Zen Buddhist vs Christianity or Zen Buddhist Christian ???

[lordistrength]

If buddhists didnt have a title seperating themselves from others they wouldn't be serving a deity. Oh, wait, atheists have a title also, proving that they also serve a deity.

 

[lordistrength]

Or at least the supreme nature of God.

Buddhism doesnt believe in a God. They serve a god. As does atheism.

None can have a stance without serving a god or God Himself.

 

[lupusFati]

Buddhism doesnt believe in a God. They serve a god. As does atheism.

None can have a stance without serving a god or God Himself.

I think I get what you're actually saying. If you said what I'm certain you're saying, then you'd be violating the rules.

...Unless you don't realize what you're actually implying. Then it's just hilarious.

However, I must disagree. Atheists don't intentionally serve any god since they simply believe none exists. You could argue they probably place themselves into a god role, but they're not actually gods are they? Also not every atheist is narcissistic.

 

[lordistrength]

However, I must disagree. Atheists don't intentionally serve any god since they simply believe none exists. You could argue they probably place themselves into a god role, but they're not actually gods are they? Also not every atheist is narcissistic.

I think it hilarious that your claiming to have an opinion and denying serving it.

If an atheist claims it doesn't serve one or the other, then how come claim a title?

Professing to be an "atheist", which claims to serve none, and then serving an opinion, breaks forum rules.

 

[gord44]

It kinda does. The difference between buddhists and atheists is that buddhists dont want to fight against Christians.

Buddhists usually ride in the middle of materialism (atheist) and spirituality (theist). They will say there is a God and that there isn't a God. They will admit they just don't know. Many believe in God, just not the archetype that most religions have of a 'father' god, who looks down on people with a stern eye and threatens spankings if they step out of line. Buddhists will see God more as what powers the universe, what manifests life, what make a food taste good and a flower smell nice, etc.

 

[smaneck]

Buddhists usually ride in the middle of materialism (atheist) and spirituality (theist). They will say there is a God and that there isn't a God.

Many forms of Mahayana Buddhism posit the existence of a universal or eternal Buddha, of which Guatama Buddha was a manifestation. That basically serves the same function as God.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Buddhists will see God more as what powers the universe, what manifests life, what make a food taste good and a flower smell nice, etc.

That seems essentially akin to Deism where the Lord powers the Universe but isn't personally involved in being known by others - for He'd simply be the person who keeps the lights on.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm not in a position to characterize which forms of Buddhism are or aren't theistic, but will point out these passages from the Buddhist scriptures, which sure sound like theism to me!:

There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependant, that also moves; what is independent does not move.

and

"The one who does not desire anything,
"But directly knows even the uncreated;
"Not satisfied, such a one breaks off any
"Possibility for rebirth by swallowing
"What he has made. Such one is the Supreme!"
--Dhammapada 9

Buddhist scriptures also speak of "gods and men."

Peace,

Bruce

But Buddhism would not be Monotheistic ....and in many ways, it seems akin to Monolatry when it comes to the concept that many god/deities exist and yet only one is ultimate above all - as opposed to polytheism in believing in many gods all being equal or Henotheism where One God is worthy to be worshiped and has fought other gods to their position.

 

[lupusFati]

I think it hilarious that your claiming to have an opinion and denying serving it.

If an atheist claims it doesn't serve one or the other, then how come claim a title?

Professing to be an "atheist", which claims to serve none, and then serving an opinion, breaks forum rules.

Why do we label anything? Just because I call someone by a label doesn't mean they serve a deity. Otherwise they'd just be 'those guys', and there are plenty of those already.

Perhaps you should first grasp the use of the English language, as I don't see any progress will be made otherwise. I could recommend a good tutor, if you wish.

 

[lupusFati]

not even close jesus died on the cross zen is bad

Alright. Do me a favor; define what zen is, and give me examples as to why it's 'bad'. Also, define 'bad'. Do you mean 'icky' or 'horrible' or 'the devil'?

 

[gord44]

That seems essentially akin to Deism where the Lord powers the Universe but isn't personally involved in being known by others - for He'd simply be the person who keeps the lights on.

Close, but the 'Lord' would be the universe. You, me, that rock, etc. All manifestations of 'God'. Not powering, but being. A Buddhist may see God as a vast ocean, and us as the waves, emerging for a bit, then going back to where we came from and what we truly are (in this example, the vast ocean).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Close, but the 'Lord' would be the universe. You, me, that rock, etc. All manifestations of 'God'. Not powering, but being. A Buddhist may see God as a vast ocean, and us as the waves, emerging for a bit, then going back to where we came from and what we truly are (in this example, the vast ocean).

That'd go with the view of Buddhism which others have already noted - that even if others claim it is a theistic system, any semblance of theism (with respect to differing deities) is simply another manifestation of pantheism.

Personally, although the concept of God being present in creation is not necessarily a negative, I'd go with Panentheism over Pantheism any day (more shared in #26, and Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the Present.. - ). And as it concerns the issue from a purely etymological perspective:

• Pantheism = All things are God / God is all things, or all things are part of God
• Panentheism = God is in all things

​

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere. ..and the Universe is so massive that it'd make sense to know there has to be SOMEONE outside of it.

Hubble Heritage Gallery of Images​

These are but a few, click on the link above to see dozens of them.

If you've ever heard of Louie Giglio, he actually had a video he made on the subject of just how vast the universe is...and how as incredible it is, it by itself cannot exist apart from the Lord and nothing can exist outside of Him. One of the reasons why men are foolish not to fear Him, seeing just how big He truly is:

How Great is Our God: with Louie Giglio (full video) ​

If you remember the film "Men in Black", there was a famous scene that really brought things into perspective on the issue of things would look like in the eyes of a creator:

Final Clip of Men In Black​

Of course, I don't think God looks like how the alien being looked like in 'Men in Black" . But on a serious level, I do think that there's something to be said on how the classical model of how we see the universe isn't enough...for the Lord sustains it and is OUTSIDE of it entirely. The entire view behind what's known as Panentheism

 

[Zoness]

If buddhists didnt have a title seperating themselves from others they wouldn't be serving a deity. Oh, wait, atheists have a title also, proving that they also serve a deity.

Logic...its made of magic.

 

[RisingSpirit]

“In my classes in the seminary, I raise questions like, “Is God in control of every single molecule in the universe?” When I raise that question, I say, “The answer to that question will not determine whether you are a Christian or a Moslem, a Calvinist or an Arminian, but it will determine whether you are a theist or an atheist.” Sometimes the students can’t see the connection. And I say to them, “Don’t you realize that if there is one molecule in this universe running around loose outside the scope or the sphere of God’s divine control and authority and power, then that single maverick molecule may be the grain of sand that changes the entire course of human history, that blocks God from keeping the promises he has made to his people?” It may be that one maverick molecule that will prevent Christ from the consummation of his kingdom. For if there is one maverick molecule, it would mean that God is not sovereign. If God is not sovereign, then God is not God. If there is any element of the universe that is outside of his authority, then he no longer is God over all. In other words, sovereignty belongs to deity. Sovereignty is a natural attribute of the Creator. God owns what he makes, and he rules what he owns.” R. C. Sproul

 

[RisingSpirit]

Arminianism is Atheism

R.C. Sproul, writes: “If there is one single molecule in this
universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have
no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that
one maverick molecule will lay waste all the ground and glorious plans that God
has made and promised to us. ... If we reject divine sovereignty then we must
embrace atheism.” (Chosen by God, pp.26-27,)

In other words, free choice, undetermined by God, “must embrace atheism.

 

[gord44]

That'd go with the view of Buddhism which others have already noted - that even if others claim it is a theistic system, any semblance of theism (with respect to differing deities) is simply another manifestation of pantheism.

Personally, although the concept of God being present in creation is not necessarily a negative, I'd go with Panentheism over Pantheism any day (more shared in #26, and Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the Present.. - ). And as it concerns the issue from a purely etymological perspective:

• Pantheism = All things are God / God is all things, or all things are part of God
• Panentheism = God is in all things

​

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere. ..and the Universe is so massive that it'd make sense to know there has to be SOMEONE outside of it.

Interesting stuff. In truth I just don't think too much about it. Theology and understanding God used to be my passion, now I just sit, and that's enough. When one sits they begin to see their true nature. Soon one sees that trying to understand God is impossible and not really even worthwhile. Ego takes over and a persons view of God becomes who they are. Human characteristics then emerge in their idea of God and delusion increases. I find its better just to sit. But that's just me.

 

[Zoness]

Arminianism is Atheism

R.C. Sproul, writes: “If there is one single molecule in this
universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have
no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that
one maverick molecule will lay waste all the ground and glorious plans that God
has made and promised to us. ... If we reject divine sovereignty then we must
embrace atheism.” (Chosen by God, pp.26-27,)

In other words, free choice, undetermined by God, “must embrace atheism.

I didn't realize Calvinism was still a thing...

 

[gord44]

In other words, free choice, undetermined by God, “must embrace atheism.

I'm ok with that.

It is always annoying though when someone says 'because you don't believe this, you must then embrace this'. Like there is no other option. Silly man made theology that puts a limit on thought and imagination.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I didn't realize Calvinism was still a thing...

it surges from time to time . a flaw is western rationalist thinking .

 

[RisingSpirit]

I didn't realize Calvinism was still a thing...

What's Calvinism ands what does that have to do with this post? I was referring to Jacobus Arminius's junk theologies.