Here is the Buddhist defending the Bible again! Where are the "People of the Book?"

The Bible is not a book of logic, few Holy Books of any religion are logical. They are spiritual documents and must be read as such.

Logically, 1x1=2. In spiritual matters 1x1 can = 6, or 7 or at the same time 6 and 7. The art of logic is a man-made thing. God's do not understand it - they do not need things to add up.


thats maths which is man made, but another logic would be, that gods can understand is ..

grass is green, sky is blue, and the earth revolves around the sun.

Here is the Buddhist defending the Bible again! Where are the "People of the Book?"

The Bible is not a book of logic, few Holy Books of any religion are logical. They are spiritual documents and must be read as such.

Logically, 1x1=2. In spiritual matters 1x1 can = 6, or 7 or at the same time 6 and 7. The art of logic is a man-made thing. God's do not understand it - they do not need things to add up.

CG if the Gods don't make sense themselves how can humans make sense of the Gods. Where do the rules from spiritual matters come from? Who made them up? If spiritual matters are nonsensical to us humans then how do we understand and impart this knowledge to one another. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If spirituality/gods sound like BS and look like BS, then it save to say it's probably BS.

CG if the Gods don't make sense themselves how can humans make sense of the Gods. Where do the rules from spiritual matters come from? Who made them up? If spiritual matters are nonsensical to us humans then how do we understand and impart this knowledge to one another. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If spirituality/gods sound like BS and look like BS, then it save to say it's probably BS.


Yes, but if it has attributes of a duck, it could be a platypus. Most often what is deemed "spiritual" is that which we cannot define within the realm of nature. As long as we are in a process of present continuous learning about a given subject, it will for the most part be categorized as "spiritual."
I'm not sure if I can explain this clearly, but you have to understand that Mankind has this pattern.
Today we still look at things we cannot fully explain and seek out explanations. What for? To put our minds at rest? What does true and full knowledge satiate? How and whereby did we obtain this driving force within to WANT/NEED to know these things?
We cannot universally explain it. So for some such as yourself, and please correct me if I misunderstand, The Path To Knowledge would personally be perceived as a mental journey.
Perhaps this is so, because of the conscious capacity you've parametered for yourself.

Whereas, for people such as myself, I see my understanding as partially mental, partially physical and partially something else.
CG no doubt, can attest and corroborate me on this. An individual with EXTENSIVE martial arts training, when trained properly, reacts...and reacts "instinctively."
The "instinct" can be developed, but upon what resources do we draw upon to unite body and mind to nurture this instinct?
And is not the practice of religion a consonant art? In mainstream religion are we not trained to react instinctively?
I am one who believes that mind and body may not be polar opposites, also that mind and body (not necessarily mine either) aren't the only resources we can draw upon on the path to knowledge.
Remember we call them RE-sources for a reason.

thats maths which is man made, but another logic would be, that gods can understand is ..

grass is green, sky is blue, and the earth revolves around the sun.

Grass is not always green. The sky is not always blue and the earth revolves around the sun as the sun revolves around the universe.

I am sure that many, many other things happen that we are not aware of. We have given a logic to the universe that suits us at this time in history. It maybe right, but it is likely incomplete.

In the past it was very logical that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. In those days it was not God's "logic." What makes one think today's is?

CG if the Gods don't make sense themselves how can humans make sense of the Gods.
Who said we have to? Spirituality makes itself known to us. The sense of it comes when we let go and allow it to flow. As the Taoists say, "The Tao that can be understood is not the real Tao."

Where do the rules from spiritual matters come from? Who made them up?
They are not made up, they just are. They come from no where, they just are. They are not in words but in feelings and actions.

If spiritual matters are nonsensical to us humans then how do we understand and impart this knowledge to one another.
There is a spiritual knowledge that we can learn. It is written down in the Bible and other Holy Book. Then there is the deeper knowledge that we cannot learn. It just "happens" to us when we are ready to receive it, as the Bible says, lean on our own understanding. It is something that as Parietal_03 says is instinctive.

In Buddhism we are taught the "facts;" when the Buddha was born, when he died, his teachings etc. Then we are told to forget all that and reach for Nirvana. Remember, when the Buddha was asked to teach Buddhism by the gods he said that it could not be taught! What could be taught is the Way to Buddhism. We really cannot teach any religion, all we can do is teach the Way to it. The student then has to allow himself to fall into, or be embraced, by the faith.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
From a logical human understanding, yes! Yet, in spiritual matters it could be a horse!

If spirituality/gods sound like BS and look like BS, then it save to say it's probably BS.
The thing is one can't say, "This is what I want God, or spirituality to be!" We cannot mold it to our liking. We have to allow it to mold us. The very moment we say. "It must be like this" is the moment it becomes BS because it will not "be like this" so to us it seems foolish and nonsensical.

Yes, but if it has attributes of a duck, it could be a platypus. Most often what is deemed "spiritual" is that which we cannot define within the realm of nature. As long as we are in a process of present continuous learning about a given subject, it will for the most part be categorized as "spiritual."
I'm not sure if I can explain this clearly, but you have to understand that Mankind has this pattern.
Today we still look at things we cannot fully explain and seek out explanations. What for? To put our minds at rest? What does true and full knowledge satiate? How and whereby did we obtain this driving force within to WANT/NEED to know these things?
We cannot universally explain it. So for some such as yourself, and please correct me if I misunderstand, The Path To Knowledge would personally be perceived as a mental journey.
Perhaps this is so, because of the conscious capacity you've parametered for yourself.

Whereas, for people such as myself, I see my understanding as partially mental, partially physical and partially something else.
CG no doubt, can attest and corroborate me on this. An individual with EXTENSIVE martial arts training, when trained properly, reacts...and reacts "instinctively."
The "instinct" can be developed, but upon what resources do we draw upon to unite body and mind to nurture this instinct?
And is not the practice of religion a consonant art? In mainstream religion are we not trained to react instinctively?
I am one who believes that mind and body may not be polar opposites, also that mind and body (not necessarily mine either) aren't the only resources we can draw upon on the path to knowledge.
Remember we call them RE-sources for a reason.

Good reply!
Just let me add a few comments.

Whereas, for people such as myself, I see my understanding as partially mental, partially physical and partially something else.
True, and that "something else" cannot be reached with words

CG no doubt, can attest and corroborate me on this. An individual with EXTENSIVE martial arts training, when trained properly, reacts...and reacts "instinctively."
True. One acts out of one's center.

The "instinct" can be developed, but upon what resources do we draw upon to unite body and mind to nurture this instinct?
Meditation! True meditation reaches into the center where this instinct "lives."

And is not the practice of religion a consonant art?
Yes, indeed!

In mainstream religion are we not trained to react instinctively?
In fact we are discouraged from doing this.

I am one who believes that mind and body may not be polar opposites, also that mind and body (not necessarily mine either) aren't the only resources we can draw upon on the path to knowledge.
The mind and the body are one thing, mind/body. One's soul, or essence, is another thing that should live in harmony with the mind/body, and the whole world. Those who have a conflict between any of these "things" are out of balance and Spiritual knowledge becomes harder to take in - if not impossible.

This excerp was taken from an article written by Richard Carrier in response to William Reinsmith, "Do religious life and critical thought need each other?"(1996).

"All critical thought is by nature adversarial. A "positive" role belongs instead to creative thought. While the role of creative thought is to create ideas and possibilities, the role of critical thought is to debunk them, and it is only by these two processes working together that we arrive at knowledge and truth. Critical thought can be viewed in much the same way as natural selection: it does in a sense "create" by eliminating the "weak" and leaving the "strong". Thus, critical thought's role as a debunking device is essential and indispensable, and it must play a part in every act of knowing. But it does not eliminate ideas and possibilities until none are left. Nihilism is as irrational as blind faith, and as self limiting as naivety. Rather, critical thought eliminates until all that remains is the consistent, the probable, the tenable, the reliable, the useful--in other words, knowledge."

This excerp was taken from an article written by Richard Carrier in response to William Reinsmith, "Do religious life and critical thought need each other?"(1996).

"All critical thought is by nature adversarial. A "positive" role belongs instead to creative thought. While the role of creative thought is to create ideas and possibilities, the role of critical thought is to debunk them, and it is only by these two processes working together that we arrive at knowledge and truth. Critical thought can be viewed in much the same way as natural selection: it does in a sense "create" by eliminating the "weak" and leaving the "strong". Thus, critical thought's role as a debunking device is essential and indispensable, and it must play a part in every act of knowing. But it does not eliminate ideas and possibilities until none are left. Nihilism is as irrational as blind faith, and as self limiting as naivety. Rather, critical thought eliminates until all that remains is the consistent, the probable, the tenable, the reliable, the useful--in other words, knowledge."

I have nothing against critical thought! But in order to think a thing through we need all the facts, or at lest a lot of them. Religion's facts are limited to those written down in Holy Books. These we can give some critical thought to. But the Holy Books are not religion. They are the fingers that point to the moon, they are not the moon itself. They are the instruction books for leading, or awakening, a spiritual life. They are not the life itself. The religious life is abstract. It is hard to give critical thought to the abstract

However, I see your point. If one has given critical thought to a Holy Book and found it wanting, one is unlikely to take the next step of faith. Yet, Holy Books cannot be read as one might read a novel. They are stories, but stories with a message. I will admit that often the message is well hidden, but it is there.

I have nothing against critical thought! But in order to think a thing through we need all the facts, or at lest a lot of them. Religion's facts are limited to those written down in Holy Books. These we can give some critical thought to. But the Holy Books are not religion. They are the fingers that point to the moon, they are not the moon itself. They are the instruction books for leading, or awakening, a spiritual life. They are not the life itself. The religious life is abstract. It is hard to give critical thought to the abstract

However, I see your point. If one has given critical thought to a Holy Book and found it wanting, one is unlikely to take the next step of faith. Yet, Holy Books cannot be read as one might read a novel. They are stories, but stories with a message. I will admit that often the message is well hidden, but it is there.

Then why submit yourself to something that can not be understood through rational means; has no foundation to build upon, as far as I am concern, is full of ambiguity and only serve to divide us as humans? If the Tao that you understand is probably not the true Toa, why seek the Tao only to find he/it is probably not the true Tao also. It seems all superfluos to me. I think we could spend our time in more useful pursuits, other than trying to comprehend a transient, difficult to understand belief system.

Isn't religion and facts an oxymoron?

Then why submit yourself to something that can not be understood through rational means; has no foundation to build upon, as far as I am concern, is full of ambiguity and only serve to divide us as humans?
Religion divides, Spirituality unites. I can get in an argument with someone who is religiously Christian, but not one who is Spiritually Christian because there is nothing to argue about. We are both one!

I would ask, is religion the only thing that is full of ambiguity? Is it the only thing that divides? And are we sure that our foundations in other areas are that solid?

If the Tao that you understand is probably not the true Toa, why seek the Tao only to find he/it is probably not the true Tao also. It seems all superfluos to me.
Yes, it does! But the Taoists don't seek the Tao. They seek the Way to the Tao.

I think we could spend our time in more useful pursuits, other than trying to comprehend a transient, difficult to understand belief system
Yes, for some people you are most likely right. Some folks are just not ready to accept it. In Buddhism we say that they will get another shot at it in an other life As for those who believe in only one life I cannot say what they think about it.

The very fact that it is difficult makes it a Journey worthy of the taking. I have been at it for forty plus years. At times I have found it maddening. I have found it frustrating. At times I just could not get my mind around it! And I have been diving into deeper waters than most folks. Yet, I have found that not all questions need answers. All the "i" do not need doting, or all the "t" crossing. We are in a mystery called "life and death." Enjoy the mystery! Spirituality helps one to do that. :cheers: It is not really a mystery to be solved but one to be lived. As we live it, the mystery is revealed, bit by bit. This might take a life-time (or two!) But it can happen if we are open to it.

Isn't religion and facts an oxymoron?

It well can be! But I think it is better to say Spirituality and facts are an oxymoron. Facts are unchanging. Religion thinks it is fact and also unchanging. Spirituality is more fluid.

the grass is green unless its dying :D

the grass is green unless its dying :D

Yet it is still grass! ;) By the way, ever heard of blue grass? It is not really blue but it has a blue cast. But if all grass is green, what shade of green? Or are there many?

grass is green because it is filled with chlorophyll that is a green pigment that reflects green light from the sun and absorbs the other colors?


The chlorophyll is used in the process of photosynthesis where a plant produces sugar in the presence of sunlight. In fact the word 'photosynthesis' means literally to synthesize or 'make' from light (photo). There are, of course some plants which do not contain chlorophyll, and these generally get their nutrition (food) by other means. Some examples are the fungi which
decompose dead, and sometimes living, tissue, for their food.You will find that a green plant needs light to make food. If the source of light is cut off, the plant dies. Mushrooms, which are fungi, do not require light to make food (they decompose matter as I mentioned above) and you can find mushrooms growing in almost total darkness.

The process of photosynthesis is described in great detail in many science books. It is really the process by which life as we know it is able to continue and renew itself.

"from the web somewhere..."