Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
And with reference to the 'parables'; parables were used before the written word became common because it's easier to remember a story than it is to remember a bunch of teachings.
So stories with teachings; parables; were used as an aide-mémoire before writing became common.
It's a touchy subject to be sure and I have to admit there is much to Christianity I find irresponsible.
Indentured servitude may be different than slavery in name but beating somebody into submission with many blows is vile behavior under any banner.
It's not skilful speech, but I've annoyed a JW friend over this subject. The Bible says it's okay to beat your slave, but not so severely that you injure him/her badly; they should be able to get up and walk within a day or so.
But the JW I asked did look uncomfortable trying to justify it, which he did.
And you've got to look to who said what in the Bible; the 'bad bits' in the NT were written by Paul (these aren't Jesus's teachings).
Paul said:
1. It's okay to beat your slaves (just not severely) 2. Women should shut up and sit at the back of the congregation. 3. Being Gay is wrong.
Now Paul - the founder of the Christian church - was a Roman citizen, and he was just teaching what any right-minded Roman citizen would want to hear and agree with. And if you look at Paul through the lens of secular scholars, only about half of what is written by him is actually attributed to him.
This is why the Buddhist stance on scripture is better; the scripture in Buddhism isn't treated like 'Holy Scripture'; it's to be tested - not just believed - finger 'n' moon 'n' all that.
But there are many similarities, if you look deeper, between Buddhism and Christianity in general.
I once gave a copy of that to one of my evangelical Christian friends, and even she appreciated the jist of it.
Yes, I enjoyed it. It did soften me towards other religions too. Prior to reading it, I thought Christianity was a bunch of 'hocus pocus', but I was throwing the baby out with the bath water due to my lack of knowledge.
Does the same hold true in Buddhism of what Jesus said. Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows."
I think this means that somebody who knows God's will and doesn't follow it will suffer misfortune. I can't see an obvious parallel in Buddhist teachings.
Does the same hold true in Buddhism of what Jesus said. Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows."
I think this means that somebody who knows God's will and doesn't follow it will suffer misfortune. I can't see an obvious parallel in Buddhist teachings.
An obvious parallel is how most Buddhists see karma.
.I have a theory and not a new one at all that God is found intimately in the space created by meditation and mindfulness awareness and I am putting it to the test.
That's interesting. Could you say a bit more about how you experience God in the stillness / silence?
Does the same hold true in Buddhism of what Jesus said. Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows."
I think this means that somebody who knows God's will and doesn't follow it will suffer misfortune. I can't see an obvious parallel in Buddhist teachings.
An obvious parallel is how most Buddhists see karma.
Agree. But instead of getting punished FOR our sins, we're punished BY our sins. A bit like karma is not a system of justice, but we reap what we sow.
That is how I understand it - actually it is consistent with how I understood I could come to see what God's will for me in a situation was too. Whilst it possibly could be easier if we had certain black and white rules to follow, even when my life was guided by christian understanding it was never simply a matter of knowing what God wanted me to do from a set formula or reading a scripture. I also understood that is why the only sin which was identified as unforgiveable was to ignore the holy spirit .... if we aren't listening we aren't learning and growing.
Does the same hold true in Buddhism of what Jesus said. Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows."
I think this means that somebody who knows God's will and doesn't follow it will suffer misfortune. I can't see an obvious parallel in Buddhist teachings.
An obvious parallel is how most Buddhists see karma.
I don't think it's a good parallel because Karma is self-inflicted punishment, not punishment imposed by God.
Does the same hold true in Buddhism of what Jesus said. Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows."
I think this means that somebody who knows God's will and doesn't follow it will suffer misfortune. I can't see an obvious parallel in Buddhist teachings.
An obvious parallel is how most Buddhists see karma.
I don't think it's a good parallel because Karma is self-inflicted punishment, not punishment imposed by God.
But from a Christian perspective, the consequences of sinful behavior is defined as self-inflicted punishment. The idea of the parable is that the slave knew how he was supposed to behave and chose not to do so, so he earned his punishment. Just because they believe God is the lawmaker that defines good and bad behavior instead of it being some natural law that just exists for no particular reason makes no difference.
it is rubbish...let it go...forget it...buddha did not teach in parables....suffering is not a form of violence....suffering is a cry for help & cessation
Extract from What the Buddha Taught, Walpola Sri Rahula
"To the seeker after Truth it is immaterial from where an idea comes. The source and development of an idea is a matter for the academic. In fact, in order to understand Truth, it is not necessary even to know whether the teaching comes from the Buddha, or from anyone else. What is essential is seeing the thing, understanding it. There is an important story in the Majjhima-nikaya (Sutta no. 140) which illustrates this..."
I'm not typing it all out; you can look yourselves, you bunch of lazy gimps!
Just because they believe God is the lawmaker that defines good and bad behavior instead of it being some natural law that just exists for no particular reason makes no difference.
But in the Abrahamic religions God is seen as judge and jury, not just the law-maker.
Just because they believe God is the lawmaker that defines good and bad behavior instead of it being some natural law that just exists for no particular reason makes no difference.
But in the Abrahamic religions God is seen as judge and jury, not just the law-maker.
Well yes, there is a difference between the Christian or diety as judge worldview and Buddhist karma. I'm just saying both are answers to the same universal question about the consequences of right and wrong behavior in this life and after death. Given the question itself is flawed, both answers do the best they can with the assumptions they have to work with.
Comments
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/0712672818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335338332&sr=1-1
And with reference to the 'parables'; parables were used before the written word became common because it's easier to remember a story than it is to remember a bunch of teachings.
So stories with teachings; parables; were used as an aide-mémoire before writing became common.
I once gave a copy of that to one of my evangelical Christian friends, and even she appreciated the jist of it.
But the JW I asked did look uncomfortable trying to justify it, which he did.
And you've got to look to who said what in the Bible; the 'bad bits' in the NT were written by Paul (these aren't Jesus's teachings).
Paul said:
1. It's okay to beat your slaves (just not severely)
2. Women should shut up and sit at the back of the congregation.
3. Being Gay is wrong.
Now Paul - the founder of the Christian church - was a Roman citizen, and he was just teaching what any right-minded Roman citizen would want to hear and agree with. And if you look at Paul through the lens of secular scholars, only about half of what is written by him is actually attributed to him.
This is why the Buddhist stance on scripture is better; the scripture in Buddhism isn't treated like 'Holy Scripture'; it's to be tested - not just believed - finger 'n' moon 'n' all that.
But there are many similarities, if you look deeper, between Buddhism and Christianity in general.
Maybe?
Whilst it possibly could be easier if we had certain black and white rules to follow, even when my life was guided by christian understanding it was never simply a matter of knowing what God wanted me to do from a set formula or reading a scripture.
I also understood that is why the only sin which was identified as unforgiveable was to ignore the holy spirit .... if we aren't listening we aren't learning and growing.
Also, maybe listen to this English Christian priest talking about his concept of God; he sounds almost 'Buddhist' towards the end:
http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html
He talks about his struggle to understand the nature of God, particularly after the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. I find his talk quite powerful.
"To the seeker after Truth it is immaterial from where an idea comes. The source and development of an idea is a matter for the academic. In fact, in order to understand Truth, it is not necessary even to know whether the teaching comes from the Buddha, or from anyone else. What is essential is seeing the thing, understanding it. There is an important story in the Majjhima-nikaya (Sutta no. 140) which illustrates this..."
I'm not typing it all out; you can look yourselves, you bunch of lazy gimps!
versus???
ur missing their point... buddha AND jezus their point