• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Progressive Revelation

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Asana Bodhitharta

Progressive Revelation

Unread post

All Holy books are sufficient in themselves for the appointed time of the revelation and purpose of the book. There is no book that is cancelling out another. Yet, each progression confirms the preceding revelation and clarifies it's understanding according to the language of the people who are receiving it.So from religion to religion and divine revelation to divine revelation you find inconsistency. And those who see, clearly see Truth. Progressive revelation is consistently honest to the inconsistencies that are presented and it is this honesty that upholds the Truth.This is the instruction: A very fundamental truth in the basics of reality is that inconsistency proves truth, and what that means is that events when gathered for the purpose of accuracy are gathered without there being subjective editing to make a cohesive and perfect whole. In any court record one can find several contradictions given enough witnesses and this is how it is in a reliable voluminous accounting, In-fact a cohesive perfect whole would prove the Holy Bible or any voluminous and objective Multi-book accounting as false. There are many revelations that have come, from Hindu to Buddhist to Judaism to Christianity to Islam and to being Asanas. Now I will say that those of you who have become gracious by God are called Asanas. Am I saying you cannot be these other religions? No! I am saying that these are progressive states of understanding so to the truly religious there is only pure religion. You are men and women of God.
Saint Gasoline

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

Quote:This is the instruction: A very fundamental truth in the basics of reality is that inconsistency proves truth, and what that means is that events when gathered for the purpose of accuracy are gathered without there being subjective editing to make a cohesive and perfect whole. In any court record one can find several contradictions given enough witnesses and this is how it is in a reliable voluminous accounting, In-fact a cohesive perfect whole would prove the Holy Bible or any voluminous and objective Multi-book accounting as false. I don't mean to sound rude or offensive, Asana, but this blurb is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. It is so contrary to reason and right thinking that I have difficulty even conceiving how someone could possibly believe it--yet apparently you do.Anyway, here area few quick critiques:Quote:In any court record one can find several contradictions given enough witnesses and this is how it is in a reliable voluminous accountingYou don't know much about law, do you? If there are several conflicting statements by witnesses in a court record, this is NOT considered reliable information. For instance, let's say that you see an event happen. The event is a blue car hitting a red car. Now, let us suppose that several witnesses come forward. You say the blue car hit the red, whereas others say that the red hit the blue, or that they both hit each other and suddenly merged into one single purple car.Now, you seem to think these conflicting views prove that each is true. But this doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say something is true if anything that is said is "True" by virtue of the fact that it can be contradicted? For instance, if I say that 2+2=4, and you say it is 5, does this mean both are true? But then if everyone said 2+2=4, then suddenly this would mean it is false? Frankly, this makes no sense whatsoever.In a court, when witnesses contradict each other, their testimony is generally thrown out, unless some other evidence can show that one of the witnesses' accounts is correct.Now, let's discuss the nature of "truth", because you seem to have no idea what it means for something to be true.If something is true, this is generally taken to mean that there is a correspondence between the true statement and reality. Meaning that the statement, "The rat is wearing a hat" is true if and only if a rat is in reality wearing a hat. Now, if in reality a rat is wearing a hat, then it is clear that "The rat is not wearing a hat" is false. The contradiction is what proves it is false. You seem to think contradiction proves something true. But then you are just misusing the word "true". I'll just have to remember that whenever you say something is "true" you mean what is commonly meant by false, and vice versa.Honestly, this is quite possibly the most inane argument I have ever come across. I've heard better arguments for the existence of God from children. At least they don't blatantly confuse concepts as basic as contradiction and truth.But here's the kicker:If Holy books are true because they "conflict" with each other--then atheism must be true because theism "conflicts" with it. You just proved that atheism is true according to your twisted logic. Edited by: Saint Gasoline  at: 10/22/06 6:12 pm
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

SGYour claws are as sharp as ever! Later
Asana Bodhitharta

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

Quote:I don't mean to sound rude or offensive, Asana, but this blurb is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. It is so contrary to reason and right thinking that I have difficulty even conceiving how someone could possibly believe it--yet apparently you do.Let's see how this works in real life:In court you have a defense and a prosecutor. One is usually caliming absolute innocence and the other is usually claiming absolute guilt.The defense will have several witnesses that will outright contradict the prosecutors case. Right?Now through a series of testimony we start getting a cleare and clearer picture of Inconsistencies on one of the sides which is then causing the truth of the matter to be exerted.Quote:You don't know much about law, do you? If there are several conflicting statements by witnesses in a court record, this is NOT considered reliable information. For instance, let's say that you see an event happen. The event is a blue car hitting a red car. Now, let us suppose that several witnesses come forward. You say the blue car hit the red, whereas others say that the red hit the blue, or that they both hit each other and suddenly merged into one single purple car.The above inconsistent testimonials would prove that certainly A. There was indeed an accident B. The red hit the blue car, the blue hit the red car or they both hit each other.C. There was no third car involved unless there was 1 single purple car and no accident.Quote:Now, you seem to think these conflicting views prove that each is true. But this doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say something is true if anything that is said is "True" by virtue of the fact that it can be contradicted? For instance, if I say that 2+2=4, and you say it is 5, does this mean both are true? But then if everyone said 2+2=4, then suddenly this would mean it is false? Frankly, this makes no sense whatsoever.2 + 2 of What? Will 2quarts of oil and 2 quarts of water yield 4 quarts of the combination.If a person can show where 2 + 2 = 5 you would just say 2+2=4 except in cases where.....Quote:In a court, when witnesses contradict each other, their testimony is generally thrown out, unless some other evidence can show that one of the witnesses' accounts is correct.I think you misunderstand law. The whole court case is one in which both sides contradict each other. The only testimony that gets thrown out is when certain witnesses contradict themselves. Now, when certain witnesses contradict themselves and gets there testimony thrown out it sometimes lends credence to the opposing sides argument(although not always)Quote:Now, let's discuss the nature of "truth", because you seem to have no idea what it means for something to be true.Now if you are still talkin about law here, remember that the court of law is not a court of facts.Also Truth is a mushy word whereas honesty places the truth in context.Truth: John Smith killed a man in cold blood = John Smith is a murderer.Truth in context: John Smith killed a man in colb blood saving a platoon of men in Iraq = John Smith is a national hero.Now both of these statements are true and yet they yield completely different results, so context is necessarry to have a reliable understanding.Quote:If something is true, this is generally taken to mean that there is a correspondence between the true statement and reality. Meaning that the statement, "The rat is wearing a hat" is true if and only if a rat is in reality wearing a hat. Now, if in reality a rat is wearing a hat, then it is clear that "The rat is not wearing a hat" is false. The contradiction is what proves it is false. You seem to think contradiction proves something true. If the contradiction proves what is false, then isn't it proving what is true? Didn't you just say that? You see inconsistencies prove truth! If "The rat is not wearing a hat" is false, then "the rat is wearing a hat" is true.Quote:But then you are just misusing the word "true". I'll just have to remember that whenever you say something is "true" you mean what is commonly meant by false, and vice versa.God willing, I hope you have a better understanding. You are very intelligent I'll give you that, but you tend to rush and that causes errors. To be more efficient, be thoughtful. Quote:But here's the kicker:If Holy books are true because they "conflict" with each other--then atheism must be true because theism "conflicts" with it. You just proved that atheism is true according to your twisted logic.You are still not comprehending what the statement means. Theism and atheism are both supportive of theism. For instance, If you call yourself an atheist you are saying you don't believe there is a God, a(non) theos(God) But you assertion causes theism in others to get stronger for the most part. Remember the only bad publicity is no publicity at all.Talking about God or no-God is still talking about God.BTW, When atheist talk about pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and other fanciful notions to sidetrack the issue, just remember they don't spend time and energy in serious dialogue with these non-sequitous entities. Edited by: Asana Bodhitharta at: 10/22/06 9:25 pm
Saint Gasoline

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

The problem seems to be the way you state your arguments, Asana. You aren't very clear, and if you were more coherent I could perhaps tell what you were saying the first time.For instance, in your latest post, I can sort of see what you mean. This sums it up, I think:Quote:If the contradiction proves what is false, then isn't it proving what is true? Didn't you just say that? You see inconsistencies prove truth! If "The rat is not wearing a hat" is false, then "the rat is wearing a hat" is true.This is quite right. If "This car is red" is contradicted by the facts, then "This car is not red" is proved true. However, this didn't appear to be what you were saying in your original post. You seemed to be saying not that contradictions prove truth, but that two conflicting accounts were both true. In essence, what you seemed to be saying is that when one person says, "This car is red" and the other says it is blue, then they are both correct.The obvious reason that I thought this is simply because you do not phrase your arguments very well, nor was it really a coherent argument. For instance, you say things like, "...from religion to religion and divine revelation to divine revelation you find inconsistency", and then you say things like "In any court record one can find several contradictions given enough witnesses and this is how it is in a reliable voluminous recording" and "a cohesive perfect whole would prove the Holy Bible or any voluminous and objective Multi-book accounting as false".Now, is it true that if we have a consistent, coherent whole that it is proved false? No. If I can gather five thousand witnesses that all claim to have seen the blue car hit the red car, and yet the other side cannot produce one witness saying the contrary, then you would seem to think this proves the witnesses wrong. It is clear from your wording that this is what you meant in the original post. And in your latest post you seem to be retreating from this position, and rightfully so.I think what you are trying to say is that inconsistencies can lead to truth by looking for the common ground, but not even this is correct. For instance, if one person says he say a blue banana, but another person says he saw a flying banana, the common ground between them that they saw a banana is not necessarily true. They may not have seen a banana of any color or strange flight pattern at all.Basically, I am arguing that you are dead wrong to assert that something is "proved false" when it is perfectly coherent. (For an example, take arithmetic or formal logic. The fact that it is perfectly coherent doesn't make it false. Just the opposite is true, in fact. It's coherence is what gives us reason to think it true.) I would also like to argue that your other point is incorrect, but I'm not sure what that point is. You seem to be saying that religious inconsistencies allow us to arrive at religious truth, but I'd have to disagree. In science, for instance, the disproof of a certain theory A only "proves" that NOT-A is true--it certainly doesn't prove that B or C or D is true. In a similar manner, if Religion A has inconsistencies, and religion B has inconsistencies, this does not prove that C is true, or that some mixture of A and B is true. All that it can prove is that A and B are NOT true. In order to show that the consistent parts of A and B are true, you would have to also provide some evidence that demonstrates their truth. Mere consistency doesn't demonstrate truth, for obvious reasons. For instance, there is no contradiction involved in my saying, "I have a ten foot penis", but it is nevertheless not true.
Asana Bodhitharta

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

Quote:This is quite right. If "This car is red" is contradicted by the facts, then "This car is not red" is proved true. However, this didn't appear to be what you were saying in your original post. You seemed to be saying not that contradictions prove truth, but that two conflicting accounts were both true. In essence, what you seemed to be saying is that when one person says, "This car is red" and the other says it is blue, then they are both correct.Actually, If someone says, "This car is red" And the other says it is blue. If someone was trying to prove "car". They can easily point to the inconsistentcy of the debate and say "red or blue you both agree it is a car." So the statement Inconsistency proves truth has depth as well.
Saint Gasoline

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

Quote:Actually, If someone says, "This car is red" And the other says it is blue. If someone was trying to prove "car". They can easily point to the inconsistentcy of the debate and say "red or blue you both agree it is a car." So the statement Inconsistency proves truth has depth as well.The inconsistency doesn't prove the truth, for crying out loud. It is the points where their descriptions are consistent that proves the truth, if they did indeed see a car. Because the color is inconsistent, we can't adequately judge what color it is, but we have a little reason to think that they saw a car. However, the inconsistency makes it less probable. We would be much more confident if both witnesses say they saw the same color car.At any rate, your ludicrous account of how "inconsistencies" demonstrate truth for scriptures is hogwash. If I have a few people claiming to see a car, but they disagree about the color, I can assume that they saw a car because I know cars are a common thing to see and it does not take a stretch of the imagination to believe these people possibly saw a car. However, if I have four or five accounts of "God", and all of these accounts are inconsistent with each other as to the traits, context, and behaviour of God, then I have little reason to believe the common point of "God" is true. For instance, if four people came up to you saying they saw a unicorn, but one said it was purple, and another said it was flaming and caused a fire in a nearby gas station, and another said it could fly and put out a fire, then you would have little reason to believe they saw a unicorn, because there is no precedent for unicorns being a common sight.Inconsistencies make witnesses LESS credible, not MORE credible. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Asana Bodhitharta

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

Quote:At any rate, your ludicrous account of how "inconsistencies" demonstrate truth for scriptures is hogwash. If I have a few people claiming to see a car, but they disagree about the color, I can assume that they saw a car because I know cars are a common thing to see and it does not take a stretch of the imagination to believe these people possibly saw a car. However, if I have four or five accounts of "God", and all of these accounts are inconsistent with each other as to the traits, context, and behaviour of God, then I have little reason to believe the common point of "God" is true. For instance, if four people came up to you saying they saw a unicorn, but one said it was purple, and another said it was flaming and caused a fire in a nearby gas station, and another said it could fly and put out a fire, then you would have little reason to believe they saw a unicorn, because there is no precedent for unicorns being a common sight.There does not need to be a pecedent for something to be true. It is like the UFO sightings you would know from the massive amount of sightings that there are sometimes "Unidentified Flying Objects" with that said if they were "Identified Flying Objects" and they were identified as flying unicorns then we would be saying flying unicorns have been sighted. You do believe that out of the massive UFO sightings that these people are seeing something right?the Platypus is not a common sight but it does exist.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

Quote:The Platypus is not a common sight but it does exist.Are you trying to equate the Platypus, an animal that we can confirm the existence of, with alien spacecraft that flew thousands of light-years just to mess with rednecks? Please say no. Later
Asana Bodhitharta

Re: Progressive Revelation

Unread post

Quote:Are you trying to equate the Platypus, an animal that we can confirm the existence of, with alien spacecraft that flew thousands of light-years just to mess with rednecks? Please say no. Please don't make me write simpler posts. You assume "alien spacecraft", that is identifying information.BTW, I have never seen a platypus nor have I ever met anyone who has seen a platypus. Have you ever seen a platypus?
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”