08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidI'll make whatever statements or observations or ask any questions I choose to. I don't need "an invitation" from you.
That was an invitation for you to make a final statement, or to explicitly say you want this to continue, and clarify that you want this discussion to contineu ro some such, but instead you just pressed ahead with these questions that were bringing us in a similar direction.
08 Nov 18
@fmf saidOh wow, OK, I thought it would be considered polite and good for us to try to communicate about where the discussion is going, right? I explicitly did not want to "skulk off," which is why I made the invitation for a final statement.
You can skulk off at any moment of your choosing. So ~ to revisit something you have blanked out ~ a story about Jesus visiting a Muslim to explain He was a Prophet and not a Messiah and to warn that the true story of God has been misunderstood and misdirected, would that be an "historical account"?
So, I will take this as you want to continue this...
I accept the Gospels, and the specific tradition of Christianity, and thus I accept the authority figures within that tradition. The authority figures within my tradition are Orthodox, and I believe that apparitions and supernatural events which occur that are in affirmation of Christian teachings are clearly from God. However, I can see how there would be things within the Christian tradition that are said to be legitimate apparitions that I would not accept, right.
For instance, the prophecies from Our Lady of Akita are a series of Catholic events that are based on some Miriam apparitions. I do not know how I feel about that and I have not studied it at all, but I can see myself rejecting it as illegitimate. But I have no comment.
This brings up the greater question... What does it mean when someone advances something as a supernatural event that contradicts what my beliefs are and/or are clearly of a different tradition, right?
This actually goes back to the idea earlier about what ocnstitutes a good journalist, a good historian, a good doctor, etc., from the bad versions thereof.
There are always going to people that tell lies to gain esteem or to advance a position, right. So I think much of the time that can be the case.
I would also say that there are occasions where the devil or someone else misleads the person involved. You know, when Mohammed was first visited by the "Archangel Gabriel" he thought it was a demon... As I heard someone else say, he was right the first time.
We reject Islam because
(a) it does not even accurately account for Christianity while attempting to account for it, and
(b) it provides many inversions of Christian truth while claiming to represent it or fulfill it.
Thus, we do not see good coming out of that perspective, right.
But, of course, all of these things have to be taken as they are, and what they mean.
I know Mutaqi Ismail says that Islam should be all about the idea that the Koran alone is a miracle, and that there are no other miracles or apparitions or anything, etc., and that Mohammed was just a man and some of the traditions that ascribe other characteristics or supernatural occurrences to him are wrong. I am not an expert on this, though, and I look forward to eharing your perspectives on this.
08 Nov 18
@fmf saidPlease do, I invite that.
I'll make whatever statements or observations or ask any questions I choose to. I don't need "an invitation" from you.
But when I am transparently communicating on whether or not I want to leave the debate at that, etc., maybe you should just directly put in your feedback and perspective on that, right, as opposed to just peppering me with questions and not making it clear that you want the topic to keep going.
08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidFeel free to alert any posts you feel are inappropriate.
Please do, I invite that.
08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidSo the story I described would be a folktale then? And ~ being from a different religious tradition from yours ~ it'd not be an "historical account", right?
Oh wow, OK, I thought it would be considered polite and good for us to try to communicate about where the discussion is going, right? I explicitly did not want to "skulk off," which is why I made the invitation for a final statement.
So, I will take this as you want to continue this...
I accept the Gospels, and the specific tradition of Christianity, and thus I acce ...[text shortened]... wrong. I am not an expert on this, though, and I look forward to eharing your perspectives on this.
08 Nov 18
@philokalia said"Much of the time that can be the case" with what? Other religions?
There are always going to people that tell lies to gain esteem or to advance a position, right. So I think much of the time that can be the case.
08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidDo you believe 'Appeal to Authority' works when non-Christian theists resort to using it in discussions?
We reject Islam because
(a) it does not even accurately account for Christianity while attempting to account for it, and
(b) it provides many inversions of Christian truth while claiming to represent it or fulfill it.
08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidDisappear whenever you want. But hey, you don't need an invitation from me to post whatever you want. You're getting plenty of feedback and perspective directly from me, so conduct yourself as you want. If you reckon you've dealt with something, leave it be by all means. I will also post whatever I want.
But when I am transparently communicating on whether or not I want to leave the debate at that, etc., maybe you should just directly put in your feedback and perspective on that
08 Nov 18
@fmf saidIf someone was telling me about the conditions surrounding the death of Hussein or Ali, or if someone was telling me about the beliefs about something with Krishna or some miraculous event with a Buddhist monk or a Taoist sage, and these were the prevailing views within that religious sect, it would not be what I would believe, but I would not describe it in as a folktale.
So the story I described would be a folktale then? And ~ being from a different religious tradition from yours ~ it'd not be an "historical account", right?
If they say that Arjuna rode in his chariot with Krishna, I will just acknowledge this as a fact within Hindu orthodoxy and gladly treat it as a fact within a theological discussion about Hinduism, and anyone who says that Arjuna didn't do that would be advancing a perspective that was either a minority Hindu opinion or a was simply detracting from the conversation about Hinduism.
Of course, I do not believe that, but I understand how to engage the topic.
My disbelief in Hinduism is irrelevant when a Hindu relays aspects of moral teaching or Hindu perspectives to a conversation.
So if I am at a party and someone tells me some details about it, I acknowledge them, accept them, and refer to them in their affirmative language, and I expect reciprocity, not because I think that we are "converting," but because I think the point of the discussion is to understand perspectives and not to treat each other's perspectives with overt hostility.
08 Nov 18
The Bhagavad-Gita is not a folktale. The stories about Arjuna are not folktales or legends. They are part of the sacred canon of of the Mahabharata...
And so if someone was telling me stories about their specific Gurus and what they did within their Vaishnavist or Shaivist sect, stories I know nothing about, I will treat them as legitimate aspects of their canon and refer to them politely and kindly, and I will try to build bridges to have better communication, right....
I do not get why there would have to be blatant rejection of it.
Especially when the conversation isn't about converting someone or undermining them, but it is about the path that they are walking through life, etc.
You see my point?
08 Nov 18
@fmf saidYes, definitely.
Do you believe 'Appeal to Authority' works when non-Christian theists resort to using it in discussions?
If someone says "this is on the authority of the Quran in this Surah," I accept what they are saying as the prevalent Islamic belief and Islamic canon, and I treat it respectfully and understand that this is their context of the statement.
Obviously, I do not switch my religion at the drop of a hat! However, I do not dig in my heels and argue against them, right, unless the whole point of the discussion is explicitly that.
08 Nov 18
@fmf saidHow about we have some more of a two-way agreement on things, right? Like, when I feel that the discussion is done, I can say, "OK, I will make my final statmeent, and I give the last word to you," or you can say that, and then we wrap things up nicely at that point at a nice stopping point..?
Disappear whenever you want. But hey, you don't need an invitation from me to post whatever you want. You're getting plenty of feedback and perspective directly from me, so conduct yourself as you want. If you reckon you've dealt with something, leave it be by all means. I will also post whatever I want.
What do you think of that idea?
THat would be right in the spirit of debate, IMO.
08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidJust post what you want. And I'll post what I want.
What do you think of that idea?
08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidIf you switched religion one day, would all the stories that you assert are "historical accounts" - like the one about the "angels" coming down to get the "drunken monk" told by a "Saint" - become folktales?
Obviously, I do not switch my religion at the drop of a hat! However, I do not dig in my heels and argue against them, right, unless the whole point of the discussion is explicitly that.
08 Nov 18
@philokalia saidSo, if you have a mindset that has you believing "the Gospels" are true, then it follows that any further and additional magical and "miraculous" things - from whatever year it might be in the last 2,000 - that just so happen to appeal to your imagination and suit the superstitious prism through which you see the world are also "true" for the same reason as "the Gospels" are "true" and this is all supported by Appeal to Authority? That's your "point" as far as I can make out.
You see my point?