Re: AIG says it like it is

From: <>
Date: Mon Feb 06 2006 - 21:21:26 EST

In a message dated 2/6/2006 8:51:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to
change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for
understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where
its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its
own worldview.

Say "om," somebody!"
accessed 1-21-06

To which I then said:

"Now, this isn't a great green slug, nor it is Mormonism, but the Dalai Lama
realized that his books, which said the moon generated its own light was
wrong. Now, he didn't rewrite the text, he believes buddhism is true even though
what it taught about nature is wrong. I believe that you too follow such a path.
I believe that you believe God accommodated the message to the Hebrews and
thus it still teaches truth in theology.

What is the difference between your position and that of the Dalai Lama?

Is it right for you to approach the misfit of science and the Christian Bible
in the way you do and not right for the Dalai Lama to approach it that way?"

The entire reason the ASA is ignored in the pews is because the people in the
pews see the logic in what I am saying. For some reason the
accomodationalists/allegoricalist/metaphoricalists don't and I truly don't understand why they
don't see the problem.

Buddhism is very like Christianity, only Buddhists are more reasonable. The
self sacrifice of the Buddha is identical to the self sacrifice of the cross
and both are based on science, but as an outward sign of perfect self
discipline, the Tibetan Buddhists only impose celibacy on one man who is trained from
infancy rather than Catholics who think any man who takes the oath can be

Genesis is allegorical, but the allegories conceal the science and it is
human biological science, not geological science, that is hidden in Genesis.

The people in the pews need not have the allegorical understanding. The men
in the pulpits have to have it. The people in the pews will follow to the depth
of their understanding as they always have. The wonderful thing about
allegories is that you don't have to explain them. If the people in the pews don't
understand them literally, you provide them with the allegorical meaning. If the
literal text suffices, you leave them alone with it because behaviorally
whether there is a God or not, Biblical morality is viable, in this life, even if
there is not a next. If you abandon the metaphysics AND the morality, you are
doomed in this life (and the next). If you abandon the metaphysics but not the
morality, you still have a viable adaptive discipline in this life, the one
you're guaranteed.

The men in the pulpits have to understand the scientific basis for the
levitical prohibitions so they can explain why Biblical morality is important even
though the earth took longer than 6 days to make.

The truth doesn't accommodate itself to anything.

The Dali Lama changed his views on the moon. He didn't change his views on
the self sacrifice. He lives it.

It's not the people who see the allegorical nature of genesis that have a
problem. They have a challenge. The people walking away from religion or
"liberalizing" it because they can't rationlize the metaphysicss and don't know the
meaning of the allegories have the problem.

rich faussette
Received on Mon Feb 6 21:21:43 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 06 2006 - 21:21:43 EST