Your argument against "many paths to God"

[ananda]

How about this. We can have a bet. How long do you think the wisdom in Buddhism (or anything else) that can cure selfishness? Set a time (10 years, 20 years) and if you can't do that in said time frame, come to Christianity and ask God for mercy

No bets needed. I can demonstrate to you right now that application of wisdom cures selfishness with countless examples; here's one:

A child selfishly desires ice cream for every meal. After personally experiencing ill health and discomfort after endlessly eating only ice cream, and with an open eye of wisdom, the child understands the foolishness of that path. He then restrains himself, dispelling that particular selfish desire.

 

[dcalling]

No bets needed. I can demonstrate to you right now that application of wisdom cures selfishness with countless examples; here's one:

A child selfishly desires ice cream for every meal. After personally experiencing ill health and discomfort after endlessly eating only ice cream, and with an open eye of wisdom, the child understands the foolishness of that path. He then restrains himself, dispelling that particular selfish desire.

With all your wisdom, do you still sometimes envy others who has either better jobs or better health, or better houses, better vacations or other worldly things?

 

[dcalling]

The only reason truth is better than lie is that truth is more likely to result in good outcomes from choices. Like if we think we can fly, and we jump out a window and go splat on the ground, then that was a bad outcome.

In many ways the leader of North Korea is a god and should be worshiped. At least he exists and he can do things that affect people in a practical way.

This is one of the differences between Christians and non-Christians. When I was an atheist sometimes I wonder the same thing, is it better to live happily in a lie/dream than live painful in truth?

After I became a real Christian, I realized that the truth will set you free, i.e. even a very comfortable dream has time to wake up, but follow the true God will make you happy even in times of great distress. Look at US today, it has lost its way, people live in great abundance yet many despise their own country, it is not that their life is not good, it is their own emptiness that make them unhappy. The young American who went to NK and was tortured with brain injury and died, he is likely thinking the same as you, that the leader of NK is "is a god and should be worshiped" (or might give him happiness). All the worldly things will fade, even if they bring happiness it is all temporary. Only God fulfills our needs.

 

[ananda]

With all your wisdom, do you still sometimes envy others who has either better jobs or better health, or better houses, better vacations or other worldly things?

Sometimes, yes - but as wisdom grows through personal experience, I find that those selfish desires cease. It is said that full awakening/enlightenment is required for complete resolution of all selfishness. So, until then, it's a work in progress.

 

[Dirk1540]

Sure we can. Wisdom is the cure, in Buddhism.

Buddhists are awesome people!!! But I would view Buddha the same as I would view having a very wise awesome grandfather named Buddha. I would also view it as I would view 'The Tale of Two Wolves!' Both spectacular teachings on how to live. I wouldn't mind at all if every home in the world had The Tale of Two Wolves hanging up somewhere!

My initial interest in the Bible however revolved around my interest in what lies on the other side of death. After reaching a point where I was convinced that Jesus died, then came back, I found myself in a sort of 'Put up or shut up' type of mindset towards any belief system that wanted to tell me about the other side of death. They had awesome moral things to say, but I didn't see the verification that I needed to trust the claims about the other side of death.

So question, would you consider it problematic if a person was in agreement with the wisdom of Buddhism, and was a Christian? To me they seemed like the answers to 2 separate questions (I'm just referring to my initial question for the Bible, the initial question of the other side of death). I wouldn't imagine it would be too far of a leap to go from Buddha morals to Jesus morals. No?? I'll say one thing, I'd choose to raise kids in a neighborhood that was half Christian and half Buddhist in a heartbeat!! That's not a knock on non Buddhists or non Christians though.

I also think Buddhism is much more pure. Meaning that way less practicing Buddhists are misguided ones, they are more true to what the belief system is meant to be. Christianity unfortunately could not escape being polluted a lot because the belief system became a political power base (which in and of itself was a perversion of the belief system). You should not judge a belief system by it's abuse, but instead it should be judged by it's correct application. So I think too many people, even by accident, judge Christianity by its abuse.

 

[Freodin]

Well, it really looks like you're simplifying the reasoning behind these sorts of statements so that everything turns into a semantical game. It's not like the argument from motion says that because motion exists, God is always in motion too. Quite the opposite, really!

If I remember Aquinas correctly--which I should, since I only just started studying him--God as intellect is something that gets established in the Fifth Way, and he is specifically looking at immanent teleology and the fact that things seem to be ordered towards specific purposes, something that we associate with reasoning beings. Therefore, there must be a force behind this which is also intellectual. Though that is a simplification too.

Most arguments get "semantical" at one point, especially when you try to talk about something that you haven't and cannot have an experience about.

But that is not my point. I thought I had made that clear before, but it seems I haven't.

This "force behind it", what is it? How is it? I may have come to a slightly different result than Neoplatonism, by a slightly different way, but the gist of it is about the same.

We cannot say. We because we haven't any knowledge, any experience about it and cannot have. Because it is "too big/high/great" for us to even comprehend. Because it is so strange, so different, to all that we can and do talk about it. We simply cannot say.
We can talk about it in analogies and methphors... but ultimately we always have to add the qualifier "... or not."

So we can talk about our world, our knowledge and our reasonings about "things that are or seem to be ordered and seem to have been ordered for a purpose"... but that doesn't allow us in any way to say something about the "force behind it".

All the learned arguments about the existence or natural of "God" are limited by this. They are all based - more or less - on our understanding of this our existence. Without it, they might or might not apply. We cannot say.

This looks like backwards reasoning and word games to me. Let us define a universe as a structure, and then say that all universes must by definition be intelligible, thereby sidestepping the question of why this thing called "structure" exists at all.

Unrelated questions. Regardless of how we define "universe", we can (roughly) define "structure" and use it for our understanding. So it wouldn't matter for the question of "why does this exist" to limit it on a certain set.

And the question "why does 'structure' exist at all?"... are you asking for a cause or a reason? Because I don't think there has to be a reason.

For a cause, again, would it matter? Structures can exist "by accident" or "by intent". So you cannot conclude from the existence of "structure" to a specific cause.

Skeptical about what, precisely? All that says to me is that we're grasping at concepts that are beyond our ability to conceptualize, which is something I'm quite convinced of anyway! But it also tells me that we're driven to grasp anyway, which I find pretty interesting as well.

Skeptical whether the target of the leap is real. Or even true. Or if it just doesn't matter.

We can debate all year long about the "existence" of this mystical, unspeakable "something" that is the cause / mover / ground / whatever... but ultimately it doesn't matter to what result we get. We are here, and that's all that we know.
Do you believe that this "something" is "intellect"? That's a leap of faith. But it doesn't matter. Is it "greenness"? Doesn't matter. Is it "how the heck should I know when it is unspeakable!"? Doesn't matter either.

But "this something created us with a specific goal in His mind and He will get extremely angry and punish you with eternal damnation if you don't do exactly what I tell you, so I have the right to force you to do what I tell you, because I love you which is the greatest commandment that this something told me personally via a relationship with His incarnation/son/persona. So either accept that I am right or burn in Hell you stupid heathen!"
This leap of faith does matter for a lot of us.

Hahaha, well, these days I think atheists are more likely to be accused of mislabeling.

Yes, and we also are amoral, immoral, perverted, love to sin and eat babies for breakfast. (I could never get behind the last part... I like my babies for dinner. I am a failure of an atheist.)
Being right is easy when all you have to do is to call those who disagree with you wrong.

LOL! Low bar, you've got there!

I am a content person.

Well... to be fair, Trinitarian theology does not state that the distinctions between God in three Persons are made by the observer. That's actually Sabellianism, one of the more common heterodox approaches.

Trinitarian theology states a lot of things that do not make sense. Try to get a trinitarian to explain the trinity - you will either get a short statement that doesn't make sense, or a doctoral thesis spanning five books... that doesn't make sense.

But that was about distinctions.
Let's go any analyse some stuff then. Here we are, observe and experiment, and make the distinction into the aggregate phases. It can be solid, liquid, gaseous... These are "true" distinctions. They tell us something about what we observe.
But if we now try to take these distinctions as definers of what we object, we will see that they are not enough.
So we observe. This one here is solid. We heat it up. This one here is gaseous. "Ice" you say. And "steam" you say. "Wrong", I say. This gets gaseous at 2868 K. It isn't ice. It's copper.
Another observation: This one here is liquid, that one is also liquid. There is no distinction. Unless you try to have a nice drink of mercury on a hot day.
Oh, about having a nice drink! Here is this island of Puerto Rico, where people are in need of water in liquid form. There is water in its liquid form. Problem solved, until we make another distinction. The water there is on Europa, the moon of Jupiter.

My point of all that: there are numbers of distinctions that can be made. There are also numbers of identities that can be made. But it is us who make them, and decide which ones are relevant for us.

I am somewhat confused, though. Do you believe that science tells us something objectively true about the world, or do you see it as merely a reflection of the distinctions we make? There are certainly some scientific categories, like what does and doesn't count as the same species, that reflect our need to categorize instead of real divisions in the natural world, but going after chemistry seems more radical.

In the way the question is asked: short answer - no.

But of course there is a long answer.
I don't believe in "objective truth". As I see it, "truth" is a statement about something. The underlying existence is "real" or "reality". "Truth" is something that more or less correctly reflects "reality". So it can never be 100%. And because a statement needs to be made by "someone", it can never be objective.
But I think that science can give us "true" answers about "reality", within the limits set by its methods.

 

[ananda]

Buddhists are awesome people!!! But I would view Buddha the same as I would view having a very wise awesome grandfather named Buddha. I would also view it as I would view 'The Tale of Two Wolves!' Both spectacular teachings on how to live. I wouldn't mind at all if every home in the world had The Tale of Two Wolves hanging up somewhere!

My initial interest in the Bible however revolved around my interest in what lies on the other side of death. After reaching a point where I was convinced that Jesus died, then came back, I found myself in a sort of 'Put up or shut up' type of mindset towards any belief system that wanted to tell me about the other side of death. They had awesome moral things to say, but I didn't see the verification that I needed to trust the claims about the other side of death.

Greetings! I feel the same way about verification regarding Jesus and Christianity: I don't see the verification I needed to trust their stories. A second problem for me was that death was not my ultimate concern, therefore "eternal life" was not an answer (which addressed my ultimate concern).

So question, would you consider it problematic if a person was in agreement with the wisdom of Buddhism, and was a Christian? To me they seemed like the answers to 2 separate questions (I'm just referring to my initial question for the Bible, the initial question of the other side of death). I wouldn't imagine it would be too far of a leap to go from Buddha morals to Jesus morals. No?? I'll say one thing, I'd choose to raise kids in a neighborhood that was half Christian and half Buddhist in a heartbeat!! That's not a knock on non Buddhists or non Christians though.

I also think Buddhism is much more pure. Meaning that way less practicing Buddhists are misguided ones, they are more true to what the belief system is meant to be. Christianity unfortunately could not escape being polluted a lot because the belief system became a political power base (which in and of itself was a perversion of the belief system). You should not judge a belief system by it's abuse, but instead it should be judged by it's correct application. So I think too many people, even by accident, judge Christianity by its abuse.

I don't see a problem with people having faith in Jesus, while living out Buddhist philosophy, ethics, and morals. I was once in that position myself, for a number of years. Eventually - after straddling the fence during those years - I came to a point where I had to admit to myself that the Buddhist Way proved superior (in my personal experience), and I converted.

 

[Silmarien]

Most arguments get "semantical" at one point, especially when you try to talk about something that you haven't and cannot have an experience about.

But that is not my point. I thought I had made that clear before, but it seems I haven't.

No, I just disagree with you. I think that saying "we can know nothing" is making a positive statement about it, mainly, that there is no chance whatsoever that our powers of reason have their source here, or that mystical experience is grounded in something real. Saying that we can know nothing is saying that we can know for a fact that we have been abandoned, and that is not a claim I'm willing to make anymore.

I guess I'm just not convinced that we haven't and can't have any experience here.

And the question "why does 'structure' exist at all?"... are you asking for a cause or a reason? Because I don't think there has to be a reason.

See, this looks like special pleading to me. There needs to be a reason for everything, up and until we reach the final level and everything's still hanging in midair. Then suddenly we don't need reasons anymore, because we don't like what's entailed next.

It's less a problem for you than for someone who holds up science as the be-all and end-all of human achievement, but I think it calls into question the whole concept of intelligibility.

But "this something created us with a specific goal in His mind and He will get extremely angry and punish you with eternal damnation if you don't do exactly what I tell you, so I have the right to force you to do what I tell you, because I love you which is the greatest commandment that this something told me personally via a relationship with His incarnation/son/persona. So either accept that I am right or burn in Hell you stupid heathen!"
This leap of faith does matter for a lot of us.

That isn't a leap of faith. That is simply the all too human need to dominate and control, shades of which can be seen in secular as well as religious communities. I hate to beat the dead horse that is the Soviet Union (or all too alive horses like North Korea), but I think you're abusing the definition of faith now. Coercion shows up everywhere.

Trinitarian theology states a lot of things that do not make sense. Try to get a trinitarian to explain the trinity - you will either get a short statement that doesn't make sense, or a doctoral thesis spanning five books... that doesn't make sense.

Yes, there are plenty of aspects of Christianity that make no sense whatsoever when viewed from the outside. Not that I am on the inside--I really just shove my head through a window every so often, but my biggest concern about the traditional orthodox beliefs is, "How much Neoplatonism is too much?"

I don't believe in "objective truth". As I see it, "truth" is a statement about something. The underlying existence is "real" or "reality". "Truth" is something that more or less correctly reflects "reality". So it can never be 100%. And because a statement needs to be made by "someone", it can never be objective.
But I think that science can give us "true" answers about "reality", within the limits set by its methods.

Fellow crazed postmodernist! Fantastic!

 

[Freodin]

No, I just disagree with you. I think that saying "we can know nothing" is making a positive statement about it, mainly, that there is no chance whatsoever that our powers of reason have their source here, or that mystical experience is grounded in something real. Saying that we can know nothing is saying that we can know for a fact that we have been abandoned, and that is not a claim I'm willing to make anymore.

I wish you would see that you are quite often making emotional arguments... calling things "accident", or talking about "being abandoned". If your emotions are an important part of your decision making, this is fine by me, but you shouldn't expect that people are going to share them in a discussion.

I guess I'm just not convinced that we haven't and can't have any experience here.

Are you convinced that you know how you do have an experience? How you can have an experience?
Beside typing, I am doing something RIGHT NOW.
. . .
And you cannot have any experience of it. You could, if...
... but this condition does not apply, because of how "experience" works.

See, this looks like special pleading to me. There needs to be a reason for everything, up and until we reach the final level and everything's still hanging in midair. Then suddenly we don't need reasons anymore, because we don't like what's entailed next.

I would deny that there needs to be a reason for everything... my basic philosophy can be shortened to "stuff happens". But more important: if you believe that there needs to be a reason for everything, and then turn around and claim that you don't need a reason for "something special"... that would be special pleading.

It's less a problem for you than for someone who holds up science as the be-all and end-all of human achievement, but I think it calls into question the whole concept of intelligibility.

And if it does?

That isn't a leap of faith. That is simply the all too human need to dominate and control, shades of which can be seen in secular as well as religious communities. I hate to beat the dead horse that is the Soviet Union (or all too alive horses like North Korea), but I think you're abusing the definition of faith now. Coercion shows up everywhere.

This is a leap of faith, too. You just don't like what's entailed next.

But to join you in beating dead horses: I would include absolutist systems like Communism into the "faith" group. One more example that you can have religion without gods.

Yes, there are plenty of aspects of Christianity that make no sense whatsoever when viewed from the outside. Not that I am on the inside--I really just shove my head through a window every so often, but my biggest concern about the traditional orthodox beliefs is, "How much Neoplatonism is too much?"

If you need to be "inside" of a system to make sense of it, I would argue that this goes against the idea of intelligibility.

Fellow crazed postmodernist! Fantastic!

Careful. That is considered an insult in some circles around here.

Postmodernists of all kinds unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles! Or maybe not!

 

[Silmarien]

I wish you would see that you are quite often making emotional arguments... calling things "accident", or talking about "being abandoned". If your emotions are an important part of your decision making, this is fine by me, but you shouldn't expect that people are going to share them in a discussion.

My background is in existentialism, so I am pretty much perpetually caught in a dialogue between Sartre, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard. So when I talk about abandonment, I am thinking more in terms of, say, Heidegger's Geworfenheit or themes of alienation more broadly. I am a very convinced existentialist, so that plays a role in how I view and talk about these issues.

I do not think that is an appeal to emotion, or at least no more of one than anyone makes on any side. And the point still stands regardless of whether you take issue with the particular language it's couched in: assumptions are at work on every side. There is no default, neutral position.

Are you convinced that you know how you do have an experience? How you can have an experience?

We all have the experience of being, which as far as I'm concerned, is directly related to the question of God. I Am that I Am.

I would deny that there needs to be a reason for everything... my basic philosophy can be shortened to "stuff happens". But more important: if you believe that there needs to be a reason for everything, and then turn around and claim that you don't need a reason for "something special"... that would be special pleading.

No, it really isn't. Think of something like paper money: you can break down a hundred euro note as you'd like, but it's not special pleading to point out that at the end of the day, there's something going on in this exchange that has nothing to do with the paper money. Paper money needs to be grounded in something, whether it be a gold standard or other economic system, but what it needs to be grounded in is not merely more paper money.

And if it does?

Like I said, probably not a problem for you, but certainly one for all of our resident positivists.

This is a leap of faith, too. You just don't like what's entailed next.

What's the leap of faith? That humans need to dominate and control? Or that there's nothing divine about the need to dominate and control? If there were, I don't think that the heights of mysticism in all traditions would be talking about agape love instead.

I don't like what it entails, though, no, since it has forced me to abandon humanism in favor of certain Christian doctrines I really used to hate.

If you need to be "inside" of a system to make sense of it, I would argue that this goes against the idea of intelligibility.

Well, it's impossible to understand any given system without looking at it from the inside. This is as true in politics as it is in religion--if all you're trying to do is tear it down, you won't see whatever logic is involved.

Careful. That is considered an insult in some circles around here.

Oh, I know. I once had someone try to convict me of my sin of being an existentialist. It was... pretty spectacular.

Postmodernists of all kinds unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles! Or maybe not!

Hahaha, that "maybe not" part sounds about right!

 

[Freodin]

My background is in existentialism, so I am pretty much perpetually caught in a dialogue between Sartre, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard. So when I talk about abandonment, I am thinking more in terms of, say, Heidegger's Geworfenheit or themes of alienation more broadly. I am a very convinced existentialist, so that plays a role in how I view and talk about these issues.

Sartre is already quite heavy stuff, but Heidegger is for people more intelligent, more crazy than me. It has been said that "Weltschmerz" is a part of German nature, but in this case I am a worse German than our famous philosophers.
As I said, I am a content person.

I do not think that is an appeal to emotion, or at least no more of one than anyone makes on any side. And the point still stands regardless of whether you take issue with the particular language it's couched in: assumptions are at work on every side. There is no default, neutral position.

You are right, there is no neutral position when all positions are subjective. But still one can argue about assumptions, and doesn't have to accept them as given.

We all have the experience of being, which as far as I'm concerned, is directly related to the question of God. I Am that I Am.

We do have that experience. The "question of God" in this context, as far as I am concerned, is "what else does? And what doesn't?"

No, it really isn't. Think of something like paper money: you can break down a hundred euro note as you'd like, but it's not special pleading to point out that at the end of the day, there's something going on in this exchange that has nothing to do with the paper money. Paper money needs to be grounded in something, whether it be a gold standard or other economic system, but what it needs to be grounded in is not merely more paper money.

But it wouldn't end there. You don't arbitrarily stop and declare that now "the ground of paper money". You can still ask - and answer! - "What is the reason for this now?"

Yes, most conventional philosophical systems at some point reach the ultimate "reasonless reason". I can understand the logic behind it, even if I do not agree with it.

But as I see it, the more attributes you give to this "reason", the more justified it is to ask: "Why?" To discard the question in these cases is special pleading.

What's the leap of faith? That humans need to dominate and control? Or that there's nothing divine about the need to dominate and control? If there were, I don't think that the heights of mysticism in all traditions would be talking about agape love instead.

The leap of faith is the basis for the belief that "domination and control" are justfied. I don't see any basic difference between such a behaviour and "agape love". Both concepts come from the human mind.

I don't like what it entails, though, no, since it has forced me to abandon humanism in favor of certain Christian doctrines I really used to hate.

That's interesting. Care to expand on that?

Well, it's impossible to understand any given system without looking at it from the inside. This is as true in politics as it is in religion--if all you're trying to do is tear it down, you won't see whatever logic is involved.

I would say quite the opposite. It is only from the outside that you can get a complete view of a system without being limited by the internal peculiarities. A famous poster here likes to call it the "fishbowl" and accuses science of being myopic because of that.

Oh, I know. I once had someone try to convict me of my sin of being an existentialist. It was... pretty spectacular.

Hey, I know why I frequent this forum for over 15 years now. There are so much opportunities for... spectacular.

 

[Dirk1540]

Greetings! I feel the same way about verification regarding Jesus and Christianity: I don't see the verification I needed to trust their stories.

Ok

A second problem for me was that death was not my ultimate concern, therefore "eternal life" was not an answer (which addressed my ultimate concern).

For me I find it fascinating that 'Death & taxes' are the 2 absolute guarantees in life, and that the resurrection from death is the cornerstone of technical research for Christianity. Whether one finds the evidence convincing or not is another matter of course, but it's funny that I just didn't get it for a long portion of my life. For a long time I thought, "Duh! God died on a cross and came back, what's the point?" Then somewhere it dawned on me that it's the best combination of a few things to relate to various human experiences, it's a defeater to the scariest undefeatable problem in human history (death), it's technical meat to chew on if you are a skeptical seeker (historic resurrection), it emotionally relates to people in misery (Christ went through torture and misery for us on the cross), etc.

What do you mean by your ultimate concern? Actually, I also never really feared death, I suppose because I just never aged beyond that younger age where you just feel like you'll live forever, but I'm now getting older yet I don't fear death now for the obvious Christian reasons. So I never really had the phase of being terrified of death. But I did view it as a major puzzle piece in life to try to figure out. I'm actually very rare in that I went through a long stretch of time once where I totally believed the Bible was true, yet wanted nothing to do with it, it annoyed me. I don't believe the Bible teaches eternal torment in Hell, and I was content to just die like the atheist theory of death, nothingness after life, in a way it strangely sounded relaxing to me, the idea of eternal rest. Of course that's coming from a person who has struggled with insomnia most of his life lol.

I don't see a problem with people having faith in Jesus, while living out Buddhist philosophy, ethics, and morals. I was once in that position myself, for a number of years. Eventually - after straddling the fence during those years - I came to a point where I had to admit to myself that the Buddhist Way proved superior (in my personal experience), and I converted.

I can definitely relate, I have definitely spent years straddling that fence myself. But I just came to a point where I fell over to the other side of the fence than you. So I'm not a Buddhist expert, but I'm assuming that the major transition if one converted to Christianity from Buddhism would be to meditate on Christ as opposed to meditation on your own being, correct?

That for me turned out to be an open & shut resolved issue. I have tried meditation towards a few different things. Meditation towards Christ had this bizarre unexplainable euphoria attached to it that I couldn't achieve with meditation towards any other concept. And the thing is that I always considered myself absolutely terrible at meditation, I didn't get it lol, I always one of those shallow spiritual thinkers who would just say things like "Ok, I close my eyes and think about something, doesn't everyone do that? I don't get it." That's more of a reason that I found the euphoria attached to thoughts about Christ as extremely bizarre! I'm really about as 'Spiritual' as Bill Mahr lol, I'm a fact & figures thinker (obviously with different conclusions that Bill however). But strangely something can stir up inside me when I'm even superficially thinking about Christ.

 

[ananda]

Ok

For me I find it fascinating that 'Death & taxes' are the 2 absolute guarantees in life, and that the resurrection from death is the cornerstone of technical research for Christianity. Whether one finds the evidence convincing or not is another matter of course, but it's funny that I just didn't get it for a long portion of my life. For a long time I thought, "Duh! God died on a cross and came back, what's the point?" Then somewhere it dawned on me that it's the best combination of a few things to relate to various human experiences, it's a defeater to the scariest undefeatable problem in human history (death), it's technical meat to chew on if you are a skeptical seeker (historic resurrection), it emotionally relates to people in misery (Christ went through torture and misery for us on the cross), etc.

What do you mean by your ultimate concern?

I would say that death is not my ultimate concern. My ultimate concern is about dukkha (aka suffering/discontentment/displeasure) - I see this as the core problem in life.

I see life in all its aspects as various attempts to address our experiences of suffering. We seek out gods, saviors, prophets, priests, psychics, politicians, food, water, shelter, work, money, sex, entertainment, sleep, etc. - all because of dukkha.

Actually, I also never really feared death, I suppose because I just never aged beyond that younger age where you just feel like you'll live forever, but I'm now getting older yet I don't fear death now for the obvious Christian reasons. So I never really had the phase of being terrified of death. But I did view it as a major puzzle piece in life to try to figure out. I'm actually very rare in that I went through a long stretch of time once where I totally believed the Bible was true, yet wanted nothing to do with it, it annoyed me. I don't believe the Bible teaches eternal torment in Hell, and I was content to just die like the atheist theory of death, nothingness after life, in a way it strangely sounded relaxing to me, the idea of eternal rest. Of course that's coming from a person who has struggled with insomnia most of his life lol.

I can definitely relate, I have definitely spent years straddling that fence myself. But I just came to a point where I fell over to the other side of the fense than you lol. So I'm not a Buddhist expert, but I'm assuming that the major transition if one converted to Christianity from Buddhism would be to meditate on Christ as opposed to meditation on your own being, correct?

That for me turned out to be an open & shut resolved issue. I have tried meditation towards a few different things. Meditation towards Christ had this bizarre unexplainable euphoria attached to it that I couldn't achieve with meditation towards any other concept. And the thing is that I always considered myself absolutely terrible at meditation, I didn't get it lol, I always one of those shallow spiritual thinkers who would just say things like "Ok, I close my eyes and think about something, doesn't everyone do that? I don't get it." That's more of a reason that I found the euphoria attached to thoughts about Christ as extremely bizarre! I'm really about as 'Spiritual' as Bill Mahr lol, I'm a fact & figures thinker (obviously with different conclusions that Bill however). But strangely something can stir up inside me when I'm even superficially thinking about Christ.

Meditation is only one part of Buddhism. There are other parts involved, all directed towards addressing dukkha.

 

[Dirk1540]

I see life in all its aspects as various attempts to address our experiences of suffering. We seek out gods, saviors, prophets, priests, psychics, politicians, ...

Ok now you lost me on this one! Aren't politicians the epitome of public servants who do nothing but improve our lives?? LOL

 

[ananda]

Ok now you lost me on this one! Aren't politicians the epitome of public servants who do nothing but improve our lives?? LOL

That's what we hope they do!

 

[Dirk1540]

That's what we hope they do!

I was kidding lol

 

[Silmarien]

But as I see it, the more attributes you give to this "reason", the more justified it is to ask: "Why?" To discard the question in these cases is special pleading.

Oh, absolutely. That's why classical theists think the doctrine of divine simplicity is so important. If God has got a whole bunch of attributes, we're dealing with a compound entity and there are plenty of questions that need to be asked. If, on the other hand, rather than God being something that is both intelligent and volitional, we say that God is intellect and God is will, and these two things are ultimately the same, we're in different territory.

On the other hand, I do not think there are that many attributes that really need to be posited for the universe to make sense.

The leap of faith is the basis for the belief that "domination and control" are justfied. I don't see any basic difference between such a behaviour and "agape love". Both concepts come from the human mind.

I would say that only one of the two behaviors is crucial for human wellbeing, and it's not the one that leads to murder and mayhem. There is actually some interesting psychological research on the topic of spirituality--George Vaillaint has got an interesting book on it from the perspective of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.

Now, if the question is objectively speaking, does one type of behavior have real value that the other lacks, I'd agree that that's a much more difficult question. I also think there's only one religion which by its very nature adequately jumps the subjective-objective divide, which is why Christianity is so very interesting to me these days.

That's interesting. Care to expand on that?

Ideology and idolatry, and hints of original sin, though I would attribute it to evolutionary processes rather than a literal Fall. On the left, we are so obsessed with tolerance that we shatter into a million pieces and cease to be tolerant even to each other; meanwhile, I am quite convinced that what happened on the Christian right in the United States last year was an exercise in apostasy, though I will not go into that. This is of course at the societal level, but I see the same self-destructive tendencies everywhere.

I do think it ties into authenticity and responsibility and a handful of other issues that were identified by the existentialists, but I think there's an element of idolatry going on as well, especially with regards to ideology. Sartre referred to his "conversion" to Marxism as almost religious, and I see that at play now as well. On all sides. I see very little but hypocrisy and self-defeat at the end of that particular road.

But I think there's no way out and that we are lost on our own. Which makes me either an Absurdist or a Christian, I suppose.

I would say quite the opposite. It is only from the outside that you can get a complete view of a system without being limited by the internal peculiarities. A famous poster here likes to call it the "fishbowl" and accuses science of being myopic because of that.

I would say you need both. The myopia shows up as much for a Creationist who's intent on pointing out every potential problem in the Theory of Evolution, as if that somehow tears down the whole thing, as for the scientist who thinks that evolution somehow proves materialism. Neither view is perfect, so you need to step in before you can step back out again.

 

[Silmarien]

That for me turned out to be an open & shut resolved issue. I have tried meditation towards a few different things. Meditation towards Christ had this bizarre unexplainable euphoria attached to it that I couldn't achieve with meditation towards any other concept.

Yes, same. I could not meditate, could not pray, could not do anything at all until my relationship with Christianity flew completely out of control. Now I can only pray in a Christian context, and every so often, things get... very strange.

I do not do that sort of fullblown contemplative prayer nearly as much as I should, both because I'm afraid nothing will happen and because I'm afraid something will.

If there were proof that Christianity were true, I would probably flip out. Uncertainty is a bit of a refuge.

 

[Dirk1540]

Uncertainty is a bit of a refuge.

This is totally my theory on why the evidence isn't greater, because of intellectual free will. I can't count how many times, over the same exact issue, a Christian will say "The evidence for it is clear as day'" and the non-Christian will say "The evidence for it is non-existent" (assuming we're talking about a technical Christian & non-Christian, which is the minority). If you want out, you NEVER lack an intellectual escape hatch. And so many people who say that they intellectually want in, if they were given that clear cut evidence that they ask for, they would immediately want out after receiving it ASAP!

Funny thing is, when I just posted that I'm a rare case of someone who was absolutely convinced that the Bible was true yet still wanted nothing to do with it, that phase for me was only after SO many years of going back & forth that I was completely jaded to either position, like I burnt myself out as far as caring anymore. So that me having that intellectual stance, at that time in my life, didn't even cause me emotional distress over it. Funny how that timing worked out.

I do not do that sort of fullblown contemplative prayer nearly as much as I should, both because I'm afraid nothing will happen and because I'm afraid something will.

and every so often, things get... very strange.

Did you ever read the thread that I made in the testimony section a little while back? Although I'm no prize winning author I tried my best to tell the story accurately enough to paint the picture of how intense the "Something Happened" really was for me that day 20 years ago. It was an inner experience which is right up your alley...I wish for the sake of the atheists in here that it was tables flying across my living room but it wasn't lol.

 

[Silmarien]

This is totally my theory on why the evidence isn't greater, because of intellectual free will. I can't count how many times, over the same exact issue, a Christian will say "The evidence for it is clear as day'" and the non-Christian will say "The evidence for it is non-existent" (assuming we're talking about a technical Christian & non-Christian, which is the minority). If you want out, you NEVER lack an intellectual escape hatch. And so many people who say that they intellectually want in, if they were given that clear cut evidence that they ask for, they would immediately want out after receiving it ASAP!

I am not sure I'd say intellectual freedom so much as just... the freedom to exist in general. Even in eras where atheism would have been all but unthinkable, there are still tons of conversion stories. People like Francis of Asissi and Teresa of Ávila going from fairly materialistic to completely committed. And of course there's always Augustine's famous "Lord, make me pure... but not yet!"

*...slinks off into the night*

But yeah, I think what's going on is probably bigger than just the freedom to believe or not. But I find some of the implications of Christian theism to be pretty intimidating sometimes, and that is despite flirting with universalism a bit. (Or maybe even because of it--real universalism is kind of intimidating in its own way.) I wish I were sure, but I am also nowhere near ready for that.

Did you ever read the thread that I made in the testimony section a little while back? Although I'm no prize winning author I tried my best to tell the story accurately enough to paint the picture of how intense the "Something Happened" really was for me that day 20 years ago. It was an inner experience which is right up your alley...I wish for the sake of the atheists in here that it was tables flying across my living room but it wasn't lol.

No, I don't think I saw it! Do you have a link?