Can a Christian be a Buddhist? Vice-versa?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-09-2007, 07:16 PM
JGL57

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

I really don't see what my statement that man is close to God has to do with what you suppose to be my lack of information about pantheism... There are other forms, you know, many religious beliefs could be classified as pantheist... I say pseudo-God because the pantheist idea of God is so much different from the personal God I love... God is spiritual...

Nevertheless, billions of people accept pantheism as their ontology. Billions of others, e.g., you, disagree. Do you think YOU beliefs are somehow valid in some provable and public way, as opposed to the pantheists? They are somehow missing the point, and only need to hear a sermon from you to understand the situation correctly? I go more for live and let live. What is the problem with that - since there is not going to be much conversion by either side, now or ever - (it seems to me).

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

...Pantheism: the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature. (That's straight from the dictionary).

And who was the person doing the defining - a christian brother of yours, perhaps? E.g., the dictionary definition of "atheist" has always been screwy, simply because I doubt any atheist was ever consulted - it would always be a christian defining the term.

Pantheism is simply all is god. This makes logical sense if you believe in god's omnipresence. Think about that. Otherwise, whence god's omnipresence?

As to personality, pantheism sees ultimate reality as a Self or a concept beyond the duality of personal and impersonal. Your statement of pantheism as being a "denial" of god's personality sounds suspect to me. It sounds rather like the dictionary definition of "atheist" as one who "denied" there is a god.

Sounds like someone is starting with a premise of a personal god, then working from there. I see that more as just prejudice rather than some disinterested methodology.

How about I define theism as "The denial that the universe spontaneously exists and evolves according to innate and immutable attributes (descriptive laws). Does that work for you?
06-10-2007, 03:35 AM
NikolaiI

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

I think storms, nature, etc. are subhuman-- just because they are powerful does not make them superhuman, some of the worst people in history have been tremendously powerful people. I would consider anything lacking a purposeful, intelligent will to be subhuman. I think Nietzsche was full of crap (and yes, I have read him-- I think "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was the most overrated bit of anti-God schlock in modern history). I believe, as you seem to, that God sustains creation, but while you appear to stop at that, I would say that that is the least of His functions. Beyond the mere power of God is a purpose, a will, and a Mind like no other, balanced also with the sheer goodness of God (and that is another reason I reject the force/energy model-- I believe God is good, and forces never have goodness in and of themselves).

Let's reconsider that belief, that nature and storms are subhuman. Nature extends - nature includes the universe. I mean planets, stars, galaxies, all those are included in nature. Do you really mean nature is subhuman? Humans are a part of nature, and if they are greater than nature, you're saying they're greater than themselves, which doesn't make sense.

Again, non-conscious doesn't mean sub-conscious. Eastern wisdom tells us that the path of growth, of spiritual enlightenment takes us on a path, where we begin and end non-conscious. As an infant, we are not conscious, and there's no difference between the infant and the world around it. To make it short, then there's different levels of the ego, until we eventually transcend it all. (No Boundary, and The Atman Project, by Ken Wilber) At least that is the goal. On one end is an infant, on the other end is the enlightened individual, that perceives the truth, etc.

This fact is what leads people like me to try for a reconciliation of beliefs, and encourages people to expand their minds and learn and grow and experiment and all those things. It's because I've seen glimpes of very rich and beautiful knowledge in lots of different places, it's what makes me open to new things as well.

As you probably know, I was raised Christian, Presbyterian, which was my mother's faith. My father has always been atheist and never lied to me about that. I used to have full faith and at some point I realized I was faking my belief, and became atheist. I won't recount all the twists for you, but like I've said, I've seen many beautiful glimpses along the way. At some point I studied Buddhism, then later the Bhagavad-Gita, and eventually decided I could reconcile the (yes, personal) God of YHWA with other faiths. Eventually I realized that even atheism was compatible with other isms, and I'll argue that with you if you like, it is the topic of this thread.

As to what you were saying, regardless of whether it is good or not, I would like to hear what you meant. I mean, the earth - subhuman? I can't think of any value system that would support this except one that says humans are greater than things that aren't human. Anyway, forget about the conscious thing. As someone once said, "Without comparing, beauty is everywhere."

But surely that gets too zen for you. As with most people. I'm not trying to be personal, just slightly provocative.

As for Nietzsche, I'll ask you how much of him you read. I've only read the first two books and part of the third of Thus Spake Zarathustra, and I am a person that loves him. How much of him have you read - who holds him in such low esteem? And if that's all you've seen of his, then I really suggest you don't read anything else, you really won't like it.

Okay, cheers, have a good day, Namaste.

Also, everything has a purpose. Especially time - to illustrate how life goes. Each day and each minute are building to something, and all of our past is building up to the present, always. That is what meditation is good for. And if we have fallacious beliefs, I truly believe humans have the capability to be openminded and learn and arrive at the truth.
06-10-2007, 03:40 PM
weepingforloman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

Nevertheless, billions of people accept pantheism as their ontology. Billions of others, e.g., you, disagree. Do you think YOU beliefs are somehow valid in some provable and public way, as opposed to the pantheists? They are somehow missing the point, and only need to hear a sermon from you to understand the situation correctly? I go more for live and let live. What is the problem with that - since there is not going to be much conversion by either side, now or ever - (it seems to me).

That's too many people... Yes, I think I'm right. If you don't think you're right, why think? I don't go for live and let live, and I think only God's grace brings one to faith in Christ.

Quote:

And who was the person doing the defining - a christian brother of yours, perhaps? E.g., the dictionary definition of "atheist" has always been screwy, simply because I doubt any atheist was ever consulted - it would always be a christian defining the term.

Pantheism is simply all is god. This makes logical sense if you believe in god's omnipresence. Think about that. Otherwise, whence god's omnipresence?

As to personality, pantheism sees ultimate reality as a Self or a concept beyond the duality of personal and impersonal. Your statement of pantheism as being a "denial" of god's personality sounds suspect to me. It sounds rather like the dictionary definition of "atheist" as one who "denied" there is a god.

Sounds like someone is starting with a premise of a personal god, then working from there. I see that more as just prejudice rather than some disinterested methodology.

How about I define theism as "The denial that the universe spontaneously exists and evolves according to innate and immutable attributes (descriptive laws). Does that work for you?

I believe with all my being in a personal God. So, perhaps that is a prejudice, but why does that matter? You start with the prejudice that there is NO personal God. If all is God then God is not good, and a God that is not good should not be worshiped. God is omnipresent but not part of nature-- He is the painter, who can see and touch all of His painting, and yet is not part of the canvas.
06-10-2007, 08:42 PM
hyperborean

weepingforloman, maybe in college you'll be ready to read zarathustra because you definitely didn't understand it the first time around.
06-10-2007, 08:53 PM
JGL57

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

That's too many people... Yes, I think I'm right. If you don't think you're right, why think? I don't go for live and let live, and I think only God's grace brings one to faith in Christ...

Uh huh. And what is the consequence, do you "think" of not having faith in god or god's grace - exactly? I ask you this because I don't want to think something bad about you on assumption before giving you a chance to indict yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

...I believe with all my being in a personal God. So, perhaps that is a prejudice, but why does that matter? You start with the prejudice that there is NO personal God. If all is God then God is not good, and a God that is not good should not be worshiped. God is omnipresent but not part of nature-- He is the painter, who can see and touch all of His painting, and yet is not part of the canvas.

You couldn't be happier with your personal god. You think pantheists and atheists are missing the boat.

OK. Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?
06-10-2007, 09:16 PM
ennison

' Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?'
Rhetoric. Handy stuff.
06-10-2007, 09:29 PM
JGL57

Quote:

Originally Posted by ennison

' Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?'
Rhetoric. Handy stuff.

Hot air all the way around, sure - but I'm not the one who claims to KNOW or BELIEVE in invisible persons. Burden of proof, dude.
06-10-2007, 09:59 PM
weepingforloman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

Uh huh. And what is the consequence, do you "think" of not having faith in god or god's grace - exactly? I ask you this because I don't want to think something bad about you on assumption before giving you a chance to indict yourself.

Oh, no, I'll be happy to indict myself-- disapproval be damned, I believe in Hell. And I believe that we're all headed there, but for the grace of God.

Quote:

You couldn't be happier with your personal god. You think pantheists and atheists are missing the boat.

OK. Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?

Yes, I do think you're "missing the boat." Why should you care what I think? Who am I? No reason, and no one, really. I am nothing too significant-- but Christ is important beyond importance.

Grace and Peace.
06-10-2007, 10:16 PM
JGL57

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

Oh, no, I'll be happy to indict myself-- disapproval be damned, I believe in Hell. And I believe that we're all headed there, but for the grace of God...

I thought YOU were the christian here. So, be honest. You believe you are going to heaven, and you believe all atheists are going to hell.

I have no equivalent belief. I beleive that you are merely mistaken and wasting the one life you have.

Hell is a morally putrid idea, BTW. -Just thought I might mention that to you. Food for thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

...Yes, I do think you're "missing the boat." Why should you care what I think? Who am I? No reason, and no one, really. I am nothing too significant-- but Christ is important beyond importance...

Sure, blame it all on christ. Pretty convenient.
06-11-2007, 06:45 AM
NikolaiI

No one replied to my message! to my so-beautiful post, as it always goes.

I just realized this site puts the threads in bold that you haven't read the most updated post on. That is nifty.
06-11-2007, 08:00 AM
Logos

NikolaiI it was a lovely, thought-provoking post but that is as far as I will go, not having any interest in discussing religion :p

Yes, topic titles that have new posts to them since you last logged on are in bold, and when you view the forum index http://www.online-literature.com/forums/index.php? the http://www.online-literature.com/for.../forum_new.gif book icon denotes new topics and posts to that forum
06-11-2007, 08:14 AM
NikolaiI

Aww, thank you! :)

Not my best, but I felt ignored. I do love this site, all the authors, etc. I am now finding other good source sites for online books.
06-11-2007, 08:17 AM
NikolaiI

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

If all is God then God is not good, and a God that is not good should not be worshiped. God is omnipresent but not part of nature-- He is the painter, who can see and touch all of His painting, and yet is not part of the canvas.

I have a question for you. You say that forces in nature are not good. But God said it was good after he created creation. Doesn't that mean that creation is good, as a whole?
06-11-2007, 10:52 AM
weepingforloman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

I thought YOU were the christian here. So, be honest. You believe you are going to heaven, and you believe all atheists are going to hell.

Would have thought that was evident when I said "but for the grace of God." If you remember, I discussed Calvin's special grace, which is faith, and I have faith. Sorry to be so unenlightened. It must be a real burden being so wise and wonderful, huh J?

Quote:

I have no equivalent belief. I beleive that you are merely mistaken and wasting the one life you have.

Hell is a morally putrid idea, BTW. -Just thought I might mention that to you. Food for thought.

No, what is morally putrid is sin-- which we all have. I've already gotten past Hell as a detriment to my belief. What is currently an intellectual struggle for me is the justice of God's election of believers. But, regardless of what feeble obstructions my own mind can throw up, I will continue to believe-- because it is God that maintains my faith, not myself.

Quote:

Sure, blame it all on christ. Pretty convenient.

What, exactly, did I "blame" on Christ?
07-14-2007, 01:47 AM
Visionary3

My husband and I visited the Buddhist Temple in our area. The monk and the director ,who was a Catholic, both said that they were Christians. Budda did not intend to be a God or to be worshiped. His purpose was to help people live a better life on this earth.

Even so the temple had a big gold statue of Budda on the altar. When monks come from all over the world to their festivals I would doubt that they are all Christians too.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page