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.
That's fair, Jason. But all the questions about rebirth/reincarnation have not been sufficiently answered. All the questions about karma have not been sufficiently answered. And more. The same is true in every religion.
That's fair, Jason. But all the questions about rebirth/reincarnation have not been sufficiently answered. All the questions about karma have not been sufficiently answered. And more. The same is true in every religion.
Which is why I constantly discuss and debate concepts like rebirth, karma, nibbana, etc. None of them are sacrosanct, in my opinion.
That's fair, Jason. But all the questions about rebirth/reincarnation have not been sufficiently answered. All the questions about karma have not been sufficiently answered. And more. The same is true in every religion.
Which is why I constantly discuss and debate concepts like rebirth, karma, nibbana, etc. None of them are sacrosanct, in my opinion.
@Silouan do those answers require you to have faith in the bible?
In reality, nothing can "require" anyone to have faith in anything. Otherwise we would all believe the same thing. Man has free will and a free mind.
OK, but I have already established that I have no faith in the bible, so I didn't want to waste my time looking it up if it was bible based... is why I asked
Yes, but it is faith in God that we are ultimately speaking about. The bible is very important part of the tradition of the church, but it is not sufficient or understood apart from the traditions of the church as a whole including the holy mysteries or sacraments, watcfulness and prayer, fasting, patristic writings, etc... What this means is you are not going to come to a full understanding just by reading it alone or with private interpretation. What I have just said will not sit well with most of our Protestant or Evangelical friends, or atheists for that matter. They both try to use the bible for opposite means. Two sides of the same coin.
As you know the New Testament was not compiled until a few centuries after the church had formed. Most Western Christians, excluding the patriarchate of Rome, aren't aware or choose not to be of this fact.
Vladimir Lossky's work is rooted in holy tradition including the bible and the commentaries, writings, discourses, etc.. of the holy fathers and mothers.
I'm not offended either. People have freedom of choice, and not the kind granted by some government. Anyway, God doesn't interfere with man's free will and choice. Look at all terrible things man has done to himself and others, but look at all the good too.
According to most Christians, I'm going to hell for not choosing the path laid out by the bible... Can threatening my choice with an eternity in hell be considered interfering?
@Telly03, That's a really really good question. I like that one. If we don't see any evidence of God in life, except that which we attribute to God by way of our own belief-driven inference (we already have to believe), how can any non-believer be expected to follow a path given in a specific religion? How can God then punish those who don't, especially with an eternity of torment? It would seem if this were the case, then this particular religion would be reasonable to the intellect, to all of our intellects, but we find that it isn't... that it's indeed not based on reason but on faith. And so if we find it unreasonable, it's reasonable for us not to follow it. So now we're punished for being reasonable? It all seems to fall apart when viewed in this light, so perhaps "God" isn't the way He is portrayed at all, and perhaps there is no eternal heaven or eternal hell. God would have to either not exist or be simple for this to be the way things really are, because the intelligence of man should reveal God rather than reveal there being no reason or evidence of God, and this is something an intelligent creator would've taken into account.
It would be reasonable to hold believers up to this standard, but not non-believers. If only Jews, Christians and Muslims are subject to the laws of God, and are rewarded or punished by being sent to heaven and hell, that's one thing... but to hold others who are not of these religions to be accountable to these laws, which are writ only in a book and not apparently in life, that does not seem the act of a loving God. The laws writ in nature show us that we're all going to die, and to an extent that we reap what we sow, but they say nothing of being "judged" or that we'll suffer for an eternity if we don't act in a certain way. And we have different religions and philosophies and no guarantee of any particular view of an afterlife or of a creator.
It's simply not enough for many. Those who have faith, who can have faith, will do just fine with Christianity or any other faith-based religion. Those who can't, who find no rhyme or reason or sense in it, can't be expected to follow such a religion. And certainly no loving, intelligent God should expect them to, or should punish them eternally. Which is why I don't think this is the case at all, that people have it wrong in some fashion.
Perhaps you are speaking to the wrong group of Christians who have a very narrow and limited understanding.
According, to at least one Nichiren Buddhist, all non-believers are destined for the hell of incessant suffering. This may appear to be in contrast to general Buddhist beliefs, but they are recognized as a tradition within Buddhism.
@Siloun, I think, and this is my opinion, that most Christians have it wrong. That Jesus' view of God was closer to the Essene view of which he was well aware, which is closer to the Hindu Brahman or to Buddhism than to an independent supreme being. This also makes an eternal heaven and eternal hell unlikely, things that I think only started to be stressed in order to keep people in line and to gain converts. The Jewish version of God has too many contradictions, and the way Jesus spoke of God seems to be quite different in itself. It's like how the Buddha spoke of karma and Nirvana, though meaning differently than what they had meant before... Jesus spoke of God but with a different meaning, as of the "father of all things" being the fabric of the cosmos rather than a separate entity.
This doesn't mean they can't believe what they do, it's just why I don't.
@Silouan, Maybe so. I've been reading about the Essenes, including their Gospels of Peace that have Jesus preaching also. My understanding would permit there to be an actual shared truth behind Jesus' message, Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism to name a few. The likelihood that they're all speaking of the same reality, through their own lenses which might include prior religious contexts, seems to be rising. That's just me though. I believe that if God does refer to some existent being, that it is more like the Hindu "Brahman" than the Jewish conception, and this I can at least accept as more likely even if I don't "know" the truth of it. It's much more reasonable and has less an element of judgment and more an element of natural law (of which our conception of "karma" would fit nicely).
I do consider myself a disciple of Jesus regardless of what "God" is. All he really preached is love, and that spirit is something that I do recognize and cherish. This is why Jesus and the Buddha are the two exemplars of humanity that I uphold with great reverence and respect, though not blind faith or obedience. They're my role models.
But I don't think anyone's showing any disrespect to Christianity simply by bringing up the problem of evil/Epicurean paradox when discussing the topic of the existence of God.
Yes, it's a valid question, and one which I'm sure many Christians have struggled with.
In addition to what @Jason has said about dependent origination working against a first cause or a causeless cause. An eternal creator existing outside of time doesn't seem to hold up to investigation either. Time is change, a creator's will deciding to create means that at some point there was no desire to create then there was, that is a change and thus time, therefore an eternal creator existing outside of time is denied.
I'm not much of a philosopher, but I've come to a somewhat similar conundrum myself, which is that God would have be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, existing outside of time and space, to find a place within Buddhist cosmology (i.e., not subject to aging, illness, and death); and anything existing outside of time and space would logically be completely static, meaning that God would be an undynamic being if God exists at all. Since everything within the range of our experience (i.e., within space and time) is subject to change, however, it's more logical to conclude that everything within our realm of experience is impermanent, meaning that for God to able to interact with our universe, God would also be temporal and subject to illness, aging and death just like every other being (much like Brahma in DN 1, DN 27, etc.), hence not God.
It’s challenging as time is not understood – the best explanation thus far is something along the lines of a drive towards entropy – the conclusions on time sound logical but maths shows us that there are many varying forms of logic and that the manifestation of the universe doesn’t appear to be dependant on our way of thinking.
The concepts of static and dynamic / impassive and passive / impersonal and personal depend on our human logic system – they require the perspective underpinning them. Generically speaking, God appears to be akin to a philosophical filler – different things to different people fulfilling a variety of competing needs – plugging many differently shaped gaps – historically utilised by society to achieve various ends – in this sense, every time I encounter God outside of my own thoughts, he/she/it has a different ‘personality’.
The anthropomorphic definition of God is challenging – its recorded history is not pretty.
@Jason – if we consider God as all that is (manifest and unmanifest) then change itself would occur within the concept of God – it's a major cheat however as it sidesteps the question with an all encompassing answer… but perhaps the issue is as much with the question as the answer?
Interesting way of expressing how such a God would interact with the universe – perhaps God does interact with the universe in a temporal way – through what is manifest (including you).
It seems to me the whole point of practice is to discover God, or consciousness or whatever we choose to call it. It cannot be conceptualised, only felt. There is no difference between God and the universe, they are one and the same. God is there in every flower, in every thought and feeling, as the space that allows everything to manifest. God is at once mysterious and commonplace. Searching for God is like a fish searching for water. The water is all around the fish but he is not aware of it because it is all pervasive. And it seems the harder we search, that is the more we analyse and try to find some "thing called God", the more this conceptualising takes us away from finding God. The words we use, which people created long ago to help point us in the right direction, are now more of a hindrance.
Certainly, early Christian schools drew a distinction between the true God and the creator of the world or the demiurge. I have found that modern Christians will switch to the true God when pressed with the strange behavior of the creator God who said, for example, “I created evil” (Isa. 45:7).
...This also makes an eternal heaven and eternal hell unlikely, things that I think only started to be stressed in order to keep people in line and to gain converts. ...
How convenient that one heaven and hell is "unlikely", but that "In Devaduta Sutta, the 130th discourse of the Majjhima Nikaya, Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell. However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana. The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha, according to the Ksitigarbha Sutra, made a great vow as a young girl to not reach Nirvana until all beings were liberated from the Hell Realms or other unwholesome rebirths. In popular literature, Ksitigarbha travels to the Hell realms to teach and relieve beings of their suffering." (Wikipedia, used as a quick reference).
Oh yeah...that is so much more logical and supported by actual evidence.
@Songhill I wouldn't necessarily use the early and modern distinction, as Christian gnosticism and Orthodoxy probably developed at roughly the same time, shortly following the life of Christ. But I think you raise a great point nonetheless, and it pretty much comes back to the Problem of Suffering, which is in my opinion the greatest challenge to any form of "orthodox" Christianity and theism in general.
How does one reconcile a loving and intervening God with the presence of plagues, natural disasters, birth defects, starvation, cancer, death by childbirth, mental illness, and so on? That's not even to mention animal suffering and the suffering perpetrated by human beings to one another. Also, in light of what we now know about evolution, suffering and death have not merely existed on earth for a short time, but millions (er, billions?) of years. I seem to recall the Dalai Lama being quoted as saying: "If there is a God, He must be sleeping", or at least something along those lines. This sometimes seems about right to me.
...This also makes an eternal heaven and eternal hell unlikely, things that I think only started to be stressed in order to keep people in line and to gain converts. ...
How convenient that one heaven and hell is "unlikely", but that "In Devaduta Sutta, the 130th discourse of the Majjhima Nikaya, Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell. However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana. The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha, according to the Ksitigarbha Sutra, made a great vow as a young girl to not reach Nirvana until all beings were liberated from the Hell Realms or other unwholesome rebirths. In popular literature, Ksitigarbha travels to the Hell realms to teach and relieve beings of their suffering." (Wikipedia, used as a quick reference).
Oh yeah...that is so much more logical and supported by actual evidence.
Yes, it does seem a bit silly, which is why I've never really put too much stock in any of the descriptions of hell realms as literal places we might end up after death. But regardless or whether they're real in the sense of places where we may end up after death, I think it should be noted that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). Personally, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
A careful study of these concepts of heaven and hell, gods and evil spirits, reveals that they were accepted in Buddhism as regulative ideas or concepts only. The fact that they are merely theories based on speculation is well brought out it certain statements by the Buddha. To a Brahman who questioned the Buddha as to whether there are gods, he replied, "It is not so." When asked whether there are no gods, the Buddha's reply was the same, "It is not so." And finally to the Brahman who was baffled by these replies, the Buddha said, "The world, O Brahman, is loud in agreement that there are gods" (ucce sammatam kho etam brahmana lokasmin yadidam atthi devati). The same is the attitude of the Buddha with regard to the concept of hell. In the Samyutta-nikaya he is represented as saying that it is only the uneducated ordinary man (assutava puthujjano) who believes that there is a hell beneath the great ocean. According to the Buddha's view, hell is another name for unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana). [The first reference is MN 2.213, the second is S 4.206]
Not that specific book, no. I was talking about the Christian answers to the problem of evil in general, of which I've seen many. I'll try to take a look at it, though, when I get the time. Maybe there'll be something new in that one which will persuade me that God exists and is benevolent despite what I see in the world around me.
...This also makes an eternal heaven and eternal hell unlikely, things that I think only started to be stressed in order to keep people in line and to gain converts. ...
How convenient that one heaven and hell is "unlikely", but that "In Devaduta Sutta, the 130th discourse of the Majjhima Nikaya, Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell. However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana. The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha, according to the Ksitigarbha Sutra, made a great vow as a young girl to not reach Nirvana until all beings were liberated from the Hell Realms or other unwholesome rebirths. In popular literature, Ksitigarbha travels to the Hell realms to teach and relieve beings of their suffering." (Wikipedia, used as a quick reference).
Oh yeah...that is so much more logical and supported by actual evidence.
Yes, it does seem a bit silly, which is why I've never really put too much stock in any of the descriptions of hell realms as literal places we might end up after death. But regardless or whether they're real in the sense of places where we may end up after death, I think it should be noted that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). Personally, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
A careful study of these concepts of heaven and hell, gods and evil spirits, reveals that they were accepted in Buddhism as regulative ideas or concepts only. The fact that they are merely theories based on speculation is well brought out it certain statements by the Buddha. To a Brahman who questioned the Buddha as to whether there are gods, he replied, "It is not so." When asked whether there are no gods, the Buddha's reply was the same, "It is not so." And finally to the Brahman who was baffled by these replies, the Buddha said, "The world, O Brahman, is loud in agreement that there are gods" (ucce sammatam kho etam brahmana lokasmin yadidam atthi devati). The same is the attitude of the Buddha with regard to the concept of hell. In the Samyutta-nikaya he is represented as saying that it is only the uneducated ordinary man (assutava puthujjano) who believes that there is a hell beneath the great ocean. According to the Buddha's view, hell is another name for unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana). [The first reference is MN 2.213, the second is S 4.206]
It’s challenging as time is not understood – the best explanation thus far is something along the lines of a drive towards entropy – the conclusions on time sound logical but maths shows us that there are many varying forms of logic and that the manifestation of the universe doesn’t appear to be dependant on our way of thinking.
The concepts of static and dynamic / impassive and passive / impersonal and personal depend on our human logic system – they require the perspective underpinning them. Generically speaking, God appears to be akin to a philosophical filler – different things to different people fulfilling a variety of competing needs – plugging many differently shaped gaps – historically utilised by society to achieve various ends – in this sense, every time I encounter God outside of my own thoughts, he/she/it has a different ‘personality’.
The anthropomorphic definition of God is challenging – its recorded history is not pretty.
@Jason – if we consider God as all that is (manifest and unmanifest) then change itself would occur within the concept of God – it's a major cheat however as it sidesteps the question with an all encompassing answer… but perhaps the issue is as much with the question as the answer?
Interesting way of expressing how such a God would interact with the universe – perhaps God does interact with the universe in a temporal way – through what is manifest (including you).
I had a long, intricate reply to this. Unfortunately, I was being careless with too many windows open and accidentally lost it, and I don't have the time nor the heart to try and reconstruct it. And it was starting to be an interesting discussion too...
But then again, maybe it was the hand of God at work and for the best.
The King of Thailand is not a perfect person (not that many Thais would agree with that statement). The King must be Thai, but he has the legal responsibility to be "the protector of all faiths". The Thai government, the Thai military, and Thai police don't necessarily live up to that, but overall, the King does. It's a rather admirable trait.
I had a long, intricate reply to this. Unfortunately, I was being careless with too many windows open and accidentally lost it, and I don't have the time nor the heart to try and reconstruct it. Oh well, it could've been an interesting discussion.
But, then again, maybe it was the hand of God at work and for the best.
Sorry - I'm being lazy and relying on your encyclopedic approach to feed me links! It's a fertile area...!!
I haven't read widely enough to work through the material constructively - from what I have read, I don't recall considering a point that denounced the (let's call it) all encompassing God definition.
I had a long, intricate reply to this. Unfortunately, I was being careless with too many windows open and accidentally lost it, and I don't have the time nor the heart to try and reconstruct it. Oh well, it could've been an interesting discussion.
But, then again, maybe it was the hand of God at work and for the best.
Sorry - I'm being lazy and relying on your encyclopedic approach to feed me links! It's a fertile area...!!
I haven't read widely enough to work through the material constructively - from what I have read, I don't recall considering a point that denounced the (let's call it) all encompassing God definition.
For the sake of some of the newer members who may not know me, I just want to say that while I'm an extremely critical and skeptical person by nature, that doesn't mean I don't also appreciate aspects of the things I'm critical or skeptical about. While I'm not, nor have ever really been, Christian, I respect Christianity for what it is to people. I even occasional attend a Greek Orthodox Church once in a while just for fun. For example, here's something I wrote about the last time I went, which was roughly about a year ago:
I was sitting at home this morning, drinking a cup of coffee and rather bored, when I decided to attend Mass at the Greek Orthodox church near my house. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think part of it may have been the fact that I've been reading Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov lately, in which the Russian Orthodox Church plays a prominent role.
Apparently, I picked a good day to go as the bishop of Atlanta, Metropolitan Alexios, was visiting and gave a surprisingly good sermon based on Mt 8:5-13 despite it being rather 'faith' heavy (I'm generally what you'd call a rationalist). I also got anointed with some myrrh from the Myrrh-streaming "Hawaiian" Iveron Icon of the Theotokos, which I guess just happened to be making the rounds of Orthodox churches in the Pacific Northwest. It was definitely a surreal experience for me.
Only one person there happened to know that I wasn't Orthodox (or even Christian for that matter) as we'd met before at the annual Greek festival, but he didn't seem to care. In fact, he invited me out to lunch after the service and we had a nice discussion (well, he did most of the talking) about everything from The Matrix to his trip to Japan to what the 'icon' of the communion ritual truly represents. The last was especially enlightening.
I half expect to burst into flames whenever I walk into a church considering the kind of person I used to be, or at least the kind of person I imagined myself to be (think Damien from The Omen), but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed myself and how welcomed I felt. I suppose much of that was due to the company; but whatever the case, I'm glad I went.
Why are religious people so offended when someone says they don't believe in god?
I think there is a difference between a discussion of belief and the OP which questions the exsistence of something. I think that when most people ask me if I believe in God, they are really asking me if I think God exsists. However, for God to exist for me, then He must exist for all men. And it is the same with any universal truth. If I think the 4NT and the 8FP are TRUTHS, then they must be true for everyone, whether they know it or not. I don't know why some religious people become offended when you say you don't believe in God. I suspect it has to do with being faced with a denial of reality. And not just their reality. But reality for everyone forever and ever.
I don't think a creator god exists but that doesn't rule out the existence of Gods at all according to Buddha's depiction of Samsara there are many gods who enjoy fantastic experiences because of their previous virtue and they live extremely long lives measuring Millions of years in the least and aeons at the most but all are subject to Impermanence as they have are not free from Samsara and its causes.
On Jesus our own kind teacher has often said that he believes Jesus to have been a Bodhisattva ( Son of a Buddha ), In the Lamrim ( Stages of the path meditations ) there are the practices of taking and giving indeed you would have to have a mind of great compassion to be nailed to a cross for the benefit of taking away others sins/Negative Karma.
You're welcome. Like I tried to point out in another thread, "Just because we don't always agree on everything or change our positions regularly doesn't mean we're a closed-minded bunch. I think most of us are capable of appreciating opposing viewpoints even if we ultimately see things differently."
If we are God's children why aren't we god-like? If a human mother gives birth to a baby, the baby, we recognize, is human-like. The baby is not a non-human entity. The idea of a perfect God and an imperfect creation are repugnant to reason and commonsense.
There is no way to know for sure. So I don't worry about it. Anything else is a waste of time and energy and leads to suffering. I live well. So if there is a God, I should be fine. If living well is not good enough for God, then he doesn't deserve worship in the first place. Not to mention I highly doubt in the omnipotence of celestial beings such as Gods. If they were all powerful, then this world would be much closer to Heaven instead of being so much closer to Hell. Just saying.
If we are God's children why aren't we god-like? If a human mother gives birth to a baby, the baby, we recognize, is human-like. The baby is not a non-human entity. The idea of a perfect God and an imperfect creation are repugnant to reason and commonsense.
It is very simple to be god-like and people do it everyday. Just change your perception of God or your perception of humanity or both.
...Not to mention I highly doubt in the omnipotence of celestial beings such as Gods. If they were all powerful, then this world would be much closer to Heaven instead of being so much closer to Hell. Just saying.
...
Most Christians assume God is a micro-manager. Perhaps he's not.
@songhill We share the same purpose in life, and struggle against the same things that hinder our fulfillment of that purpose. There is not one person who does not seek or wish for peace, joy, and ever lasting happiness from the depths of their heart.
I had many questions and preconceived concepts and ideas I brought with me in my journey to Orthodoxy. The only religious foundation I had prior to Orthodoxy was Buddhism, and most of the questions you are positing were not really an issue for me, because I had found that answer through Buddhism. The same answer you know too, and when you strip away the context that forms the metaphysics of both religions there is no dichotomy.
The most difficult thing for me was not understanding that we create much of our own suffering, but of creation, man's original state, his fall, and his redemption. I had asked, and continue to ask, my spiritual father for guidance on a number of topics, but they are no longer pressing. He has been patient, nurturing, kind, and firm. We need that too. I had a willingness not to just trust my own judgment, but to look at the one's that have gone before to acquire the same mind if you will.
I say again that the questions you have asked are not new. They have been answered before by those far more knowledgeable like our holy fathers and mothers.
I have no regrets or animosity towards Buddhism. After 20 years some things no longer seemed plausible to me, and not only am I content with that I'm also content and at peace in my faith. I continue to grow and probe deeper into my heart, and they way I understood things say two years ago are quite different now. With that being said I believe I'm fulfilling my purpose, and I recognize the change in me, but I know its not just based on my efforts alone.
Should these response to your questions pose a problem you always have the holy ones to look to for guidance and understanding.
Is God the author of calamity/evil? -No -God made all things good. -Evil is not a creation, but a condition that man brings upon himself. -It is not eternal. -I will also quote my own spiritual father on this subject: “To quote an obscure text, very hard to translate from the Hebrew, in a way that negates the very clear teaching of the entire Scriptures is unreasonable. It is doubly so when the person is a skeptic since they don't believe in verbal inspiration anyways. The fundamental text on this question is found in St. James 1:13-14 "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is carried away and enticed by his own lust." , Isa. 45:7's reference to God "creating calamity/evil" is a reference to His judgments in time, prior to the great day. He is certainly free to bring someone to judgment before the great day. He determines the end, the last day, for each person, and we believe that He knows best about when a person's earthly life should come to an end. God does not create the evil of sin, but the evil (from our perspective) of punishment.
If we are God's children why aren't we god-like? -We are created in His Image and Likeness. -Anything that is subject to change has a beginning and end of which is Theosis. -God is without origin and is not subject to change.
If a human mother gives birth to a baby, the baby, we recognize, is human-like. The baby is not a non-human entity. -Before the fall of man he was clothed in the Glory of God, and his mind was single pointed and aware. -He lost that Grace through disobedience.
The idea of a perfect God and an imperfect creation are repugnant to reason and commonsense. -Creation is moving toward perfection. -Some might think other wise of the clear light which is not subject to change, but giving rise to beings ignorant of their pure nature, or something like or how ever you slice it.
God's response to “man's” problem with evil and suffering. -The bible is about man's relationship with God. -That relationship is fulfilled in Christ. -Read Isa 53, and Psalm 22 (23 in western bibles) -He took upon human flesh and united with His divinity, endured being beaten, spit upon, scourged, and nailed to a cross, died, rose again on the third day and trampled down death by death in response to our transgressions and for our salvation.
@Jason I was blessed to see the icon twice, and it was amazing to witness. God is active through His creation. Thank you so much for sharing that.
I'm still a squirell looking for some nuts..... I think I found some here.
Please laugh at that, laugh at yourselves, and stop taking this whole God business so seriously. I'm just trying to remind you guys that no one is qualified to define God, since you are not God. You are a faulty human, and may God have mercy on you, if it exists. If it doesn't exist, then at least you can say you didn't waste your time talking about the Republican National Convention. Or did you?
Also I am having a really bad day for the first time in a long time, all anxiety ridden and I'm emotionally all over the place due to a problem with a family member that actually inspired me to pray for a moment though I must admit I had no idea what I was praying to. Some old Catholic habits die hard, I suppose. But if I can find time to make a joke about this today, I think we can all find time to just get over ourselves and the way we try to possess the unknowable, and laugh about that paradox.
Comments
But all the questions about rebirth/reincarnation have not been sufficiently answered.
All the questions about karma have not been sufficiently answered.
And more.
The same is true in every religion.
So you have you read that book then?
As you know the New Testament was not compiled until a few centuries after the church had formed. Most Western Christians, excluding the patriarchate of Rome, aren't aware or choose not to be of this fact.
Vladimir Lossky's work is rooted in holy tradition including the bible and the commentaries, writings, discourses, etc.. of the holy fathers and mothers.
"Let fall body and mind"
"If you had faith such as this, and say unto this mountain fall into the sea it would be so"
No need analysis, just crucify your mind.
It would be reasonable to hold believers up to this standard, but not non-believers. If only Jews, Christians and Muslims are subject to the laws of God, and are rewarded or punished by being sent to heaven and hell, that's one thing... but to hold others who are not of these religions to be accountable to these laws, which are writ only in a book and not apparently in life, that does not seem the act of a loving God. The laws writ in nature show us that we're all going to die, and to an extent that we reap what we sow, but they say nothing of being "judged" or that we'll suffer for an eternity if we don't act in a certain way. And we have different religions and philosophies and no guarantee of any particular view of an afterlife or of a creator.
It's simply not enough for many. Those who have faith, who can have faith, will do just fine with Christianity or any other faith-based religion. Those who can't, who find no rhyme or reason or sense in it, can't be expected to follow such a religion. And certainly no loving, intelligent God should expect them to, or should punish them eternally. Which is why I don't think this is the case at all, that people have it wrong in some fashion.
According, to at least one Nichiren Buddhist, all non-believers are destined for the hell of incessant suffering. This may appear to be in contrast to general Buddhist beliefs, but they are recognized as a tradition within Buddhism.
This doesn't mean they can't believe what they do, it's just why I don't.
I do consider myself a disciple of Jesus regardless of what "God" is. All he really preached is love, and that spirit is something that I do recognize and cherish. This is why Jesus and the Buddha are the two exemplars of humanity that I uphold with great reverence and respect, though not blind faith or obedience. They're my role models.
Thank you for sharing that. A very sincere and respectable position. :-)
Sure, and these questions are regularly debated. At length.
The concepts of static and dynamic / impassive and passive / impersonal and personal depend on our human logic system – they require the perspective underpinning them.
Generically speaking, God appears to be akin to a philosophical filler – different things to different people fulfilling a variety of competing needs – plugging many differently shaped gaps – historically utilised by society to achieve various ends – in this sense, every time I encounter God outside of my own thoughts, he/she/it has a different ‘personality’.
The anthropomorphic definition of God is challenging – its recorded history is not pretty.
@Jason – if we consider God as all that is (manifest and unmanifest) then change itself would occur within the concept of God – it's a major cheat however as it sidesteps the question with an all encompassing answer… but perhaps the issue is as much with the question as the answer?
Interesting way of expressing how such a God would interact with the universe – perhaps God does interact with the universe in a temporal way – through what is manifest (including you).
jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky-createdbeing.pdf
Ah, yes. The seemingly holy grail of the skeptics. I'm at work, and would love to comment on it, but it will have to wait. :-)
Oh yeah...that is so much more logical and supported by actual evidence.
I wouldn't necessarily use the early and modern distinction, as Christian gnosticism and Orthodoxy probably developed at roughly the same time, shortly following the life of Christ. But I think you raise a great point nonetheless, and it pretty much comes back to the Problem of Suffering, which is in my opinion the greatest challenge to any form of "orthodox" Christianity and theism in general.
How does one reconcile a loving and intervening God with the presence of plagues, natural disasters, birth defects, starvation, cancer, death by childbirth, mental illness, and so on? That's not even to mention animal suffering and the suffering perpetrated by human beings to one another. Also, in light of what we now know about evolution, suffering and death have not merely existed on earth for a short time, but millions (er, billions?) of years. I seem to recall the Dalai Lama being quoted as saying: "If there is a God, He must be sleeping", or at least something along those lines. This sometimes seems about right to me.
You and I are pretty much in agreement here.
But then again, maybe it was the hand of God at work and for the best.
The King of Thailand is not a perfect person (not that many Thais would agree with that statement). The King must be Thai, but he has the legal responsibility to be "the protector of all faiths". The Thai government, the Thai military, and Thai police don't necessarily live up to that, but overall, the King does. It's a rather admirable trait.
I haven't read widely enough to work through the material constructively - from what I have read, I don't recall considering a point that denounced the (let's call it) all encompassing God definition.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
I don't know why some religious people become offended when you say you don't believe in God. I suspect it has to do with being faced with a denial of reality. And not just their reality. But reality for everyone forever and ever.
On Jesus our own kind teacher has often said that he believes Jesus to have been a Bodhisattva ( Son of a Buddha ), In the Lamrim ( Stages of the path meditations ) there are the practices of taking and giving indeed you would have to have a mind of great compassion to be nailed to a cross for the benefit of taking away others sins/Negative Karma.
Heaven is abstract, and Hell is so real.
We share the same purpose in life, and struggle against the same things that hinder our fulfillment of that purpose. There is not one person who does not seek or wish for peace, joy, and ever lasting happiness from the depths of their heart.
I had many questions and preconceived concepts and ideas I brought with me in my journey to Orthodoxy. The only religious foundation I had prior to Orthodoxy was Buddhism, and most of the questions you are positing were not really an issue for me, because I had found that answer through Buddhism. The same answer you know too, and when you strip away the context that forms the metaphysics of both religions there is no dichotomy.
The most difficult thing for me was not understanding that we create much of our own suffering, but of creation, man's original state, his fall, and his redemption. I had asked, and continue to ask, my spiritual father for guidance on a number of topics, but they are no longer pressing. He has been patient, nurturing, kind, and firm. We need that too. I had a willingness not to just trust my own judgment, but to look at the one's that have gone before to acquire the same mind if you will.
I say again that the questions you have asked are not new. They have been answered before by those far more knowledgeable like our holy fathers and mothers.
I have no regrets or animosity towards Buddhism. After 20 years some things no longer seemed plausible to me, and not only am I content with that I'm also content and at peace in my faith. I continue to grow and probe deeper into my heart, and they way I understood things say two years ago are quite different now. With that being said I believe I'm fulfilling my purpose, and I recognize the change in me, but I know its not just based on my efforts alone.
Should these response to your questions pose a problem you always have the holy ones to look to for guidance and understanding.
Is God the author of calamity/evil?
-No
-God made all things good.
-Evil is not a creation, but a condition that man brings upon himself.
-It is not eternal.
-I will also quote my own spiritual father on this subject: “To quote an obscure text, very hard to translate from the Hebrew, in a way that negates the very clear teaching of the entire Scriptures is unreasonable. It is doubly so when the person is a skeptic since they don't believe in verbal inspiration anyways. The fundamental text on this question is found in St. James 1:13-14 "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is carried away and enticed by his own lust." , Isa. 45:7's reference to God "creating calamity/evil" is a reference to His judgments in time, prior to the great day. He is certainly free to bring someone to judgment before the great day. He determines the end, the last day, for each person, and we believe that He knows best about when a person's earthly life should come to an end. God does not create the evil of sin, but the evil (from our perspective) of punishment.
If we are God's children why aren't we god-like?
-We are created in His Image and Likeness.
-Anything that is subject to change has a beginning and end of which is Theosis.
-God is without origin and is not subject to change.
If a human mother gives birth to a baby, the baby, we recognize, is human-like.
The baby is not a non-human entity.
-Before the fall of man he was clothed in the Glory of God, and his mind was single pointed and aware.
-He lost that Grace through disobedience.
The idea of a perfect God and an imperfect creation are repugnant to reason and commonsense.
-Creation is moving toward perfection.
-Some might think other wise of the clear light which is not subject to change, but giving rise to beings ignorant of their pure nature, or something like or how ever you slice it.
God's response to “man's” problem with evil and suffering.
-The bible is about man's relationship with God.
-That relationship is fulfilled in Christ.
-Read Isa 53, and Psalm 22 (23 in western bibles)
-He took upon human flesh and united with His divinity, endured being beaten, spit upon, scourged, and nailed to a cross, died, rose again on the third day and trampled down death by death in response to our transgressions and for our salvation.
@Jason
I was blessed to see the icon twice, and it was amazing to witness. God is active through His creation. Thank you so much for sharing that.
I'm still a squirell looking for some nuts..... I think I found some here.
Please laugh at that, laugh at yourselves, and stop taking this whole God business so seriously. I'm just trying to remind you guys that no one is qualified to define God, since you are not God. You are a faulty human, and may God have mercy on you, if it exists. If it doesn't exist, then at least you can say you didn't waste your time talking about the Republican National Convention. Or did you?
Also I am having a really bad day for the first time in a long time, all anxiety ridden and I'm emotionally all over the place due to a problem with a family member that actually inspired me to pray for a moment though I must admit I had no idea what I was praying to. Some old Catholic habits die hard, I suppose. But if I can find time to make a joke about this today, I think we can all find time to just get over ourselves and the way we try to possess the unknowable, and laugh about that paradox.
So, no one on the forum calls God an it?