S
Silas
Guest
Because...Being good is its own reward.It doesn't matter if it matters or not.
OK, this is getting intersting. I have two questions for you:
1. Why would a person that believes that he or she is the product of an accident, who's life is vain, and who is going no where ultimately, choose to live oppossite to that belief and do good?
2. You mentioned that being good has its own reward. Like what?
Thanks bro!!
Namaste Silas,
Darn good question! I'm hoping you can provide an answer. You posit that humans are sinful and wicked by nature, or have repeatedly for about 600 posts...
And without G-d permitting them (you also say that we don't choose G-d but G-d chooses us) And that without Jesus saving them...we are destined to be true to that evil nature.
So why, since you've repeatedly told me I am not a Christian, and that I do not love Jesus, and that I will reap G-d's wrath...
Why, why do I donate my time to benefit others, why do I spend time teaching youth, why do I donate to charity, why do I try to raise moral children? Now I ain't no saint, but why do I do these things...the fallen human that I am?
Why do I spend time here, and in real life on interfaith and learning, why not spend it chasing women in bars? Why does this inherently evil being do this Silas?
I must admit to admiration of the sheer honesty of Silas. I must admit myself that though virtue is indeed its own reward - or at least should be - often I still seek something just a little more tangible 
.
We all seem to have various perspectives on this. (Just as a quick aside, for anyone who has not yet read it, Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is a great novel that explores the themes that this thread opens up. The young student Raskolnikov, influenced by certain nihilistic arguments - if there is no God, then all is permitted - justifies to himself the killing of a "worthless, stupid and grasping" old women for her money in order to further his own career, which he considered would be of greater worth to the world than anything the old woman could have done. The novel plays out the result of the deed and its consequences. Well worth a read.)
Reflecting upon the original questions set by Silas, I did feel that to consider the reality that "this was it", and to know it for fact, could actually provide an opportunity for a true deepening of our experience and understanding. Rightly or wrongly I have for a long time considered the idea of "eternity" as endless time beyond the grave, as a mere extension of egoic existence - though imagined "perfect" - to be more a description of hell than of anything else. Ulitimately, the present has no extension but intensity, eternity is a deeper dimension of time, more timelessness than endless time. To seek for genuine reconciliation both within ourselves and between ourselves within such a context and understanding, beats striving to earn a place in some imagined heaven hands down! Well, at least it seems so to me. How does it go? "Ear hath not heard, the eye hath not seen, nor the heart of man conceived what the Lord has prepared for them that love Him" (sorry, my NT is little rusty) That being so, why spend too much time reflecting upon it?
Hopefully, though being on the Christian section, I might be able to quote a few words attributed to the Buddha on this theme, which seem to me to have relevance (irrespective of creed........ if we allow our minds just a little leeway, and seek the "yes" rather than the impulse to "refute")
With his heart thus unhostile and unafflicted by ill will, thus undefiled and unified, a noble disciple here and now aquires these four comforts. He thinks: "If there is another world and there is fruit and ripening of actions well done and ill done, then it is possible that on the dissolution of the body, after death, I might be reborn in a heavenly world." This is the first comfort aquired. "But if there is no other world and there is no fruit and ripening of actions well done and ill done, then here and now in this life I shall be free of hostility, affliction and anxiety, and I shall live happily." This is the second comfort aquired. "If evil befalls one who does evil, then since I have no evil thought of anyone, how shall evil deeds bring suffering to me, doing no evil?" This is the third comfort aquired. "But if no evil befalls one who does evil, then I know myself to be pure in this life on both these counts." This is the fourth comfort aquired. (Anguttara-nikaya 3:65)
. We all seem to have various perspectives on this. (Just as a quick aside, for anyone who has not yet read it, Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is a great novel that explores the themes that this thread opens up. The young student Raskolnikov, influenced by certain nihilistic arguments - if there is no God, then all is permitted - justifies to himself the killing of a "worthless, stupid and grasping" old women for her money in order to further his own career, which he considered would be of greater worth to the world than anything the old woman could have done. The novel plays out the result of the deed and its consequences. Well worth a read.)
Reflecting upon the original questions set by Silas, I did feel that to consider the reality that "this was it", and to know it for fact, could actually provide an opportunity for a true deepening of our experience and understanding. Rightly or wrongly I have for a long time considered the idea of "eternity" as endless time beyond the grave, as a mere extension of egoic existence - though imagined "perfect" - to be more a description of hell than of anything else. Ulitimately, the present has no extension but intensity, eternity is a deeper dimension of time, more timelessness than endless time. To seek for genuine reconciliation both within ourselves and between ourselves within such a context and understanding, beats striving to earn a place in some imagined heaven hands down! Well, at least it seems so to me. How does it go? "Ear hath not heard, the eye hath not seen, nor the heart of man conceived what the Lord has prepared for them that love Him" (sorry, my NT is little rusty) That being so, why spend too much time reflecting upon it?
Hopefully, though being on the Christian section, I might be able to quote a few words attributed to the Buddha on this theme, which seem to me to have relevance (irrespective of creed........ if we allow our minds just a little leeway, and seek the "yes" rather than the impulse to "refute")
With his heart thus unhostile and unafflicted by ill will, thus undefiled and unified, a noble disciple here and now aquires these four comforts. He thinks: "If there is another world and there is fruit and ripening of actions well done and ill done, then it is possible that on the dissolution of the body, after death, I might be reborn in a heavenly world." This is the first comfort aquired. "But if there is no other world and there is no fruit and ripening of actions well done and ill done, then here and now in this life I shall be free of hostility, affliction and anxiety, and I shall live happily." This is the second comfort aquired. "If evil befalls one who does evil, then since I have no evil thought of anyone, how shall evil deeds bring suffering to me, doing no evil?" This is the third comfort aquired. "But if no evil befalls one who does evil, then I know myself to be pure in this life on both these counts." This is the fourth comfort aquired. (Anguttara-nikaya 3:65)
Well, without a G-d I don't know what would make that person want to take another look at their life, but being good just works better than being bad. Taking just what you need works better than taking more than you need. Being friendly works better than being unfriendly, etc.
There's a peacefulness that comes from being good. Like you're teflon-coated and nothing can hurt you and it wouldn't matter if it did anyway.
I know that the term "good" is a subjective thing. I'm not trying to get mixed up in semantics. I'm just saying...
The reward of a good life is a good life!
Then if you put G-d in the mix, that's an extra bonus.
my 2 cents...
Love,
Mark
Very well said Tariki (and The Buddha)!
I'm printing this out and keeping it in a conspicuous place.
This is what I was trying to say but for which really couldn't find words.
Many thanks!
Mark
Namaste Tariki,
I ditto Prober, and in regards to your question since the OP wonders if there weren't a G-d, a Buddhist response seems entirely appropriate. As I understand Buddhis thought (which seems to be verified in your quote) is you don't worry whether their is or isn't a G-d...not that it is a trivial issue, but that it is one steeped in conjecture and faith and there are plenty of things to contemplate regarding this incarnation...
The four comforts are wonderful, perfect conclusions once one decides to sit and think about it. Could be accomplished previous to bumping against the material world but often after....
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Tariki,
As always you come in with the most appropriate works! "Crime and Punishment" is an excellent reference for this thread, and the words of Buddha confirm what Wil alluded to earlier. It is only a particular v-meme that believes the essential nature of man is evil and that there is even a transcendent figure that sets things right.
In Silas' model God is "out there" somewhere directing us by an objective law or principle to which we ultimately must surrender and integrate into our being. All well and good of course, but it dismisses out of hand the notion that the Buddha and others pointed out that "being good" to put it simply aligns us with our original nature and therefore the nature of suchness. When this alignment takes place there is great merit, peace, joy and happiness.
I think the problem is delving too far into what is known as a "what if" fallacy of logic in order to propagate a particular world view. Ultimately the motivation for that behavior could only be self aggrandizement.
Peace
Mark
As always you come in with the most appropriate works! "Crime and Punishment" is an excellent reference for this thread, and the words of Buddha confirm what Wil alluded to earlier. It is only a particular v-meme that believes the essential nature of man is evil and that there is even a transcendent figure that sets things right.
In Silas' model God is "out there" somewhere directing us by an objective law or principle to which we ultimately must surrender and integrate into our being. All well and good of course, but it dismisses out of hand the notion that the Buddha and others pointed out that "being good" to put it simply aligns us with our original nature and therefore the nature of suchness. When this alignment takes place there is great merit, peace, joy and happiness.
I think the problem is delving too far into what is known as a "what if" fallacy of logic in order to propagate a particular world view. Ultimately the motivation for that behavior could only be self aggrandizement.
Peace
Mark
Wil,
Yes, there is a very "pragmatic" side to the Dharma, deriving from various suttas. The Buddha is often recorded as speaking of that which he "declares" and that which he does not "declare", and the importance of understanding why. He once likened his own teaching to just a handful of leaves.............and of that which he knew, yet did not teach, to the leaves of the entire forest.
Our own speculations can be important, yet are often irrelevant - perhaps no more so than when deep suffering strikes.
As far as Buddhist/Christian dialogue is concerned there is much ground to be covered! Speaking for myself, it would revolve around the meaning of the Person (as opposed to the "ego-self")..........but let's not deflect this thread................
Your notion of being good aligning us with our own true nature is how I see it as well; that by opening the heart of love/compassion one also opens to a deeper, truer Being, one which words/concepts can only fail. Buddhists of course have long placed compassion on a par with wisdom-compassion as a spiritual practice which deepens our awareness as well as a natural response when we act from a deeper place of awareness. They see compassion and wisdom as 2 wings of the same bird. I've typically read Buddhists when speaking of their traditional ethics as saying those ethics are both mind training and how enlightened people would naturally act.
take care, earl
lunamoth
Episcopalian
I like this idea of alignment with our true nature, our Christ nature. If in Him I live and move and have my being...then repentance (transformation) and redemption (righting my relationship) means that my being in the image of God becomes clearer. It must have been there to start with, or how else could it emerge?
I can't help but notice the relationship of this thread to the discovery of the putative Jesus and Mary crypts. I would note that only a faith dependent upon a very literal understanding of Christ and redemption would be shaken by an authenticated discovery. Having said that, I'm pretty sure the crypt is bunk.
Morality may be fine-tuned by religion, but IMO a drive to play nice with others is hard-wired into us (by God, via evolution). If we are of good mental health and past our youthful rebellious, selfish stage, and if we are not under extreme physical duress, cooperation with others and a basic morality will emerge naturally (and at the same time, by the grace of God).
I can't help but notice the relationship of this thread to the discovery of the putative Jesus and Mary crypts. I would note that only a faith dependent upon a very literal understanding of Christ and redemption would be shaken by an authenticated discovery. Having said that, I'm pretty sure the crypt is bunk.
Morality may be fine-tuned by religion, but IMO a drive to play nice with others is hard-wired into us (by God, via evolution). If we are of good mental health and past our youthful rebellious, selfish stage, and if we are not under extreme physical duress, cooperation with others and a basic morality will emerge naturally (and at the same time, by the grace of God).
S
Silas
Guest
It is really a very good question, thanks! You didnt answer it though, you only went on a long spill about things that have nothing to do with the topic. We're not talking about religions right now. The question at hand is dealing with the "what if" fact that there is no God. If there is no God and you came from a cosmic accident, and your life is meaningless, you have no worth, and you will soon die, why would you choose to be moral? I mentioned that I would do all the things my heart desired and probably more. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be moral? Answer that please.
That aside, l'll answer your question. The reason you do any good is because God is pleased not to have totally depraved people be utterly depraved. You will never be as bad as you can be for God's sake. All of life is grace and although you are evil, you still know how to give and do good things (Luke 11:13).
S
Silas
Guest
Well, without a G-d I don't know what would make that person want to take another look at their life, but being good just works better than being bad. Taking just what you need works better than taking more than you need. Being friendly works better than being unfriendly, etc.
There's a peacefulness that comes from being good. Like you're teflon-coated and nothing can hurt you and it wouldn't matter if it did anyway.
I know that the term "good" is a subjective thing. I'm not trying to get mixed up in semantics. I'm just saying...
The reward of a good life is a good life!
Then if you put G-d in the mix, that's an extra bonus.
my 2 cents...
Love,
Mark
Thanks for answering! But no one has answered the question yet. I'm sorry if Im not asking correctly, but I just want to know why someone who would opt for being the result of years of chance, aka, evolution, and who would believe that their life is meaningless since they came from nothing and will ultimately go no where, why would they choose to be moral at all? It doesnt make sense to believe one way and live opposite to that belief.
It has been answered repeatedly Silas, by myself and others...because over time I learn that living a wrong life begets more issues...living a moral life softens the blow of life in general. To me it is common sense, living with a positive loving outlook produces more of the same...as it was said, being good has its own rewards. The 'G-dless' Buddhists discovered this...as have many.
We all do not believe that man is inherently evil....I believe that man is inherently good and given time that would prove out, hence the reason man creates laws and governments and religions to assist in enforcement...but it appears that various interpretations of G-d (religions) and Gov't have gotten in the way....
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Silas,
Perhaps we need more clarification here. You say you are not discussing religion in your thesis statement, but the underlying premise suggests that without God life is essentially meaningless and humans are basically worthless.
So, how then are we to proceed with a discussion that excludes God, but frames the argument based on a religious premise?
Peace
Mark
Sorry. Perhaps I'm reading "why should they" instead of "why would they".
Why would they choose something else?
I suppose, without impetus, they wouldn't. A body at rest tends to stay at rest, etc.
I don't know...it's hard for me to imagine...
In other words, without something to stimulate a change, there would most likely be no change.
S
Silas
Guest
Wil,
This has nothing to do with man being evil at all! In fact, this has nothing to do with relligion or God. The question is: If there is no God and no absolute morals and consequences of sin and that your life is the result of years of blind chance, namely evolution, and then your life is meaningless because you came from nothing and is going no where, why choose to live contrary to that belief and be moral at all?
S
Silas
Guest
Now you are aware that to me we are not punished for our sins but by them. That has nothing to do with G-d or religion, just a physical reaction. I punch you in the mouth, you respond by punching me in the mouth. I don't like getting punched in the mouth, so I stop doing this. I try to rob someone, they beat me up, I decide to try another method. In this world it is easier to be nice than mean...my understanding. No blind chance, sin is missing the mark, not doing your best, an archery term meaning you missed the bullseye...how many sins, how from from your mark are you? The more times in life I hit the bullseye the better life is for me. Now despite the fact that I believe that is the way our creator set it up...I still don't need to believe in G-d for that to happen. And if perchance as you posit that G-d didn't create the world and this wonderful 'karmic' reaction....then so be it, it was a wonderful case of blind chance.
You still haven't answered....why did I decide to become moral, become a better person before I found an understanding with G-d?