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.
Archbishop of Canterbury not sure about God.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You are right to accuse me of that based on what I said. I have however failed to articulate what I had in mind. By simple-mindedness I was specifically referring to simplistic or superficial ideas of God that are often brought up and demolished by atheists. Kind of like refuting Buddhism on the basis that burning paper money in a temple doesn't work.
Are you Christian or Buddhist, @SattvaPaul?
I don't know. Culturally I come from Catholic background. I've been a Buddhist for the last 15 years. Now I'm perhaps 80% Buddhist, 20% Christian
Looking in different directions, for a variety of reasons..
All of a sudden I felt curious as to what motivates people with a strong Christian mindset to participate in Buddhist forums.
You are right to ask. I wouldn't call myself Christian, at least not in a conventional sense. I like to play Devil's (or Mara's) advocate though
I don't have any mission here, apart to learn from others and share my perspective.
I could also add, there is a kind of yearning in me to re-connect with my Christian background, but on a mature level, and there is something which (for want of better word) I find lacking in my current Buddhist practice.. Hence I'm exploring Christianity, but with some perspective from the Buddhist side.
Hence I'm exploring Christianity, but with some perspective from the Buddhist side.
The Quakers might be of interest.
It can get confusing when we talk so much about Christianity on a Buddhist forum, that's all.
Perhaps when one discovers who they are God is there, everywhere, and nowhere. No need to prove anything then.
I wasn't objecting to an attachment, but to a personal agenda being dressed up to sound like a rational position. A rational position would be: "We can't prove that either God or rebirth exists, so we should be equally sceptical about both - or equally accepting of both." But the underlying agenda is this: "I believe in God but not in rebirth, so when people question the existence of God I will try to deflect the criticism by repeatedly pointing out that the existence of rebirth can't be proved either."
It's very much the kind of argument you'd expect from a Christian in debate with a Buddhist.
It's also an odd argument to use on this forum, given that most of the members here don't believe in rebirth anyway! I can't decide whether it's a straw-man or red herring, or both rolled into one.
A lot of western Buddhists will have been brought up in a Christian environment, so it's not surprising that God is a perennial subject of discussion. Some make a complete break from their religious upbringing while others don't.
But how do you interpret "God"?
Sorry but...It is more or less all over the suttas. The texts refuted all major philosophical and religious movements of those days. If it is the Buddha himself or someone else writing these suttas.. who knows?
In DN the priest who worships Brahma get a pretty good serving since, the sutta claims the buddha said, imperfect teachers like those cannot show the path to Brahma.
Instead the Buddha offers the Dhamma as a means to seek union with the same.
Also the buddhist cosmology demeans the Creator Gods (yepp pluralis) to deluded beings no better than very powerful gods.
Hupp!
I have yet to see a religion which is as tolerant of other religions as it claims to be.
It's totally understandable but confusing at the same time.
Sometimes the forum seems to be taken by assault by people who voice opinions which the forum does not originally set out to represent.
I don't haunt Christian sites making Buddhist propaganda.
@SpinyNorman What is the image of that which is imageless?
Perhaps that is saying too much.
Perhaps that is saying too much of a subject not quite relevant to Buddhism?
Sometimes God is used for lack of a better word and doesn't necessarily mean the character from the Bible known as God.
I don't think it's always clear why people subscribe to particular forums, maybe sometimes they are trying to work out some internal conflict about what they really believe?
What would concern me here is being pressured into some weird version of political correctness where, on a Buddhist forum, it's OK to say that rebirth is nonsense but not OK to say that God is nonsense. If you see what I mean.
It's funny because the word God has maybe tainted my way of trying to describe how I see the universe unfolding. It's funny because I lost any possibility of faith in my parents religion after reading the first bit of Genesis when I could read finally.
My heart actually went out to the snakes children first before the humans, lol.
I remember the look on my Moms face when I brought her home a paper mache snake from school that I had made. I thought it was pretty good as cobras are hard but I could see her wheels turning and I laughed and laughed...
Must have been in grade three or four at the time.
Moral of the story is, if you want your kids to believe in the Bible, for Gods sake don't let them read it!
Sometimes God is used for lack of a better word and doesn't necessarily mean the character from the Bible known as God.
Yes, I know, but if somebody's idea of "God" is very far removed from the usual Abrahamic idea of God, then would it not be better to use a different word anyway? Maybe something like The Transcendent, The Eternal - whatever. I get a bit tired of this guessing game when people talk about "God", there are so many permutations, like "which one do you actually mean?!" :grumble:
Genesis is a Hebrew book and Jewish scholars teach that it's not meant to be read literally.
There's lots of 'Buddhist themes' in there too. The forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is an allegorical explanation for dualistic thinking, for example.
Adam and Eve eat the fruit, learn attraction and aversion (Good and Evil), and are cast out of the Garden. The Garden of Eden is a mind-state; Enlightenment maybe?
In the Beginning there was God and the Word. The 'Word' is concepts (words are concepts) and notice how after that God starts labelling things into day and night, etc.
If you read it with a set of 'Buddhist eyes', there's lots in there.
Not enough - I've never been any good at koans! Could you elaborate?
It could be seen that way I suppose but it would take too much mental gymnastics for myself personally. Especially when coupled with the idea of original sin since it is said we must be saved by the blood of the lamb (Jesus) to be spared the wrath of God for the sins of the dead.
Sadly perhaps for Judaism but Genesis was also hijacked by Christianity.
If you read it with a set of 'Buddhist eyes', there's lots in there.
I agree, but unfortunately most people don't read it with Buddhist eyes and wouldn't accept it as a valid interpretation anyway. One interesting thing is logos, the word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#.22God.22_or_.22a_god.22
Anyway I'd rather spend my time reading and pondering the suttas, I'm a Buddhist so that's my "bible".
.
I know I know... I guess I will stop doing that. It's just so easy, lol.
Yeah, conversation can be tough when you're not sure what people mean when they use a certain word.
Even on a board like this, certain terms get bandied about - emptiness is one example - where a dozen people may have a dozen different ideas about how it's defined. Very frustrating.
Even the idea of coming up with new terms is problematic, becaause not everyone will be familiiar with what that means.
There's lots of weird stuff in them too. Angulimala destroyed whole towns, chased down elephants and running deer, yet despite running with all his might, he couldn't even catch up with the Buddha who was just walking because the Buddha used his psychic power.
Has your studies led you to having such powers?
I have had the same thoughts about the confusion/intent myself...AFA this forum goes..... I do agree that it's people talking/working things out within.....because I have no interest in god..you won't see me in the conversations. My teacher (TNH) tends to blend some it too in our Dharma talks, and I find it very confusing....I've just learned to kind of tune it out. I know he's not talking to me...he's talking to other people who need the comparisons. I have noticed though...if saying anything negative about god, you might get accused of not being tolerant or accepting of other religions/faiths...etc....so like I said...I just excuse myself. It flows and goes around here...sometimes we go weeks without even a mention....some times god conversations are more active than Buddhist ones....what cha goin' do? hahaha
There is some wierd stuff but also some amazingly profound teachings. Recently I've been studying this one: http://suttacentral.net/en/mn1. MN1, The root of all things.
It reminds me a bit of the Heart Sutra for some reason.
Vinlyn, you were the one who brought "it" up in the first place. Saying neither Buddhism not Xtianity has any proof that the teachings work or that Enlightenment/God/Whatever exists. :buck: .
Well, I certainly didn't leave it so broad as any proof that the teachings work. I probably said there is no more proof that things such as rebirth and karma work than there is that God exists. And I would point out that people on this forum cannot even agree to the workings of rebirth or karma, yet I guess we're just supposed to have faith (oops) that they actually exist and work.
Is it any wonder I've lost track after 4 pages of some very off-topic posts in a mis-titled thread?
And I would point out that people on this forum cannot even agree to the workings of rebirth or karma, yet I guess we're just supposed to have faith (oops) that they actually exist and work.
There you go again - you sound just like a Christian sniping at Buddhists. :-/ .
And like I said, most of the people on this forum don't even believe in rebirth, so I'm not sure who your comment is actually aimed at?
Yes... The topic has somewhat strayed form the original premise, and I think that's an understatement.
We should discuss the ArchBish's comments and what that may mean to some, but frankly, it's possible we've done it to death and as Buddhists it's really none of our direct business anyway.
I mean, I have been extremely sure about God for some considerable time now, in that I'm of the opinion it really has no bearing on me one way or the other, whether 'he' exists or not.
If nobody has anything to add on the specific topic of the thread, i'll close it for now.
If it should merit re-opening, let me know.