None of that negates that face that my proposed third option is possible. You prefer a different option, but that does not disprove the existence of my third option.
Rossum, considering how knowledgeable you are, I am sad that you do not believe you can access Truth. This conversation reminds me of an old hymn, The Solid Rock, written by Edward Mote:
library.timelesstruths.org/music/The_Solid_Rock/
One of the major threads in Buddhist philosophy is to avoid reification: treating something abstract as if it was concrete. Sometimes summarised as “the map is not the territory”. The map is the abstract while the (different) territory is the concrete. The error is to confuse the two and mistake one for the other.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17307
How can we “distinguish between what is actually in the external territory and what is merely a part of the internal map” if the actual truth “cannot be accessed?” But it CAN be accessed by meditation, apparently – so access is possible despite that “cannot be accessed.”
Please note the capitalisation of my second sentence. I use “Truth” (capitalised) to refer to the reified truth that womanatwell referred to in her post.
Not quite. I said, “A statement may be true, and that statement can be accessed, but Truth cannot be accessed on its own separately from the statement.” You have omitted my capitalisation, which is significant in this context, and you have omitted my following qualifying phrase. Reified “Truth” cannot be accessed. Ordinary truth can be accessed. The error is in the reification.
No. It is a point of contact with our internal models. By carefully studying those internal models we can see their faults, and where they do not match with parts of external reality. Our internal models put water in a mirage. External reality does not have that water. Hence we can deduce that our models are not perfect. The water in a mirage is a projection from our internal model onto external reality. Reification is just such a projection of a part of our internal model onto external reality, where it does not belong.
No. Reified capitalised “Truth” cannot be accessed, any more than the water we ‘see’ in a mirage can be accessed.
Its possible that some people will never attain nirvana. Take the following scenario:
Better to check first before talking about things where your knowledge may be insufficient. People can be reincarnated in the immaterial realms: heavens and hells. The ancient Indians: Hindus, Jains and Buddhists believed – correctly – that stars were other suns a long way away, with their own sets of planets. It is possible for living beings to reincarnate there. The Sukhavati sutras and Chapter Ten of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa contain obvious examples of extra-solar planets:
D+ Can do better.There. Just proved buddism is a false religion. Only 2998 left to go
So according to you, if any religion contains one incorrect statement, then the entire religion is a false religion?Its possible that some people will never attain nirvana. Take the following scenario:
If an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow and wiped every person, animal and plant off the planet except you, you would have no means by which to be future reincarnated into (as you would have no one to produce future offspring with).
This means you would have only one chance to attain nirvana within the remainder of your life or you would never achieve it. If you remain bitter about seeing everyone dead around you (from the asteroid) and became an alcoholic to drown your sorrows, you would die without nirvana and there would be no one to reincarnate into.
You would never achieve nirvana. Therefore the statement “Everyone attains nirvana eventually” is contingent and not an absolute truth. Turns out Buddha was winging it.
There. Just proved buddism is a false religion. Only 2998 left to go
Yes.
No. Strange doesn’t mean false.
So you are saying statements like "You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool " are correct? How about Deuteronomy 25:11-12?
I have heard it said that the evidence that all religions other than Christianity are false is because ‘there is only one God’. And yes, I know, it begs the question…
This is not a correct articulation of Catholic teaching.
Well, any religions that aren’t monotheistic.
Jesus said: “He who is not with me is against me.” – Luke 11:23
Perhaps you forgot you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with mainly Catholics, rather than on a fundamentalist Bible-Alone forum?
One may group all existing and historical religion into two groups - cosmological and theological. Cosmological religions do not transcend the universe; their “gods” are all creatures without a creator.
).