Bibilcal Swine?
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 19 March 2006
Dear friends
A question that has perplexed me for over thirty years is why when Jesus cast a devil or of a man this devil entered a herd of swine (pigs) who then killed themselves by running in the lake.
Given that Jews don't eat pork, what were the pigs doing there?
I asked a friend, who works in the Cathedral here, and who is, I think, a Christian, even if I am hardly am, this question, and he was stumped, having never noted the strange juxtaposition of pigs in Jewish lands.
All the best from Fredrik
A question that has perplexed me for over thirty years is why when Jesus cast a devil or of a man this devil entered a herd of swine (pigs) who then killed themselves by running in the lake.
Given that Jews don't eat pork, what were the pigs doing there?
I asked a friend, who works in the Cathedral here, and who is, I think, a Christian, even if I am hardly am, this question, and he was stumped, having never noted the strange juxtaposition of pigs in Jewish lands.
All the best from Fredrik
The conclusion is that no one had the body and that the resurrection claim, however incredible, was true. If you accept that, you pretty quickly conclude that Jesus must have been who he said he was.
I hope that helps.[/QUOTE]
Re. The staggering claim that the alleged divinity if Jesus is proved by there being no body is bizarre in the extreme IMO.
Let us take, for example, a chap found living in the deep depths of the Amazonian jungle who has never heard of God, Jesus or Buddha. I could teach him a simple way to relax and meditate and then apply antidotes to negative states of mind. I could do this without any mention of Buddha or Buddhism or requiring any act of faith. Once he had become familiar with these antidotes his way of thinking would change and he would be happier. I think it is fair to say that having applied antidotes to negative states of mind the mind becomes more positive and virtuous. A mind that is more positive and virtuous could be said to be more pure. A person whose mind is filled with negativity tends to experience life in a negative way, they see fault everywhere. A person with a positive and virtuous mind tends to have a happier experience of the world. Thus I think it fair to say that if our Amazonian Indian purified his mind he would agree he had purified his experience. With me so far?
Now, if it fair to say that a little effort to purify ones mind results in purer experience then would it not be fair to say that making a greater effort over a longer period would produce a greater more pure experience? I think this is a fair and logical progression. I think if one purified ones mind a little one would purify ones experience a little and if one purified ones mind a lot one would purify ones experience a lot and that therefore it is not a great leap to suggest that if one purified ones mind completely one would purify ones experience completely and a completely pure experience would be like living in heaven no matter where you were. I think this little scenario offers a demonstration of logically bridging the gap between one position (that of our Indian) and another (a highly realized being) in simple steps which seem to be provable and demonstrable.
Now let us look at your position. You meet our Indian in the jungle and teach him shame and guilt and that he was born in sin. You tell him he is going to hell if does not allow Jesus in his life. He asks who Jesus was and you say he was the son of God who died on the cross to save our sins. He asks who is God and you reply he is the creator of all and that he made the world in six days, caused the great flood which drowned the whole of mankind except for his favourites (even though he loves us all), poured down plagues and pestilence on the masses, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (yes he created them all but he did not like what he had created) and drowned the Egyptians who were chasing the chosen people (His flavour of the month) as they fled Egypt.
You tell him God loves him but understandably he wonders if perhaps this murdering God is a bit of a looper. He asks if he might meet God in order to check him out but you say that he is everywhere but invisible. He asks for more information about Jesus and you say he was the son of God because it says so in the bible. Not unreasonably he asks how you know the bible is true and you reply because it’s God’s word and he asks how you know it’s God’s word and you say ‘because the bible says so’! He maybe be a naked Indian living in the jungle but he knows a circular argument when he hears one.
He asks what proof there is that Jesus is the son of the creator God and you reply because when he died on the cross he was resurrected from the dead and when asked for proof of this miracle you reply it was because no one could produce a body he had never heard of Shergar so was unable to make a simple riposte but he knew a dodgy argument when he heard one after all he has read some of Fritz‘s posts. Our Amazonian friend thanks you for your concern and backs away ever so carefully towards the common sense camp which you claim is the work of the devil.
No matter at least you can pray for him and in the meanwhile you can target the local kids whose critical faculties have not yet been formed and present an easier target just like many schools in the UK now whose headmasters vet the teachers to make sure they share the same Christian values.
Do I go to far? All of the above is just my own opinion and need not be taking seriously.
All the best,
Erik
I hope that helps.[/QUOTE]
Re. The staggering claim that the alleged divinity if Jesus is proved by there being no body is bizarre in the extreme IMO.
Let us take, for example, a chap found living in the deep depths of the Amazonian jungle who has never heard of God, Jesus or Buddha. I could teach him a simple way to relax and meditate and then apply antidotes to negative states of mind. I could do this without any mention of Buddha or Buddhism or requiring any act of faith. Once he had become familiar with these antidotes his way of thinking would change and he would be happier. I think it is fair to say that having applied antidotes to negative states of mind the mind becomes more positive and virtuous. A mind that is more positive and virtuous could be said to be more pure. A person whose mind is filled with negativity tends to experience life in a negative way, they see fault everywhere. A person with a positive and virtuous mind tends to have a happier experience of the world. Thus I think it fair to say that if our Amazonian Indian purified his mind he would agree he had purified his experience. With me so far?
Now, if it fair to say that a little effort to purify ones mind results in purer experience then would it not be fair to say that making a greater effort over a longer period would produce a greater more pure experience? I think this is a fair and logical progression. I think if one purified ones mind a little one would purify ones experience a little and if one purified ones mind a lot one would purify ones experience a lot and that therefore it is not a great leap to suggest that if one purified ones mind completely one would purify ones experience completely and a completely pure experience would be like living in heaven no matter where you were. I think this little scenario offers a demonstration of logically bridging the gap between one position (that of our Indian) and another (a highly realized being) in simple steps which seem to be provable and demonstrable.
Now let us look at your position. You meet our Indian in the jungle and teach him shame and guilt and that he was born in sin. You tell him he is going to hell if does not allow Jesus in his life. He asks who Jesus was and you say he was the son of God who died on the cross to save our sins. He asks who is God and you reply he is the creator of all and that he made the world in six days, caused the great flood which drowned the whole of mankind except for his favourites (even though he loves us all), poured down plagues and pestilence on the masses, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (yes he created them all but he did not like what he had created) and drowned the Egyptians who were chasing the chosen people (His flavour of the month) as they fled Egypt.
You tell him God loves him but understandably he wonders if perhaps this murdering God is a bit of a looper. He asks if he might meet God in order to check him out but you say that he is everywhere but invisible. He asks for more information about Jesus and you say he was the son of God because it says so in the bible. Not unreasonably he asks how you know the bible is true and you reply because it’s God’s word and he asks how you know it’s God’s word and you say ‘because the bible says so’! He maybe be a naked Indian living in the jungle but he knows a circular argument when he hears one.
He asks what proof there is that Jesus is the son of the creator God and you reply because when he died on the cross he was resurrected from the dead and when asked for proof of this miracle you reply it was because no one could produce a body he had never heard of Shergar so was unable to make a simple riposte but he knew a dodgy argument when he heard one after all he has read some of Fritz‘s posts. Our Amazonian friend thanks you for your concern and backs away ever so carefully towards the common sense camp which you claim is the work of the devil.
No matter at least you can pray for him and in the meanwhile you can target the local kids whose critical faculties have not yet been formed and present an easier target just like many schools in the UK now whose headmasters vet the teachers to make sure they share the same Christian values.
Do I go to far? All of the above is just my own opinion and need not be taking seriously.
All the best,
Erik
Hello David,
LOL - I'm not entirely convinced.
You have made some interested points David.
all the best,
Erik
don't forget to check out quantum buddhism
My favorite example of such logic is the origin of the term "influenza" -- the illness was undoubtedly caused by the influence of the moon and stars and there was plenty of logic to back it up.quote:Originally posted by NaimDropper:
Yes, and logical constructs are made by flawed-thinking humans to bring order to the disorder QUOTE]
Yes, reality is imputed by conceptual minds which are ignorant of the true nature of ultimate reality.
But Quantum physics is not the end,quote:
Hmm yes, all language is metaphor.
quote:
That's for sure.
[QUOTE] there is plenty that has not been discovered, measured, postulated, etc. And the neat little package we think some of this stuff is in will be opened and there will be new parts all over the floor. [QUOTE]
Yes, science in their doomed search for ultimate reality will only ever chase their tails around in ever decreasing circles like a fractal.
[QUOTE] Then, maybe, some polytheistic religion from your Amazon Indian will be able to explain it. Then, the next set of discoveries will require early Christianity, etc. That would be in line with reincarnation in a way, wouldn't it?
(Sorry, couldn't help it!)
LOL - I'm not entirely convinced.
You have made some interested points David.
all the best,
Erik
don't forget to check out quantum buddhism
Dear Erik
I’d like to address some of the points that you’ve made. Apologies for what’s going to be a lengthy post, but hey, it’s my turn to use up some bandwidth.
You’ve said that the mere disappearance of a body is not sufficient evidence to back up a claim of being the Son of God, and of course I agree with that. There are two connected factors that I should have spelt out that substantially alter the importance of the missing body.
Firstly, Jesus predicted his resurrection to his followers. They didn’t understand what on earth he was talking about, but that doesn’t detract from the fact.
Secondly, as Andrew Randle pointed out, this dead person subsequently appeared to many hundreds of people over the course of some weeks. You could dismiss these accounts as hallucinations or whatever if it were not for their sheer number and consistency of account.
I am not aware that Shergar did either of these things. I am also not aware that a pretty detailed description of the manner of his death was written down some seven hundred years before it happened.
You also raise the question of circular argument which, if valid, would of course undermine everything. At no point in my argument above have I resorted to saying “because it says so in the Bible”. My reliance on the Bible has been no more than as a record of events.
In an earlier post I mentioned Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as further evidence backing up the claims of Christianity. If you would permit me to expand on this.
Paul was a highly intelligent, highly educated man. He was a scribe and a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. In other words he was at the very top of the Jewish establishment.
Paul was directly responsible for ordering and carrying out the execution of many hundreds of people who were claiming that Jesus had risen. He was at the very centre of the Jewish attempt to crush this “uprising”. Paul was travelling to Damascus with the sole intent of executing more of these followers.
Yet by the time he gets to Damascus he was himself proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, claiming that Jesus had appeared to him asking “why are you persecuting me?”. Again, one might dismiss this as hallucination or whatever. But that does not fit with the fact that he then dedicated the remainder of his life to explaining its implications, spent years in prison for it, and in the end was himself executed for it. That is some U turn.
It is when you weigh up many factors together that, IMO, the balance of the argument comes down in favour of the claims Jesus made of himself being true. At no point is this argument circular. It is simply taking the historical facts and deducing the most likely explanation for them. Of course you can come to a different view; that is your choice.
I’d like to address some of the points that you’ve made. Apologies for what’s going to be a lengthy post, but hey, it’s my turn to use up some bandwidth.
You’ve said that the mere disappearance of a body is not sufficient evidence to back up a claim of being the Son of God, and of course I agree with that. There are two connected factors that I should have spelt out that substantially alter the importance of the missing body.
Firstly, Jesus predicted his resurrection to his followers. They didn’t understand what on earth he was talking about, but that doesn’t detract from the fact.
Secondly, as Andrew Randle pointed out, this dead person subsequently appeared to many hundreds of people over the course of some weeks. You could dismiss these accounts as hallucinations or whatever if it were not for their sheer number and consistency of account.
I am not aware that Shergar did either of these things. I am also not aware that a pretty detailed description of the manner of his death was written down some seven hundred years before it happened.
You also raise the question of circular argument which, if valid, would of course undermine everything. At no point in my argument above have I resorted to saying “because it says so in the Bible”. My reliance on the Bible has been no more than as a record of events.
In an earlier post I mentioned Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as further evidence backing up the claims of Christianity. If you would permit me to expand on this.
Paul was a highly intelligent, highly educated man. He was a scribe and a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. In other words he was at the very top of the Jewish establishment.
Paul was directly responsible for ordering and carrying out the execution of many hundreds of people who were claiming that Jesus had risen. He was at the very centre of the Jewish attempt to crush this “uprising”. Paul was travelling to Damascus with the sole intent of executing more of these followers.
Yet by the time he gets to Damascus he was himself proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, claiming that Jesus had appeared to him asking “why are you persecuting me?”. Again, one might dismiss this as hallucination or whatever. But that does not fit with the fact that he then dedicated the remainder of his life to explaining its implications, spent years in prison for it, and in the end was himself executed for it. That is some U turn.
It is when you weigh up many factors together that, IMO, the balance of the argument comes down in favour of the claims Jesus made of himself being true. At no point is this argument circular. It is simply taking the historical facts and deducing the most likely explanation for them. Of course you can come to a different view; that is your choice.
Hello Nigel,
Here are brief answers to your interesting questions.
This is a good question and the answer would take many hours of writing so I will look for something online and direct you to that. Finding ultimately reality, even temporarily is difficult, it is subtle and elusive at first. I can best explain this by giving you an analogy. Do you know what a magic eye picture is? A picture of seemingly random coloured dots? If I were to say it was a piture of a horse you could take a casual glance and say 'rubbish, utter nonesense' but if I say look harder you might or might not but if you did you might still find nothing despite being intelligent. If I gave you some instruction on how to change your focus and you put a little time and effort into staring at the pictue you might suddenly see a horse emerge from the seeming randomness and their is quite a wow factor when it does. The glimpse is elusive however as there is a tendency to alter focus to grasp at a real picture of a horse but it then disappears. With practice, however, the hidden horse appears readily and for long periods and one can be completely familiar with all its details. At this point if someone else looked at the picture and exclaimed 'load of tosh, there is nothing there' you would know otherwise - on an experiential level. You could study how the pictures are made and how the mind alters to reveal the secret and have an intellectual understanding too but it is the experiential awareness that gives the wow factor best. In Buddhism this is best provided by Tantric meditation (no, it;s nothing to do with sex). Of course all this is just a crude analogy as the wow factor in finding the horse is nothing compared to the wow factor at finding ultimate reality which will change your life even if you got just a glimpse.
All the best,
Erik
Here are brief answers to your interesting questions.
I would say it is both.quote:What analysis is this? Is it scientific or philosophical?
quote:What is the nature of "ultimate reality" and where is the evidence?
This is a good question and the answer would take many hours of writing so I will look for something online and direct you to that. Finding ultimately reality, even temporarily is difficult, it is subtle and elusive at first. I can best explain this by giving you an analogy. Do you know what a magic eye picture is? A picture of seemingly random coloured dots? If I were to say it was a piture of a horse you could take a casual glance and say 'rubbish, utter nonesense' but if I say look harder you might or might not but if you did you might still find nothing despite being intelligent. If I gave you some instruction on how to change your focus and you put a little time and effort into staring at the pictue you might suddenly see a horse emerge from the seeming randomness and their is quite a wow factor when it does. The glimpse is elusive however as there is a tendency to alter focus to grasp at a real picture of a horse but it then disappears. With practice, however, the hidden horse appears readily and for long periods and one can be completely familiar with all its details. At this point if someone else looked at the picture and exclaimed 'load of tosh, there is nothing there' you would know otherwise - on an experiential level. You could study how the pictures are made and how the mind alters to reveal the secret and have an intellectual understanding too but it is the experiential awareness that gives the wow factor best. In Buddhism this is best provided by Tantric meditation (no, it;s nothing to do with sex). Of course all this is just a crude analogy as the wow factor in finding the horse is nothing compared to the wow factor at finding ultimate reality which will change your life even if you got just a glimpse.
All the best,
Erik
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Milo Tweenie:
Dear Erik
I’d like to address some of the points that you’ve made. Apologies for what’s going to be a lengthy post, but hey, it’s my turn to use up some bandwidth.
Hello Milo,
Forgive my teasings Milo, I enjoy some banter but that all it is and not to be taken too seriously. Your second proofs are far more credible in my view and deserve respect. As do you. My apologies.
You finish your post with saying 'Of course you can come to a different view; that is your choice'. I do and I do. I was brought up as a Christian and have deleved deeply into it but I just could not make the commitment, I was never sure why intil a few years ago. I guess I have trouble believing alot in the bible as I have trouble believing alot of stuff in our newspapers. It is possible to read two reports of the same situation in two different newspapers only hours after the event and yet get totally different stories, evaluation, opinion and all with witness so how much more reliable can 2,000 year old writings be especially when they have been subjected to grooming as the new testament has. For me I wanted something I could really check which is why Buddhism does it for me. Christianity does it for you and I'm happy that it does. A buddhist would say you have a karmic connection with it whereas I do not. There are many paths to God. For me, God is a concept, useful up to a point. God for me is 'Bliss and Emptiness' the perfection of being that some christian mystics call 'union' there seems to be some commonality in the experience according to what I have read and according to christian monks I have talked to - they achieve divine snatches of this after years of extensive prayer but it comes on them seemingly randomly when God chooses but in Buddhism the techniques for achieving these states are written down and taught and can be achieved very quickly. This is a relief to me as I dont want to spend years living in a Christian monastery cut off from the world when I can have a foot in both camps and have my cake and eat it. Although maybe I'm deluding myself. There is no miracle way into heaven in my view and without putting in the flying hours we can only ever hope for glimpses, if that. I do not believe that the mere belief in Jesus will get me in and I just have to do it myself. Buddha never promises to do it all for us he just shows the way, I find this more honest.
All the best Milo,
Erik
Dear Erik
I’d like to address some of the points that you’ve made. Apologies for what’s going to be a lengthy post, but hey, it’s my turn to use up some bandwidth.
Hello Milo,
Forgive my teasings Milo, I enjoy some banter but that all it is and not to be taken too seriously. Your second proofs are far more credible in my view and deserve respect. As do you. My apologies.
You finish your post with saying 'Of course you can come to a different view; that is your choice'. I do and I do. I was brought up as a Christian and have deleved deeply into it but I just could not make the commitment, I was never sure why intil a few years ago. I guess I have trouble believing alot in the bible as I have trouble believing alot of stuff in our newspapers. It is possible to read two reports of the same situation in two different newspapers only hours after the event and yet get totally different stories, evaluation, opinion and all with witness so how much more reliable can 2,000 year old writings be especially when they have been subjected to grooming as the new testament has. For me I wanted something I could really check which is why Buddhism does it for me. Christianity does it for you and I'm happy that it does. A buddhist would say you have a karmic connection with it whereas I do not. There are many paths to God. For me, God is a concept, useful up to a point. God for me is 'Bliss and Emptiness' the perfection of being that some christian mystics call 'union' there seems to be some commonality in the experience according to what I have read and according to christian monks I have talked to - they achieve divine snatches of this after years of extensive prayer but it comes on them seemingly randomly when God chooses but in Buddhism the techniques for achieving these states are written down and taught and can be achieved very quickly. This is a relief to me as I dont want to spend years living in a Christian monastery cut off from the world when I can have a foot in both camps and have my cake and eat it. Although maybe I'm deluding myself. There is no miracle way into heaven in my view and without putting in the flying hours we can only ever hope for glimpses, if that. I do not believe that the mere belief in Jesus will get me in and I just have to do it myself. Buddha never promises to do it all for us he just shows the way, I find this more honest.
All the best Milo,
Erik