Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Trevor_Stamm]

I am not a scientist nor a theologian, however, my sense is that the end is prescribed by the beginning and the beginning is contingent on the end. Each sets the other in motion and makes the other inevitable. It is not linear, whereas one can point to the far left end of a yard stick and say this is the beginning and point to the far right end and say it is the end. It is more like trying to put your finger on a particular place on a beach ball and call it the beginning and another place on the beach ball and call it the end. Additionally, I would say that the beginning, the end, and all points in between exist together and do not occur in a serial manner. You mentioned multi-verse, and insofar as I know that theory has no defined end. Rather it is cyclical, and this is consistent with Vedic thought, which of course is my faith. As far as science prescribing an end, I think that is a matter of what is meant by end. Matter no longer looking like or acting like what it does now is not an end. It is a change. Universes have done this before. We however, are changeless.

Your friend
Sufjon

Any cyclical process is implying infinite regression, which is impossible because we exist in the here and now. Let’s take for example the multi-verse theory Hawkings has presented, claiming that the laws of gravity created matter. Let’s forget the fact he is confusing law with agency but he is still left with an empty explanation how or what created the laws of gravity. It cannot have always have existed because that implies infinite regression, which is impossible not only because we exist in the here and now but if these laws have always existed, then our universe within this multi-verse would have gone through maximum entropy already and we wouldn’t be alive. Our universe is still undergoing the entropy process from it’s Big Expansion (big bang) from not only background radiation readings but the universe is still expanding at a ever faster rate and has past the point of no return for any oscillating universe theory to hold ground. Our universe will undergo maximum entropy, but has not reached that point yet, in fact will take hundreds of billions of years from now. But since we have a finite measure of time existing here and now and observe the universe will undergo death, we have to observe there was a beginning that wasn’t always existing but was caused by an external agent that is necessary for our existence, hence we are contingent of said agent. Reasons why this agent, who is pure act and without potentiality, would cause potentiality at all is a separate argument and funny enough one being held at this moment in the philosophy boards.

You are free to tell Jews that they are incorrectly interpreting their own scripture. I’m not sure if they will believe you, though.
I’m suggesting that “polytheism” is not foreign to Christianity, because the word “god” is different from the word “God”. There are many “gods”, as Jesus said, but only one God.

So the Hasidic Jews are the final authority on the Septuagint to you? Interesting. What of the other sects of Judaism? And are you ignoring the fact that Christ past down authority to Peter and made him and his successors infallible of teachings? This including interpretations of the Old Testament.

What you understand of “gods” is not in the same applicable sense to eastern polytheistic philosophies. The word used (Elohim) has a different meanings in different contexts and follows such as: God, gods, judges, mighty, rulers, divine etc… Since God has spoken there are no other Gods but Him alone, we do not take it when Jesus quoted Psalms here as “we are semi-gods or many gods under the one true God”. Keep the context of the entirety of Sacred Scripture in mind and not isolate a single verse to fit your own idea of what you think it might be.

 

[1voice]

Imagination has absolutely nothing to do with it. In the simplest terms… There is a Creator. He is in complete control. He is brilliant and knows exactly what he is doing. He reveals himself to those whom he chooses… and they know it when it happens because he gives them the ability to understand. Trying to explain that to those that have not been given the ability to understand … by the Creator … is impossible.

 

[Michael19682]

I’m suggesting that “polytheism” is not foreign to Christianity, because the word “god” is different from the word “God”. There are many “gods”, as Jesus said, but only one God.

I’m afraid there is some slight misunderstanding, Ahimsa. My personal opinion is that gods with a small g- can mean several things in antiquity. When Jesus said that they were gods, as in your previous quote, his irony was likely in that they had made themselves gods–or had lorded authority over others as they supposed gods should. Hence, his [Jesus’] remark is, I openly confess to believe, akin to sarcasm, though is not abusive, of course, as some of the less righteous in that day were so pig-headed as to miss the whole point. It seems we are on the same page regarding the One and Only True God; and his lesser, but nonetheless important and vital, often essential helpers, the Saints.

 

[Ahimsa]

So the Hasidic Jews are the final authority on the Septuagint to you?

It’s quite clear that Judaism and Catholicism would have different interpretations of biblical verses. My point is that the Jewish interpretations of the Jeremiah verse cannot be simply dismissed as “New Age” or “Eastern philosophy”.

What you understand of “gods” is not in the same applicable sense to eastern polytheistic philosophies.

Jesus said, “Ye are gods”, referring to humans on earth being referred to as elohim. So, we have this “human = god” equation from Jesus, quoting the Torah.

In Buddhism, the gods (or “devas”) once lived as humans on earth; and humans on earth have the potential to be born as devas in the heavens after death. Thus, we have another “human = god” equation, this time coming from Buddhism.

The understanding of “deva” in Buddhism is quite consistent with how Jesus used the word elohim in that verse.

So, if Buddhism can thus be characterized as holding to the idea of “many devas”, and Christianity can be characterized as holding to the idea of “many elohim”.

In other words, “many devas” and “many elohim” means “many gods”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Imagination has absolutely nothing to do with it. In the simplest terms… There is a Creator. He is in complete control. He is brilliant and knows exactly what he is doing. He reveals himself to those whom he chooses… and they know it when it happens because he gives them the ability to understand. Trying to explain that to those that have not been given the ability to understand … by the Creator … is impossible.

Ah, but the choosing is a mistery to us. you don’t have to understand to obey. Obedience is the Key here. Obedience is what God asks from us. The Apostles didn’t quite understand what Jesus was saying but chose to obey anyway. while the others sought to understand before obeying, and obviously did not for them. This is important because Jesus built a Church that we may His Church. Obedience, hard thing to do now and days.

 

[Ahimsa]

I’m afraid there is some slight misunderstanding, Ahimsa. My personal opinion is that gods with a small g- can mean several things in antiquity. When Jesus said that they were gods, as in your previous quote, his irony was likely in that they had made themselves gods–or had lorded authority over others as they supposed gods should. Hence, his [Jesus’] remark is, I openly confess to believe, akin to sarcasm, though is not abusive, of course, as some of the less righteous in that day were so pig-headed as to miss the whole point. It seems we are on the same page regarding the One and Only True God; and his lesser, but nonetheless important and vital, often essential helpers, the Saints.

I don’t see any sarcasm here:
John 10

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’****d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

It seems to me that Jesus saying that since the Torah itself speaks of humans as being ‘gods’, ‘elohim’, or children of the Most High God, then why be surprised that someone (Jesus) claims to be God’s Son?

This is not that different from Buddhism, in which humans are also described as being gods, or devas, in various senses: having a past-life as a deva, in a heaven; becoming a deva in a heaven, after death; or being a human being on earth, who has a profound spiritual presence.

In both Christianity and Buddhism (and Hinduism, as well) the idea of elohim, or deva, is the basic idea of individual beings who are spiritually powerful, but who are not the Ultimate Being in and of themselves. So, I would argue, all these religions can be seen as “polytheistic”.

 

[afthomercy]

Hi OutOfThyMercy: Very nice write up. I would offer a thought if I may. In Hinduism it is not that we are equal to God in that we are separate entities who are equal to God. Rather, we are *part *of God, so equality isn’t really relevant.

Sufjon, a question for you. In your tradition, do you attribute an ego to God? No, I’m not talking about the avatars, but of the Supreme Being, or Parabramhan. For example, in Christianity, we definitely attribute an ego (actually-3) to the Supreme Being, when we call them by specific names as in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’m curious, because in your tradition there is such a strong emphasis on the total surrender of ego for the attainment of moksha. So when the individual who is attaining enlightenment surrenders his ego, does he assume the ego of the Parabramhan, or does he get submersed in an egoless sea? And if the Parabramhan is egoless, I suppose you would you would refer to it as an “it” rather than as a “he”, correct?
PS: I’m also curious to know why you addressed me as OutOfThyMercy, when my forum name is afthomercy?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

It cannot have always have existed because that implies infinite regression, which is impossible not only because we exist in the here and now but if these laws have always existed, then our universe within this multi-verse would have gone through maximum entropy already and we wouldn’t be alive. Our universe is still undergoing the entropy process from it’s Big Expansion (big bang) from not only background radiation readings but the universe is still expanding at a ever faster rate and has past the point of no return for any oscillating universe theory to hold ground.

I have no disagreement with your assertions about divinity as a cause of existence, nor those about apostolic succession and authority. But I do have some thoughts about time and God’s causality and how it manifests.

“Infinite regression” is a problem for many people, but I analogize that to human numbers, and their obvious “reality” in some sense of the word; and the “infinitude” of conceivable numbers has never yet negated that.

And how has the universe passed the “point of no return” for an oscillating universe theory to hold ground? I’ve heard some people invoke string theory, for instance, as a support for this idea?

A universe of infinite duration would be impossible, some people say, because it leaves no opportunity for a chronological starting point, and therefore no opportunity to be created. But could not a God who stands outside of Time create such a thing? And could not this point of creation, even being outside of time, still be designated as a “beginning,” albeit one beyond human ken—a “beginningless” beginning?

It seems to me the notion He can’t is unduly influenced by the notion of God as a “clockmaker,” making entities that He winds up, turns loose, and from then on it’s not His show anymore.

Some people would point out the problem with free will in an infinitely-enduring universe, if we posit human beings, their minds, volitions, and choices as made all-at-once.

But I wonder if the framework around humans is not infinite, while leaving Man himself to a “finite” context, with all the opportunity for mind, volition, and choice—and a chance to bring the whole thing to a stop, eventually? “Half” infinity of time, in other words. An infinity that runs in one direction, and not the other.

These are just thoughts I enjoy chewing over with people such as yourself. What do you think?

 

[Ahimsa]

And how has the universe passed the “point of no return” for an oscillating universe theory to hold ground? I’ve heard some people invoke string theory, for instance, as a support for this idea?

In addition to the oscillating universe model, there is also the “self-reproducing inflationary” universe (SRI Universe) model. The SRI Universe model has each cosmos expanding from a big bang event, from within a previous cosmos, sort of how a tree branch splits from a mother branch. So, even if our cosmos is beyond the point of collapsing back into a big cruch, the SRI Universe model posits that that would not prevent a new cosmos from arising from our cosmos.

So there would be potentially an infinite number of cosmoi, all of which arose from a previous cosmos, and all of which can reproduce new cosmoi. And each cosmos would probably have slightly different values for its physical constants, and thus some cosmoi would have life, and some would not.

From the Scientific American article:

In thinking about the process of

self-reproduction of the universe,
one cannot avoid drawing analogies,
however superficial they may
be. One may wonder, Is not this
process similar to what happens
with all of us? Some time ago we
were born. Eventually we will die,
and the entire world of our
thoughts, feelings and memories
will disappear. But there were those
who lived before us, there will be
those who will live after, and humanity
as a whole, if it is clever
enough, may live for a long time.

 

[Michael19682]

individual beings who are spiritually powerful, but who are not the Ultimate Being in and of themselves

That’ the whole point of this polytheism debate. The Ultimate Being–That’s GOD! Not you, not me, but HIM. There is only ONE of HIM, and he is Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I like to say Father is the being, Son, the way, and Holy Spirit, that which is these other two dwelling within us. But, of note here, only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit comprise fully the other two. Our true nature, and the new body of light that is our destiny in Heaven will be revealed more fully there.

also

“No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him” Mt 11:27

Note the distinction between knowing and Being. The full revelation of the mystery is that Jesus is one in being with the Father. Augustine says this Uniting force is the Holy Spirit. Our dilemma here on earth is sin, which keeps us from entering into the mystery in the fullness of Christ, who after his death sent the Holy Spirit among us… who had no sin. I personally hope that our bodies of light in heaven will be as promised incapable of sin. Then we will be closer to God’s own nature, which is true light for the world. My own personal take on things is that in Heaven we will still be distinct from God because we will have memories of our errors on earth, however forgiven these may be in Heaven. This is probably necessary for the doctrine of the communion of saints, and their special causes, like Jude’s, the patron of hopeless cases.
To say any more is pure conjecture.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I have no disagreement with your assertions about divinity as a cause of existence, nor those about apostolic succession and authority. But I do have some thoughts about time and God’s causality and how it manifests.

“Infinite regression” is a problem for many people, but I analogize that to human numbers, and their obvious “reality” in some sense of the word; and the “infinitude” of conceivable numbers has never yet negated that.

And how has the universe passed the “point of no return” for an oscillating universe theory to hold ground? I’ve heard some people invoke string theory, for instance, as a support for this idea?

A universe of infinite duration would be impossible, some people say, because it leaves no opportunity for a chronological starting point, and therefore no opportunity to be created. But could not a God who stands outside of Time create such a thing? And could not this point of creation, even being outside of time, still be designated as a “beginning,” albeit one beyond human ken—a “beginningless” beginning?

It seems to me the notion He can’t is unduly influenced by the notion of God as a “clockmaker,” making entities that He winds up, turns loose, and from then on it’s not His show anymore.

Some people would point out the problem with free will in an infinitely-enduring universe, if we posit human beings, their minds, volitions, and choices as made all-at-once.

But I wonder if the framework around humans is not infinite, while leaving Man himself to a “finite” context, with all the opportunity for mind, volition, and choice—and a chance to bring the whole thing to a stop, eventually? “Half” infinity of time, in other words. An infinity that runs in one direction, and not the other.

These are just thoughts I enjoy chewing over with people such as yourself. What do you think?

About the oscillating universe theory, I am paraphrasing physicists who have concluded that at the present speed of expansion, the amount of expansion that has happened, and the energy used already to get the universe to where it is today; there is not enough energy for contraction to occur.I find it extremely funny that every single beginningless theory brought up is nothing more then a rebellious attitude, not wanting to admit contingency. Why do you think humility is the most precious trait of a Christian?

Rest of your post: Funny, sounds exactly like the conversation being held at the philosophy boards. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=578898&page=6 check how it’s going, might get your answer or join in on the debate

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Imagination has absolutely nothing to do with it. In the simplest terms… There is a Creator. He is in complete control. He is brilliant and knows exactly what he is doing. He reveals himself to those whom he chooses… and they know it when it happens because he gives them the ability to understand. Trying to explain that to those that have not been given the ability to understand … by the Creator … is impossible.

You dont have to completely know God in order to be in a relationship with him.

Most people dont even completely know their spouse… LOL!

 

[Ahimsa]

That’ the whole point of this polytheism debate. The Ultimate Being–That’s GOD! Not you, not me, but HIM.

Right: the “theism” in “polytheism”, does not refer to the One Ultimate Being, but to individual entities who have some degree of power and knowledge. And these individual entities include humans, animals, plants, angels, spirits, jinni, kami, etc. When God created “male and female”, he created “gods”, “elohim”, as well.

 

[Michael19682]

Better to not offend people by using the opposite of ‘monotheistic’–which refers to a belief in the One Ultimate Being. The pagans prior to Christianity believed in many gods. In the West we have a set of terms that we adhere to often strictly; I for one can accept your reasoning, but not an intrusion on the way I talk or the way I am conditioned to hear:

Lk 8:18 and Mk 4:24 both contain the injunction “Take care what you hear…”

see also Mk 21-23.

“Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything more is from the evil one.” Mt 5:37

I suggest also James 5:12, or the entire letter and its famous indictment of speech.

 

[Contarini]

I have no disagreement with your assertions about divinity as a cause of existence, nor those about apostolic succession and authority. But I do have some thoughts about time and God’s causality and how it manifests.

“Infinite regression” is a problem for many people, but I analogize that to human numbers, and their obvious “reality” in some sense of the word; and the “infinitude” of conceivable numbers has never yet negated that.

And how has the universe passed the “point of no return” for an oscillating universe theory to hold ground? I’ve heard some people invoke string theory, for instance, as a support for this idea?

A universe of infinite duration would be impossible, some people say, because it leaves no opportunity for a chronological starting point, and therefore no opportunity to be created. But could not a God who stands outside of Time create such a thing? And could not this point of creation, even being outside of time, still be designated as a “beginning,” albeit one beyond human ken—a “beginningless” beginning?

That’s exactly the point Aquinas makes in his discussion of creation (see especially his replies to the objections in ST I, Question 46, art. 2). Aquinas argued that we know by faith that creation had a beginning in time, but that this cannot be proved by reason, and that philosophers who held to an eternal creation of the world by God were still speaking of essentially the same thing as the orthodox Christian doctrine of creation. Creation out of nothing does not, for Aquinas, essentially imply a temporal beginning.

This is a key point for understanding his “Five Ways” of proving God’s existence.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Better to not offend people by using the opposite of ‘monotheistic’–which refers to a belief in the One Ultimate Being. The pagans prior to Christianity believed in many gods. In the West we have a set of terms that we adhere to often strictly; I for one can accept your reasoning, but not an intrusion on the way I talk or the way I am conditioned to hear:

Lk 8:18 and Mk 4:24 both contain the injunction “Take care what you hear…”

see also Mk 21-23.

“Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything more is from the evil one.” Mt 5:37

Actually, it seems to me that Ahimsa is the one using language carefully and exactly, and you are the one who favors fuzziness.

It’s pretty clear that what pre-Christian pagans meant by “gods” was not the same thing as what Christians mean by God–they did not believe that there were many of that which we believe to be One. That’s just a category mistake. And when Ahimsa points this out he’s letting his yes mean yes and his no mean no. When you suggest that it is pious to go on using language in a confused and inaccurate manner you are running into the condemnation of the same text you cite.

I suggest also James 5:12, or the entire letter and its famous indictment of speech.

Not sure how this applies to Ahimsa’s speech more than yours.

Edwin

 

[Michael19682]

Dear Forum Master—

“Actually”? and “Ahimsa is the [One]…”?

Tell me also, how do you extract the label ‘fuzziness’ from my intended to be respectful reply to Ahimsa.
Fuzziness as I understand it applies to certain quantum physics theories, perhaps you confused this thread with another on the creation theme?

As for Ahimsa’s use of ‘theists’ [root], I acknowledged this was correct in relative terms only so as to not offend his ‘free-to-speak-as-I-wish’ comments of previous (see his comment about telling the Jews they are incorrectly understanding their own scripture’s). My point above hinges on the unity of opposites that is a serious convention in Latin and Greek derived English words; hence, to use theist as meaning ‘GOD’ [the one] in mono-theistic, but as ‘g o d’ in poly-theistic is a departure with linguistic convention, confuses the reader, and is thus potentially offensive to the hearer’s conditioning.

As for the James exhortation, this whole matter just proves the point of that letter.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It’s pretty clear that what pre-Christian pagans meant by “gods” was not the same thing as what Christians mean by God–they did not believe that there were many of that which we believe to be One. That’s just a category mistake. And when Ahimsa points this out he’s letting his yes mean yes and his no mean no.

Well said.

Interestingly enough, this fact - this category mistake - is the key to answering atheist rhetoric that lumps in Yahweh with Zeus… i.e. quotes like, “I simply believe in one fewer god than you” …

 

[Kelley_Green]

As for the James exhortation, this whole matter just proves the point of that letter.

Indeed! I doubt many are going to see it. All declare they are in ‘defense of their faith’ and spend all their attention defending their prejudices and denying responsibility for their own projections. What is it they’ve declared is their faith? How is that not the embodiment of self identified christians worshiping themselves?

This thread is identical to all other threads. The problem is our language is in dire need of growth. A gigantic misrepresentation system where the truth (and all things worthy of promotion/ defense) is the first casualty. People don’t speak to one another. They’re habituated to sell something at all times as if it’s the fundamental term and condition of civilization. A language pandering to our baser selves is the greatest handicap to humanity not only in cultivating a relationship with God, our interpersonal relations with others, but stretching across the globe in international & interfaith relations. This was true in the time of the apostles and it remains true today.

The heaven you pray for came to me in a dream years ago. What are we supposed to do about it? Sit idle/ passive? Let’s do better.

 

[Ahimsa]

Indeed! I doubt many are going to see it. All declare they are in ‘defense of their faith’ and spend all their attention defending their prejudices and denying responsibility for their own projections. What is it they’ve declared is their faith? How is that not the embodiment of self identified christians worshiping themselves?

How is a “solitary practitioner Catholic” different from a “regular” Catholic?