Create your free account now! Sign up

Re: 26 May 2011

That wasn't my question. I asked what lends credibility to the writings of Buddha, whoever's words they were, his or someone else's. I want to know how one can know that the writings of Buddha can be trusted to be his thoughts, words, writings, whatever. I don't believe that to be the case, what I am saying is there are those that are quick to discredit the Bible, for various reason, but will accept historical writings by someone else, because it doesn't carry the same consequences that accepting or rejecting it's message does like the Bible. They don't sit there and critique the credibility or accuracy of other writings as they do the Bible. Why do you think that is? I am not referring to anything you said about the Bible, just wondering why you think people are accepting of other writings of antiquity, but choose to feel the Bible is a book of fables or inaccurate in it's stories, not to mention completely refuting it's message of God's unconditional love for us, and His plan of salvation so man can be restored to a relationship with Him. What makes other writings accepted and believable, though they are dated to be "around" a certain date, and have been translated and copied from original manuscripts themselves?
Gary Vest
This is CABL.com posting #328128. Tiny Link: cabl.co/mbxwy
Posted in reply to: Re: 26 May 2011 by johnmc3
There are 3 replies to this message
Re: 26 May 2011 johnmc3 5/26/2011 8:25:25 PM
Re: 26 May 2011 johnmc3 5/26/2011 1:15:42 PM
Re: 26 May 2011 goodsky 5/26/2011 1:06:47 PM