Did God send His messangers with more than one religion?!!

citizenzen said:
I think life is 100% of what happens to us and 100% attitude.
Click to expand...

Ooooh, I like that idea too.

Epictetus wrote, "Man is not disturbed by events but by the view he takes of them." Shakespeare said the same thing: "Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

I don't know if that's an event/attitude ratio of 10/90 or 100/100 or what the numbers might be, but I like it. :)
 
DrDeb said:
I think the whole thing starts spinning out of control when we start trying to "attract" things that are outside of our control. There's a big difference, I think, between putting our energy into studying for school, putting in extra hours at work, or working on a relationship -- and mentally trying to manifest something in the physical world that is completely out of our control, like "attracting" a particular dollar amount out of nowhere. That's where I see a pretty big difference between fairly universal themes of submission to the Divine Will and striving to essentially use magic to create something through our own individual will. (No offense to anyone who practices magic "for the good of all," which to me is still submitting to the Divine.)

Those are my thoughts at the end of a long week, anyway! :)
Click to expand...

I tend to see nothing inherently wrong with magic for the fun of it or magic as a way to try to assist whatever- a new job, income, what have you- done. I just don't think it's spiritual. It's just one more type of thing humans do to fulfill their needs and desires.

The drive to satisfy our needs is not in itself bad. It's what keeps our physical selves going. But I think the problem is balance- most lean heavily toward self-centeredness and are light on the unity/other-centeredness. Which is where spiritual and religious traditions come in- to call us into relationship rather than letting us wallow in "me" and "mine."

The biggest problem with The Secret and this type of consumerist-based LOA hype (and, by extension, the prosperity version of Christianity) is that it entirely ignores a couple fundamental problems: first, that we mostly use finite or slowly replenishing resources and second, that we are impacted by other people and others are not our puppets.

So that's when it all sort of falls apart. I believe attitude counts for a lot and I believe we have choice in whether we are joyful, peaceful, loving, etc. I even believe energetic flows matter, so magic isn't entire hooey. *However,* extending it wholesale to making it seem like we're the writers of our own life, without boundaries, limitations, or relationships is just sophomoric. Clearly, we can't *all* be gazillionaires with homes like we see on MTV Cribs. What about the cost to the earth? What about the uneven distribution of wealth? And clearly, we are affected by the actions of others.

I can choose to be in peace and love and joy, but circumstances can certainly be a challenge to making that choice effectively and easily, and those circumstances are often not chosen by me.
 
path_of_one said:
You don't really have to practice both, I think. I would say your assessment of Buddhism was not inaccurate because you aren't Buddhist, but because your studies of Buddhism were (perhaps) not thorough enough to really understand it. My experience, having both studied Buddhism and having taught the basics in religious studies, is that Western folks in general and especially Christians struggle with the concepts in Buddhism, which are quite complex and operating out of an entirely different cultural and religious heritage.

To make a comparison, the mistakes you're making about Buddhist concepts of suffering, enlightenment and nirvana would be similar to someone telling you that you are polytheist because you believe in three Gods (Christ, Father, Spirit). They wouldn't have to become Christian to understand their inaccuracy, but they would need to study Christianity more in order to understand the complexity of the concept of Trinity.
Click to expand...


But if the cultural systems must be fully understood before the religion can be understood, what measure of study can possibly be enough, other than to be a product of that culture?

I don't know. It seems pretty clear to me that Buddha did not believe in God, but then a case can be made that there are cultural complexities around this issue, and God means different things to different people of different cultures. The same with Heaven. The same with any other ideas. It seems to me that any differences can then be simply explained away by saying that it's all a matter of culture.

My wife is Asian, and grew up in a Buddhist/Taoist family. She's a Christian now. She doesn't see any significant similarity between these two religions.
 
Marsh said:
But if the cultural systems must be fully understood before the religion can be understood, what measure of study can possibly be enough, other than to be a product of that culture?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you learn about and understand other religions by asking questions of the people who practice it. That's what we're here for at IO. I think everybody here is quite willing to impart their understanding to others and the give and take provides an avenue to specifically address questions or concerns you might have.

Marsh said:
I don't know. It seems pretty clear to me that Buddha did not believe in God...
Click to expand...

Buddhism teaches that our universe is a "formless (infinite and all pervading) field of liberation" comprised of perfect wisdom and love (compassion). Does that sound so different from God?
 
Correction: The chant is actually "A formless field of benefaction"

Sorry for the error.
 
citizenzen said:
Buddhism teaches that our universe is a "formless (infinite and all pervading) field of liberation" comprised of perfect wisdom and love (compassion). Does that sound so different from God?
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I mean, C: To you, a formless field of liberation comprised of perfect wisdom and love sounds like God; to me, it sounds like the absense of God (albeit an extremely attractive absense of God). To me, God is a being; assuming that I'm reading you correctly, to the Buddhist God is not a being, but rather more of a state.

If there was really consistency between Christianity and Buddhism in this regard, shouldn't the issue be a lot more clear? For example, in Judaism and in Islam, and to my knowledge (which, again, is limited) Brahman Hinduism-- in these and other religions, God is portrayed as a being. But that's my perception from my culture (and Christianity is indeed a culture). Your perception is different. Each is valid. But that's not to say that there could (or even should) be a resolution to this question.

Personally, I'm content with allowing everyone to make up their own minds as to who they believe is a prophet, and who they believe was not a prophet. However, in this way there will never really be a general consensus as to who was or was not sent from God, will there? I don't believe that Buddha was a prophet, but I'm not going to waltz into a monastery and criticize all the monks for misleading the world with their false beliefs, because to those monks their beliefs are perfectly true; otherwise, they wouldn't have chosen to devote their lives to them, yeah?

My original take was that a prophet from another religion could only be considered a prophet if their teachings are consistent with those of one's own religion. This is an inherently ethnocentric (I think the term applies here; religiocentric or culturocentric seem strange) point of view, because it assumes that one's own religion (or at least personal beliefs) is the one to measure by. I admit that it's biased, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as one is aware that it's biased.
 
That's an interesting idea, Marsh. For a person of a particular religion, it may just be a matter of understanding one's own ethnocentrism. To a person of another, more inclusive religion or of no religion at all, there may be things that are held in common among many religions' prophets that indicate all could be called that title. It depends in part if one is using a definition of prophet that is based in observational study or if one is using the term out of a particular religious tradition.

From my understanding of the diversity of thought within Christianity, I would say that CZZ's idea of God is not so far off the mark of some of the Christian saints and mystics. Was it Merton, for example, who called God the "Ground of Being" (or was that Eckhart)?

At any rate, my point is that God is sometimes a being in Christianity and other times Being Itself. It just depends on which theologians one reads. Which I find exciting. I see this as a result of various Christians really trying to engage with God in relationship, and as God is always so much more than our little minds can compute, the beauty of all these various ways of expressing what we experience of God is the human legacy of experience with the divine.

In Hinduism, there are many gods and goddesses. Yet there is also pantheism (God in all) and an idea of all gods/goddesses being manifestations of one. It speaks to the complexity of how humans might experience God, given our individual differences.

I always loved the imagery that was presented to me in the Hindu moksha (cessation of rebirth)- a single drop of water returns to the ocean. If I am the drop of water, and the ocean is God/Brahma... when I am back in the ocean I am surrounded by God... and yet it is all little drops of water like me. I think that is a way to think about the mystery of the divine embrace.
 
Marsh said:
That's exactly what I mean, C: To you, a formless field of liberation comprised of perfect wisdom and love sounds like God; to me, it sounds like the absense of God (albeit an extremely attractive absense of God). To me, God is a being; assuming that I'm reading you correctly, to the Buddhist God is not a being, but rather more of a state.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

We both described something that is perfectly wise and loving, something that is infinite, pervasive and everlasting, something that is profoundly moving and awe-inspiring that utterly and permanently changes peoples lives when they come in contact with it.

And you want to claim we're looking at two different things because (according to your words) I see a "state" while you see a "being".

It sound to me as if you don't want it to be the same thing. You want to keep God to yourself and to deny it to other religions.

Why is that Marsh? I'm happy to share God. Why aren't you?
 
I did not read Marsh's post that way CZ. I think he is pointing out that there are differences between the God of the Abrahamic faiths and Nirvana in Buddhism (and yes, I see the similarities too). :shrug:


The 'field of benevolence' seems impersonal, sort of like an ocean of jelly that we float in and feel good by being in it. Yet you use the words wise and loving which are very much traits of a person. It is the Personhood of God in the Abrahamic faiths that seems to be the biggest difference. How can one be loved by a non-person?
 
citizenzen said:
I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

We both described something that is perfectly wise and loving, something that is infinite, pervasive and everlasting, something that is profoundly moving and awe-inspiring that utterly and permanently changes peoples lives when they come in contact with it.

And you want to claim we're looking at two different things because (according to your words) I see a "state" while you see a "being".

It sound to me as if you don't want it to be the same thing. You want to keep God to yourself and to deny it to other religions.
Why is that Marsh? I'm happy to share God. Why aren't you?
Click to expand...


Hmmm.... not sure where you're coming from on this one, C. When I said...
Marsh a couple of hours previously said:
But that's my perception from my culture (and Christianity is indeed a culture). Your perception is different. Each is valid.
Click to expand...
.... I thought you'd understand that I'm taking care not to exclude other peoples' beliefs simply because I don't share them. I'd like to take exception to the way that you seem to be implying that because I'm not going along with the way you think, that I'm being exclusive or stubborn. Am I not entitled to my opinion? Must I agree that all religions are basically the same, even if I don't believe that they are or need to be, simply because it's the nice thing to do?

When I first met you on this forum, you seemed to be the voice of reason among so many zealots who claimed that their way was the only way. Things appear to have changed; ironically, you seem to be dictating the terms by which comparisons can be made between Buddhism and Christianity, much in the same way as a fundamentalist limits the scope of what may or may not be said about their religion. Sort of an anti-fundamental fundamentalism. ;)
 
Marsh said:
Your perception is different. Each is valid. But that's not to say that there could (or even should) be a resolution to this question.
Click to expand...

My bad.

That's what I get for skimming. (It's also why I try to keep my points concise.)

I'll endeavor to read more carefully in the future.
 
citizenzen said:
Field is Field, and More than field (not less).

HAH! Gotcha with your own logic.

This is too easy.
Click to expand...

Well, I think a person is more complex than a field. :)

Besides, if a field is more than a field, why not call it something else so that field can just mean field.

Are you a theist?
 
lunamoth said:
Well, I think a person is more complex than a field. :)

Besides, if a field is more than a field, why not call it something else so that field can just mean field.

Are you a theist?
Click to expand...

LUNA!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

If a person is more than a person why not call it something else so that person can just mean person?

And no. I am not a theist.
 
citizenzen said:
LUNA!!!!!

If a person is more than a person why not call it something else so that person can just mean person?

And no. I am not a theist.
Click to expand...

I did not say a person is a person, I said God is a person (which is why I am a theist) and God is More than a person.

See, you are not a theist. That means something to you. It means you don't want your understanding of God to be mixed up with the understanding of someone who thinks God has the quality of Personhood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top