Originally posted by Nemesio
Ok. We come back to the question.

What is this magical understanding? Apply it to the Civil War example.

Nemesio

Magical? There is no magical understanding. However, since you are obviously making a painfully long attempt to lump factual knowledge in the same category as spiritual knowledge, let's just cut to the chase, shall we?
Spiritual knowledge is not gained via human effort or intelligence. Spiritual knowledge is gained via hearing the truth and believing the truth. Much like food is metabolized, truth must be received into the mind and believed before it can impart any benefit on the one listening.
This (among other things) separates Bible doctrine from any other form of truth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This (among other things) separates Bible doctrine from any other form of truth.

What's your reason for elevating Bible doctrine (whatever that is) above other spiritual systems? Hmmm?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What's your reason for elevating Bible doctrine (whatever that is) above other spiritual systems? Hmmm?

Spiritual systems? Is that the new PC way of saying religion?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Spiritual systems? Is that the new PC way of saying religion?

As you wish.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As you wish.

Well, BDN, I will answer you if you answer this, first.
Pick two religions, which in your mind, are unrelated to Christianity, and tell me the main tenet of each. Specifically, how does man fulfill the purpose which the religion sets out as necessary.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Magical? There is no magical understanding. However, since you are obviously making a painfully long attempt to lump factual knowledge in the same category as spiritual knowledge, let's just cut to the chase, shall we?
Spiritual knowledge is not gained via human effort or intelligence. Spiritual knowledge is gained via hearing the truth and believing ...[text shortened]... one listening.
This (among other things) separates Bible doctrine from any other form of truth.

Ok. Now you are being clear.

When you said 'there is knowledge and there is knowledge' and then you compared
it to the Civil War, you were in fact erroneously applying that analogy.

In the Civil War example, there is knowledge that anyone can get and draw conclusions
from. Using effort and intelligence, you go from a state of ignorance into a state of
informedness.

What you meant to say is, 'There is intellectual knowledge of the Bible and there is
spiritual knowledge of the Bible.'

Just like the Civil War, anyone can acquire intellectual knowledge of the Bible through
effort and intelligence.

But spiritual knowledge is somehow different. If it doesn't require human effort or
intelligence, what does it require? Do you consider 'faith' apart from human effort?

And, do you think that it is reasonable on God's part to expect faithfulness in the
face of contrary intellectual knowledge?

You should really make efforts to be clear in your initial posts rather than act
exasperated ('let's just cut to the chase,' you said). Your 'knowledge...knowledge'
diachotomy was unclear and your analogy was poorly applied. Don't blame me
because you have this concept in your mind that you aren't sharing clearly.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, BDN, I will answer you if you answer this, first.
Pick two religions, which in your mind, are unrelated to Christianity, and tell me the main tenet of each. Specifically, how does man fulfill the purpose which the religion sets out as necessary.

OK. According to Hinduism, the purpose of life is achieving release from the cycle of birth and rebirth. There are various ways of achieving this--for example, spiritual practice (raja yoga) and devotion to others (bhakti yoga).According to Buddhism, the purpose of life is to end suffering. This can be achieved via the Eight-Fold Path. Google it up if you aren't familiar with it.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ok. Now you are being clear.

When you said 'there is knowledge and there is knowledge' and then you compared
it to the Civil War, you were in fact erroneously applying that analogy.

In the Civil War example, there is knowledge that anyone can get and draw conclusions
from. Using effort and intelligence, you go from a state of ignorance into a sta ...[text shortened]... ame me
because you have this concept in your mind that you aren't sharing clearly.

Nemesio

When you said 'there is knowledge and there is knowledge' and then you compared
it to the Civil War, you were in fact erroneously applying that analogy.

Actually, the words "kind of like," should have been the tip-off. While there is ambiguity in the phrase, there should be no such ambiguity in the application. I was contrasting topical understanding--- at your behest--- with organic understanding. Understanding beyond superficiality in ANY field is dependent having a grasp of the context, and content. There was no error in the analogy, as it wasn't intended to convey a similarity in the fields of study beyond context, content, etc.

Do you consider 'faith' apart from human effort?

Faith is non-meritorious, so, yes, it is apart from human effort.

it is reasonable on God's part to expect faithfulness in the
face of contrary intellectual knowledge?


I would consider God the final authority on reason. In the face of contrary intellectual knowledge, science was performing lobotamies for general purposes as early as within the last thiry years.
It has been my experience that when one source of truth contradicts another source of truth, either one or both of those sources is being mis-read. Every once and a great while, one of those sources is wrong, and eventually comes around to validate what the other source was correctly asserting all along.
It has also been my experience that the Bible, when correctly divided, has never been wrong.

act exasperated

I wasn't acting exasperated. You asked for my take on how knowledge can differ in other fields, quote/unquote, unrelated to the Bible. You then tried to hold me to that response and apply the same to the Bible. I wouldn't let you.

However, one can always practice less obtuseness.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK. According to Hinduism, the purpose of life is achieving release from the cycle of birth and rebirth. There are various ways of achieving this--for example, spiritual practice (raja yoga) and devotion to others (bhakti yoga).According to Buddhism, the purpose of life is to end suffering. This can be achieved via the Eight-Fold Path. Google it up if you aren't familiar with it.

Actually, Buddhism is also about ending the cycle of birth and rebirth.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This can be achieved via the Eight-Fold Path.

No pun intended, but please enlighten us by enumerating the eight-fold path.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, Buddhism is also about ending the cycle of birth and rebirth.

--which brings about an end to suffering. The Four Noble Truths speak of suffering; the Eight-Fold Path speaks of ending suffering.

(Question for you--I'm told that Buddhists prefer to talk about rebirth rather than reincarnation. Why?)

Edit for Freaky:

"The eightfold path is Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration." (http://www.acay.com.au/~silkroad/buddha/p_path_frames.htm)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
--which brings about an end to suffering. The Four Noble Truths speak of suffering; the Eight-Fold Path speaks of ending suffering.

(Question for you--I'm told that Buddhists prefer to talk about rebirth rather than reincarnation. Why?)

Edit for Freaky:

"The eightfold path is Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech, Right Action, Ri ...[text shortened]... dfulness, and Right Concentration." (http://www.acay.com.au/~silkroad/buddha/p_path_frames.htm)

IIRC, the end of suffering is caused by the renunciation of desire in Buddhist thought. Desire, in turn, keeps us in the birth-rebirth loop. Tom-ay-toes, tom-ah-toes I suppose.

I'm not sure why Buddhists prefer to speak of rebirth rather than reincarnation. Maybe they hold that human beings are only reborn as human beings. Or maybe reincarnation is a term specific to Hindu thought and Buddhism is more widely dispersed.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage

(Question for you--I'm told that Buddhists prefer to talk about rebirth rather than reincarnation. Why?)

Edit for Freaky:

"The eightfold path is Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration." (http://www.acay.com.au/~silkroad/buddha/p_path_frames.htm)

Is it because they think of it as a new begining where they can start again at trying to end suffering, instead of as a continuation of past suffering???

This is purely a guess, so no one yell at me if I am wrong.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Is it because they think of it as a new begining where they can start again at trying to end suffering, instead of as a continuation of past suffering???

This is purely a guess, so no one yell at me if I am wrong.

That could be it.

In Hindu thought, your station and mode of birth was a result of past karma - so, if you're (re)born as a horse or a tree you have bad karma whereas if you're born as a Brahmin, you have great karma. This automatically validated the system of castes that Indian society was built on.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Is it because they think of it as a new begining where they can start again at trying to end suffering, instead of as a continuation of past suffering???

This is purely a guess, so no one yell at me if I am wrong.

Good guess, I think. See if this makes any sense--

"Buddhists understand life as samsara, meaning perpetual wandering, and describe the transition like a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball. While nothing physical transfers, the speed and direction of the second ball relate directly to the first. So the term most often used is rebirth, rather than reincarnation. Reincarnation implies the transfer of an essence, or a soul, while rebirth follows the law of causality, or dependant origination, where this arises because of circumstances which happened before."

Now is FreakyBH going to answer my question, the reason we're discussing Buddhism in the first place.