in modern times. What is the relationship between the heel and things so deep that we cannot understand it. I suppose in a way you could say bathuno carries the idea of deceit as deceit involves hiding the truth from someone and therefore would mean things not understood, but I think that is stretching it to put the word deceit to bathuno. Deceit shows intent to hold back knowledge. Bathuno shows no intent, it is just knowledge that we cannot comprehend.



I would be willing to argue and debate that ‘aqov should not be rendered as deceit but that we should find a modern English word that would more appropriately express the idea of knowledge that is hidden. So what does that have in relationship to the heel. The heel is the first part of your foot that touches the ground when you are walking. Oriental culture believed that with every step you take a part of your spirit or knowledge is left in the ground that you step on. This belief was so strong that disciples or student would literally fall down on the ground and roll in the foot prints of their master hoping to sop up every trace of knowledge from his master. They felt that knowledge that their master had and could or would not express would be left in his footprints and hence they would gather up that knowledge that passed through his heel as the heel being the first part of his foot to touch the ground and thus it would release the deepest knowledge. Based on this, I would render this passage to read not that the heart is deceitful, but that the heart contains knowledge that is so deep that we cannot comprehend it. That would fit the context where the verse ends with who could know it?



The word desperately wicked, in my opinion, is a rather unfortunate rendering. The word in Hebrew has really nothing to do with the idea of wickedness. It is not one of the many ra words used to express evil or wickedness. The word is ‘anesh. In my first book, A Hebrew Teacher’s Search for the Heart of God I asked the publisher to create a cover for the book which had a picture of some Hebrew script or a portion from the Hebrew Bible. I then asked to have a graphic artist draw a heart in the center of this Hebrew passage with the words I love you in the center of the heart and then shaped at the bottom of the heart would be an arrow pointing to some word in that Hebrew Script. I did not specify any particular word as I just wanted to express that the Word of God was an expression of God’s love for us. The graphic artist, whom I understood did not study Hebrew, picked out a picture of a random portion of the Bible in Hebrew and pointed the arrow randomly to some word. When I got the proofs, I couldn’t believe the word that the graphic artist picked. Either he was sensitive to the Spirit of God or there was an amazing coincidence but the word the arrow was pointing to was ha‘aneshim, which is simply the word ‘anesh with an article and a plural ending meaning weak and helpless mankind. Somehow it didn’t surprise me that the book became a best seller as I could not help but think that God was giving His input into the Book.



Back to the word ‘anesh which means mankind in a state of weakness and helplessness. I suppose you could get wicked out of that, but a better and more accurate English word would be vulnerable. Thus, I do not read this passage as the heart being deceitful and wicked, but the heart has a depth of knowledge that makes it vulnerable and who can know it. But soft, look at that word to know, it is yada, which is an intimate knowing and, oh my gosh, it is a participle. What this is saying is that we go about our everyday business unware of the deep secrets of one’s heart. This is referring to not only our heart but that of others.



A husband will say something to his wife or do something and she suddenly becomes upset with him. The poor slob stands there with his mouth open clueless as to what he said or did that was so wrong. He is clueless because he does not understand her heart. I remember when I was a pastor my church celebrated the 60th wedding anniversary of a couple in our church. I asked the husband what was the most challenging thing in his marriage for him and he said, “Trying to understand my wife, and I am still trying.” The most challenging and exciting aspect of a marriage is trying to understand each other’s heart, it is a lifelong process. Making it more difficult is that we don’t understand our hearts in the first place.



Yet, our hearts our desperately ‘anesh or vulnerable. Our hearts are easily broken by those who do not understand it or take the time to try to understand it. In my disability bus yesterday I drove an elderly woman home that was almost in tears as she said, “I don’t understand how people can be so cruel and unkind.” That is when I thought of Jeremiah 17:9 and my answer was from the words of Jeremiah, our hearts are so desperately vulnerable and no one can understand it and thus they will do things that break our hearts. Yet, there is one person who knows our hearts and that person is God and in knowing our hearts better than we can know it, we are guaranteed that he will not do or say anything that will break our hearts. If we feel God has broken our heart, it is only because we do not understand our own heart and its vulnerabilities. God hasn’t broken our hearts, we have broken our own hearts due to our lack of understanding the ‘aqov or depths or our hearts.

Source
Actually, I think listening to your heart is good advice. To a child of God, "Just do as I say" is enough. To become an adult, we must practice our own discernment.

"Don't get attached to what I say, don't get attached to any doctrine, to what I preach; don't get attached to my personality. These are all just fingers pointing to the moon. Forget me, don't start worshiping me; just look at the moon. And once you have looked at the moon, I don't matter at all." -- Buddha
 

floss

Star
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
2,255
Maybe people in the East reincarnate, but those in the West do not.(?)

Krishna, who some Hindus consider to be a full incarnation (purna avatar) of Vishnu, stated to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita that “You and I, Arjuna, have passed through many births. I know them all, even if you do not.” (4) Thus Krishna himself declared that he had incarnated previously.
Didn't you just said you used your "common sense", but now you're saying you believe in Reincarnation? That's not common sense, that's a belief system. Please tell more.
 

Resistor

Established
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
340
Didn't you just said you used your "common sense", but now you're saying you believe in Reincarnation? That's not common sense, that's a belief system. Please tell more.
All afterlifes are belief systems Floss
 

Resistor

Established
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
340
And to me, some don't make a lot of sense. I do reserve the right to change my mind, though.
Yes of course.

In general it's basically a 'battle' between the Abrahamic linear-time and the much more ancient Dharmic cyclical-time. Both of which make sense only within the ontological context of their theologies.
They're both kinda nonsense though, but the Dharmic religions are far more adult in general. I'd take Buddha over mainstream Jesus any day.
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
Yes of course.

In general it's basically a 'battle' between the Abrahamic linear-time and the much more ancient Dharmic cyclical-time. Both of which make sense only within the ontological context of their theologies.
They're both kinda nonsense though, but the Dharmic religions are far more adult in general. I'd take Buddha over mainstream Jesus any day.
"The altar-cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next." -- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1898
 

Resistor

Established
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
340
"The altar-cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next." -- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1898
Definitely, Buddhism is far more relevant than Christianity for instance. Christianity is only based upon belief, when Buddhism is based upon experience. That alone places it in high relevance to the science age, etc.
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
Definitely, Buddhism is far more relevant than Christianity for instance. Christianity is only based upon belief, when Buddhism is based upon experience. That alone places it in high relevance to the science age, etc.
I think the teachings of both Buddha and Jesus have a lot in common, even if the religions built up around them don't.
 
Top