Good parents teach their five year olds that God expects children to honor their father and mother. When their children become teenagers, good parents don’t tell teenagers that they no longer need to honor their father and mother.
Oh, I agree. You teach them the same moral principles. I mean that you wouldn’t give your 5 year old the same instructions in solving a math problem that you would a 15 year old. And, you wouldn’t tell your 15 year old to make sure he washed his hands after going to the bathroom
. Hopefully by that time they are used to that rule! And I wouldn’t have to tell my 15 year old to avoid the stove because it is hot and not to touch it.
correct me if I read your first post wrong - you asked what do we think about a certain passage written by a Zen Buddhist. Are you really interested in hearing what we think, or do you only welcome replies from people who agree with you and affirm you, or from people who are bewildered by the whole passage and rely on you for enlightenment? If you don’t want to hear a variety of answers, why did you ask the question?
you are of course aware that a lot of religions and philosophical systems profess a belief in God, yet are not Christian.
since you initiated the Buddha and his teaching thread, and contribute to the other threads about Buddhism, I presume you have some claim of authority and scholarship to do so. you certainly sound like more than a mere student or beginner, you don’t just cut and paste from websites.
Sorry Ahimsaman72, but I can’t seem to get out of my mood. Now I have a pile of dirty dishes in my sink…but that’s not reality…
I did ask what your thoughts were about the clipped material. I said up front - yes - that it was written by a Zen Buddhist monk. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the writer. I think he is on the right track, but I don’t claim it is absolute bona-fide truth - whether Buddhist or otherwise.
I read a lot of books
. I have no claim of authority or scholarship since you don’t have to be one to be a Buddhist (or a Southern Baptist 
). I don’t cut and paste unless I see something that can be better explained by someone else or use it to clarify what I am saying. I figure people would rather have a conversation with another person - not a static article being referred to.
Do you agree then, that there are moral truths that cannot change?
You ask for opinions of the quote from a Zen Buddhist monk. My opinion is that his statement is not true, because he rejects the concept of absolute truth, and he rejects the concept of objective reality. God is absolute truth, therefore he rejects God. Many non-Christian religions and philosophies profess belief in God, therefore I did not introduce a Buddhist-Christianity debate, although I feel compelled to wonder why you would not expect such a debate when you post on a Christian forum. I assumed, since you claim this passage is written by a Zen Buddhist, that it represents Buddhist teaching. I pointed out the obvious contradiction inherent in the quoted passage. You asked for my opinion, you got it.
He doesn’t reject absolute truth at all. And he doesn’t reject objective reality. He seems to be pointing out the subjective nature of humans and the creation of a new, separate and false reality by the mind. He will admit true objective reality but posits we may not perceive it or understand it when it is available to us.
Moral truths that cannot change? I’m not sure what you are getting at, but here’s my take on it. Moral truths can be either revelatory (such as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or self-directed moral truths (such as in Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism). I would say that in my own life - moral truths that should not be changed are the principles of loving myself and others by not harming myself or others. You will find these moral truths in practically all religions.
You haven’t really answered the question I asked you, i.e. can moral truth change? It is true that there are moral truths that are known by divine revelation and moral truths known by natural law. The question I am asking you is this: can moral truths that are known by either divine revelation or the natural law ever change?
Since my explanation of “if it’s wrong to do violence today, it is also wrong to do violence tomorrow” didn’t answer, then I suppose you must define these “moral truths” you are referring to so that we are speaking of the same animal.
I did a search through the Bible to get all the “liberty” passages to compare with the above passage. In every instance where “the law” and “liberty” were together, here is what I found: all writings were from Paul and all were passages in which the Mosaic law or moral imperatives such as not killing, no adultery, etc were compared to the “perfect law, the law of liberty” which is basically liberty from the condemnation of the Mosaic law that Christ died to liberate us from - the law of sin and death.
Obedience to the perfect law liberates us from the law of sin and death - of condemnation.
I don’t understand your phrase (because of the enlightened addition), but suffice to say that faith and action go hand in hand. It’s not enough to just hear the commandment to love your neighbor. You must act it out in your life by actually loving your neighbor (i.e. helping them financially, be kind in speech to them, help them in many other ways.
My, what a question. It’s been a debated issue for 2,000 years because James’s words here seem to be in contrast to Paul’s writings. I don’t think they contradict each other. James is simply drawing our attention to the practical and expected aspect of living out our faith. I believe that he believed a Christian is justified by faith, but that the sanctification of the individual is achieved through living out our life of faith. Of course, from a Southern Baptist background I would have to say that my understanding of salvation in Baptist theology consists of: justification, sanctification and glorification. All of which are works of God given to man and man’s works for God are the natural result.
Since my explanation of “if it’s wrong to do violence today, it is also wrong to do violence tomorrow” didn’t answer, then I suppose you must define these “moral truths” you are referring to so that we are speaking of the same animal.
I did a search through the Bible to get all the “liberty” passages to compare with the above passage. In every instance where “the law” and “liberty” were together, here is what I found: all writings were from Paul and all were passages in which the Mosaic law or moral imperatives such as not killing, no adultery, etc were compared to the “perfect law, the law of liberty” which is basically liberty from the condemnation of the Mosaic law that Christ died to liberate us from - the law of sin and death.
Obedience to the perfect law liberates us from the law of sin and death - of condemnation.
I don’t understand your phrase (because of the enlightened addition), but suffice to say that faith and action go hand in hand. It’s not enough to just hear the commandment to love your neighbor. You must act it out in your life by actually loving your neighbor (i.e. helping them financially, be kind in speech to them, help them in many other ways.
My, what a question. It’s been a debated issue for 2,000 years because James’s words here seem to be in contrast to Paul’s writings. I don’t think they contradict each other. James is simply drawing our attention to the practical and expected aspect of living out our faith. I believe that he believed a Christian is justified by faith, but that the sanctification of the individual is achieved through living out our life of faith. Of course, from a Southern Baptist background I would have to say that my understanding of salvation in Baptist theology consists of: justification, sanctification and glorification. All of which are works of God given to man and man’s works for God are the natural result.
Christians have not been liberated from having to obey the moral laws found in the OT! I hope that we agree on that point.
Obedience to the perfect law proves that one has been liberated from the bondage of sin. A Christian that has been forgiven of his sins and no longer walks the path of sin will not be condemned. The freedom from condemnation is a result of being freed from the bondage to sin. That is why a person that has been enlightened by the Spirit of Truth must a doer of the perfect law, and not a hearer only. (And of course, it goes without saying that the grace of God does not destroy a Christian’s free will. A Christian is certainly free to reject the narrow path that leads to eternal life and walk the broad way that leads to destruction.)
It is only within the last five hundred years that confused Protestants have struggled with idea that James somehow contradicts Paul. The Catholic Church has always understood that Paul and James do not contradict each other.
There are many moral truths that are written in the Torah that are still binding on Christians. For example, obeying the Ten Commandments has not become optional for Christians. Two other commandments of the Torah that must be obeyed are: You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might
I find this interesting.
I think you are reading a little too much into it. I think the zen Bhuddist is saying that there is reality but we sometimes, or quite often, twist the reality to our own perception with our own interpretation.