Christianity and The Truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_LA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi and Thank You

Well…I guess that the Law of Non-contradiction is one of the things where we diverge our views.

If God created the Laws, then He is perfectly free to diverge from His laws at any time He wishes.

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa was once discussing a simmilar question with one of his disciples…
Ramakrishna said that God is free to do whatever He pleases and the devotee asked for him (Ramakrishna) to prove this.

Ramakrishna asked if one could have a red rose bloom on the same branch of a white rose bush as a white rose.

The devotee said that this was impossible (remember this was the 19th century)

Ramakrishna then prayed to God and the next morning found a red rose and a white rose blooming together.

God is infinitely free and is not bound by any laws
“Black Swan Fallacy”

That’s presupposing a conclusion with lack of evidence

God, the Creator of nature is not subject to the laws He imposes on nature–granted

However God will not contradict himself.

God can walk through a solid, locked door (without destroying the door)–thats not being subject to the laws of solid matter.

However, God will NOT be both walking through the solid door and and at the same time not walking through the door–thats contradicting his own action.
 
Now, back to “Aut deus aut homo malus”

Jesus did not call Himself God in the same sense a Hindu Guru calls himself “God”

Jesus was NOT a guru–because Jesus was a Jew speaking to other Jews.

Jesus spoke to other Jews in the context of 1st Century Jewish monotheism (or in a few instances, Gentiles who were “God fearers”–who understood the Jewish concept of a singular, transcendent God utterly distinct from creation–even though intimatly involved with that creation)
 
Now, back to “Aut deus aut homo malus”

Jesus did not call Himself God in the same sense a Hindu Guru calls himself “God”

Jesus was NOT a guru–because Jesus was a Jew speaking to other Jews.

Jesus spoke to other Jews in the context of 1st Century Jewish monotheism (or in a few instances, Gentiles who were “God fearers”–who understood the Jewish concept of a singular, transcendent God utterly distinct from creation–even though intimatly involved with that creation)
I appreciate the fact that you are so sure of yourself, but I must admit that the tone of your remarks (as I perceive them) is just the kind of forceful, self assured, and (again as I perceive them) uncharitable and un-humble tone that I get from many Christians that, to me, seems to completely contradict what Jesus stood for.

It is exactly this kind of “bulldozer” “I’m completely right and there could be absolutly no posibility that you could ever be right, unless you totally agree with me…” approach that turns me completely away from Christianity.

I am sorry, but I just can’t engage with such attitudes. Again I’m sure it is just my faulty perception, but that is how it comes accross.

Oh and by the way…I never actually called Jesus a guru…but since a guru is a teacher and the head of a lineage, one could say that Jesus was a guru.

Another observation: If Catholics and other Christians say that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, and is currently alive - its interesting that people refer to him in the past tence.
 
God can walk through a solid, locked door (without destroying the door)–thats not being subject to the laws of solid matter.

However, God will NOT be both walking through the solid door and and at the same time not walking through the door–thats contradicting his own action.
How do you KNOW for sure that God can’t both walk through the door and not walk through the door?

That’s putting human limitation on God…

I really get the feeling that you won’t/can’t listen to me so I won’t engage further.
 
How do you KNOW for sure that God can’t both walk through the door and not walk through the door?

That’s putting human limitation on God…

I really get the feeling that you won’t/can’t listen to me so I won’t engage further.
Actually, you keep asserting a position you can’t defend–on the same level as saying 2+2=5, and then abandon any defense saying it dosn’t apply to God

God is Truth. Truth may be big (infinitley so in God’s case) Truth is often complex–but Truth dosn’t contradict itself–it ceases being truth in that very instant of contradiction.

You would NOT waste one moment of this lack of logic on anything that cost you real money, or pain in your own life. Why apply it to God to defend the indefensible–a false, even ludicrous “ecumenincalism” that is not honest.

Be honest. Say the Vedic faiths are contradictory to Christian beliefs and visa versa. Those Hindu sages who said they are not–well perhaps if they were speaking nonsense on this critical point they were not accurate on other things as well???
 
I appreciate the fact that you are so sure of yourself, but I must admit that the tone of your remarks (as I perceive them) is just the kind of forceful, self assured, and (again as I perceive them) uncharitable and un-humble tone that I get from many Christians that, to me, seems to completely contradict what Jesus stood for.

Response: The laws of logic are what they are–you have equel access to use them if you wish–if your position seems weak perhaps it is because they cannot be defended by logic reasoning (deductive or inductive). And Jesus was for the Truth–which includes One Singular God distinct and seperate (however involved) with creation.

It is exactly this kind of “bulldozer” “I’m completely right and there could be absolutly no posibility that you could ever be right, unless you totally agree with me…” approach that turns me completely away from Christianity.

Response: Actually, I’m saying some Hindu sages are wrong in abandoning the principle of non-contradiction–and they have gained popularity in the West by people who value “inclusiveness” over Truth

I am sorry, but I just can’t engage with such attitudes. Again I’m sure it is just my faulty perception, but that is how it comes accross.

Response: Then if your perceptions are faulty perhaps you should not hold on to them? If you start a thread in a Catholic Forum, get a thicker skin for criticism..
 
Hi “Lion of Narnia”

A couple of questions that might not be related to the current discussion:

Are you a male?
Are you attached to your gender identity?

Do you believe that men and women can’t have qualities of the opposite gender in their personality?

Just wondering.

Peace!
 
Hi “Lion of Narnia”

A couple of questions that might not be related to the current discussion:

Are you a male?
Are you attached to your gender identity?

Do you believe that men and women can’t have qualities of the opposite gender in their personality?

Just wondering.

Peace!
Yes
Yes
Yes
However, having the qualities of the opposite gender in my personality does not contradict my maleness

If I said I haid the generative organs of a male and at the same time did NOT have the generative organs of a male that would be a non-sensical contradiction
 
Yes
Yes
Yes
However, having the qualities of the opposite gender in my personality does not contradict my maleness

If I said I haid the generative organs of a male and at the same time did NOT have the generative organs of a male that would be a non-sensical contradiction
Ok

Thanks for answering! I appreciate it.

I would also be very interested to hear of your experience about how you came to the Church and to accept its teachings.

What is it that makes you believe with all your heart that it is the truth?

Please note that I am asking these questions with respect and a desire to be open and understanding.
 
I appreciate the fact that you are so sure of yourself, but I must admit that the tone of your remarks (as I perceive them) is just the kind of forceful, self assured, and (again as I perceive them) uncharitable and un-humble tone that I get from many Christians that, to me, seems to completely contradict what Jesus stood for.

It is exactly this kind of “bulldozer” “I’m completely right and there could be absolutly no posibility that you could ever be right, unless you totally agree with me…” approach that turns me completely away from Christianity.

I am sorry, but I just can’t engage with such attitudes. Again I’m sure it is just my faulty perception, but that is how it comes accross.

Oh and by the way…I never actually called Jesus a guru…but since a guru is a teacher and the head of a lineage, one could say that Jesus was a guru.

Another observation: If Catholics and other Christians say that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, and is currently alive - its interesting that people refer to him in the past tence.
I read a very cool article about Ted Kennedy today in which he was quoted as saying that he cherished his Catholic faith but he respected others of different faiths as much as he expected them to respect his faith. Now, that is the correct idea in my opinion.
 
Well…I can’t accept that God would “choose” one people as opposed to another because it would show partiality. I can’t believe God would create the entire world and then just focus on one little group of people. That is insanity in my book. But then I guess the “god” of the Bible seems to be insane rather frequently.
God treats humanity not as a collection of “groups of people”. He treats humanity as what it is, which is HUMANITY, as a whole thing, being our entire species.

God created the entire UNIVERSE for humanity. He did not “focus” on one little group of people. He chose ONE LINE of people as His “example” with which to show us His universal truths.

God gave ALL MANKIND qua mankind the gift of a “background understanding”, aka natural law, to guide them in a general way.

He then used a line of people to show the rest of humanity some very specific things which can’t be “naturally deduced” from the more general gift of natural law.

This is no more “insane” than the fact that God gave us the “chosen things” that are animals to show us the ways of “uses of animal life”.

God seems rather insane to you because you don’t understand what you read in scripture and hear from correct Christian tradition. That’s why God gave us the Magisterium. That so that we’d have a means of understanding correctly the more difficult, if not utterly unknowable, things which God has told us.

Of course, you most likely don’t believe that God created the entire universe for humans (mankind) either, do you? 🙂
 
God treats humanity not as a collection of “groups of people”. He treats humanity as what it is, which is HUMANITY, as a whole thing, being our entire species.

God created the entire UNIVERSE for humanity. He did not “focus” on one little group of people. He chose ONE LINE of people as His “example” with which to show us His universal truths.

God gave ALL MANKIND qua mankind the gift of a “background understanding”, aka natural law, to guide them in a general way.

He then used a line of people to show the rest of humanity some very specific things which can’t be “naturally deduced” from the more general gift of natural law.

This is no more “insane” than the fact that God gave us the “chosen things” that are animals to show us the ways of “uses of animal life”.

God seems rather insane to you because you don’t understand what you read in scripture and hear from correct Christian tradition. That’s why God gave us the Magisterium. That so that we’d have a means of understanding correctly the more difficult, if not utterly unknowable, things which God has told us.

Of course, you most likely don’t believe that God created the entire universe for humans (mankind) either, do you? 🙂
The Divine Mother created the universe(s) for all the unlimited creatures in it(them)

Vedic cosmology just seems to make more sense to me than Biblical cosmology.

I’m trying to understand.

But I just don’t get this macho and linear approach to God.

You probably can’t appreciate my approach to God, so I guess I am willing to say “ok.”

I’m willing to live and let live and I would hope that Catholics would allow me the same courtesy.

Jai Radhe!
Jai Maa!

:tiphat:
 
Divine Mother after a difficult day dealing with her Husband and Children
 
The Divine Mother created the universe(s) for all the unlimited creatures in it(them)
You may believe as you like. 🙂 That your human religion is not humanly oriented is very interesting, at least to me. When all creatures are given the same authority, conceptually, to be the “focus” of the the universe, there is no focus, and each creature can claim, rightly, to be “the center of the universe” with the “right” to do anything it wants, because it IS, after all, the “center of the universe”.

The Christian (and other “Abrahamic” traditions) dictate that “from those given much much is required”, and since we (mankind) were given so very much (even if one ONLY considers our “what makes us human” versus “the other animals and plants”) we are required to “look after” that which was created FOR us.

If “every individual thing” is the “reason for the creation’s creation”, then each individual thing is responsible for only itself. Each creature is thereby DUTY BOUND to do whatever it needs to do to survive and “to hell” with all other creatures.

To a “real” Christian, we are duty bound to take care of all of creation as it was God’s gift to us as our “home”, and environment, and one doesn’t foul one’s birthright given by our most amazing Father.
Vedic cosmology just seems to make more sense to me than Biblical cosmology.
It usually does to one who is more interested in “relativity” than “absolut-ivity” (if that’s a word, which I doubt). The NEED of the vedic “cosmology” is to justify making reality an illusion, from which the GOAL is to “escape”.

The Christian’s goal is not to escape from reality, but to be IN IT in the most fully and consciously possible way.
I’m trying to understand.
But I just don’t get this macho and linear approach to God.
The “cyclical circuity” of religions such as yours entrances it’s adherents into the relativism that excuses any action. There’s nothing more “macho” than being able to say, “I am the center of the universe and may do as I wish for my own good, and you are free to do the same. Let’s BATTLE!”
You probably can’t appreciate my approach to God, so I guess I am willing to say “ok.”
Where your “approach” to God is congruent with the REAL Christian “approach” (I’m not “thrilled” with the phrase “approach to God”) to God, your approach is most appreciable! But where it is not, it is simply playing with demons whereby you hope you can bet the better of them.
I’m willing to live and let live and I would hope that Catholics would allow me the same courtesy.
Jai Radhe!
Jai Maa!
It is unChristian to coerce anyone in any way, especially in their choice of religion. People leave Christianity (Catholicity) because they don’t understand it and see so much hypocritical scandal in so many of it’s (nominal) adherents. People come to Christianity because they finally come to understand that the first thing a human being must believe is that God is best described by the Church’s tradition, as given to her by the line of people that God used to gift humanity as a whole with a more full knowledge of Him than could otherwise be deduced from “mere” natural law.

You may believe as you wish, but you can’t very well “fault” us for trying to help you understand where you are mistaken about a few things.
 
You may believe as you like. 🙂 That your human religion is not humanly oriented is very interesting, at least to me. When all creatures are given the same authority, conceptually, to be the “focus” of the the universe, there is no focus, and each creature can claim, rightly, to be “the center of the universe” with the “right” to do anything it wants, because it IS, after all, the “center of the universe”.

The Christian (and other “Abrahamic” traditions) dictate that “from those given much much is required”, and since we (mankind) were given so very much (even if one ONLY considers our “what makes us human” versus “the other animals and plants”) we are required to “look after” that which was created FOR us.

If “every individual thing” is the “reason for the creation’s creation”, then each individual thing is responsible for only itself. Each creature is thereby DUTY BOUND to do whatever it needs to do to survive and “to hell” with all other creatures.

To a “real” Christian, we are duty bound to take care of all of creation as it was God’s gift to us as our “home”, and environment, and one doesn’t foul one’s birthright given by our most amazing Father.
The Rishi said: ‘Sir, every being has the knowledge of objects perceivable by the senses. And object of sense reaches it in various ways. Some beings are blind by day, and others are blind by night; some beings have equal sight both by day and night. Human beings are certainly endowed with knowledge, but they are not the only beings (to be so endowed), for cattle, birds, animals and other creatures also cognise (objects of senses).

The knowledge that men have, birds and beasts too have; and what they have men also possess; and the rest (like eating and sleeping) is common to both of them. Look at these birds, which though they possess knowledge, and are themselves distressed by hunger are yet, because of the delusion, engaged in feeding grains into the beaks of their young ones. See with what devotion they put the food grains into the beaks of their young ones? Men, O king, are full of desires. Human beings are, O tiger among men, attached to their children because of greed, expecting rewards in return.

Do you not see this? Even so men are hurled into the whirlpool of attachment, the pit of delusion, through the power of Mahamaya (the Great deusion), who makes the existence of the world possible. Marvel not at this. This Mahamaya is the Yoganidra, of Vishnu, the Lord of the world. It is by her the world is deluded. Verily she, the Bhagavati, the Mahamaya forcibly drawing the minds of even the wise, entangles them into delusion. She creates this entire universe, both moving and unmoving. It is she who, when propitious, becomes a boon-giver to human beings for their final liberation. She is the supreme knowledge, the cause of final liberation, and eternal; she is the cause of the bondage of transmigration and the sovereign over all lords.’

Devi Mahatmayam Chapter 1:46-58
 
I believe that the Devi Mahatmayam is much more true than the Bible or the Church.
 
The Rishi said: ‘Sir, every being has the knowledge of objects perceivable by the senses. And object of sense reaches it in various ways. Some beings are blind by day, and others are blind by night; some beings have equal sight both by day and night. Human beings are certainly endowed with knowledge, but they are not the only beings (to be so endowed), for cattle, birds, animals and other creatures also cognise (objects of senses).
Each creature has it’s own way of “seeing” the world. No one disputes this. But only humans “see the world” as humans can see the world, just as only bovines see the world as only bovines can.
The knowledge that men have, birds and beasts too have; and what they have men also possess; and the rest (like eating and sleeping) is common to both of them. Look at these birds, which though they possess knowledge, and are themselves distressed by hunger are yet, because of the delusion, engaged in feeding grains into the beaks of their young ones. See with what devotion they put the food grains into the beaks of their young ones? Men, O king, are full of desires. Human beings are, O tiger among men, attached to their children because of greed, expecting rewards in return.
Only humans see the world as humans see the world. The great error of the “cycle of illusion” believers is that reality is not real.

That belief is quite believable if one desperately wants “off the cycle” of the world, out of despair because the world is perceived as “evil” and pointless and simply an evil distraction from “puritanical soul-only-ness”, but that belief leads only to utter despair and the false “nirvana” of “I don’t care for creation or any other creature anymore!”
Do you not see this? Even so men are hurled into the whirlpool of attachment, the pit of delusion, through the power of Mahamaya (the Great delusion), who makes the existence of the world possible. Marvel not at this. This Mahamaya is the Yoganidra, of Vishnu, the Lord of the world. It is by her the world is deluded. Verily she, the Bhagavati, the Mahamaya forcibly drawing the minds of even the wise, entangles them into delusion. She creates this entire universe, both moving and unmoving. It is she who, when propitious, becomes a boon-giver to human beings for their final liberation. She is the supreme knowledge, the cause of final liberation, and eternal; she is the cause of the bondage of transmigration and the sovereign over all lords.’
Devi Mahatmayam Chapter 1:46-58
When reality becomes unreal, the unreal run rampant. The “goal” of this “anti-Mahamaya”, anti-great-delusion, is pure nothingness.

Christians take the position that the world is real, and for our edification.

I prefer the goal of finding goodness in reality much more sensible than finding nothing in reality.
 
Each creature has it’s own way of “seeing” the world. No one disputes this. But only humans “see the world” as humans can see the world, just as only bovines see the world as only bovines can.

Only humans see the world as humans see the world. The great error of the “cycle of illusion” believers is that reality is not real.

That belief is quite believable if one desperately wants “off the cycle” of the world, out of despair because the world is perceived as “evil” and pointless and simply an evil distraction from “puritanical soul-only-ness”, but that belief leads only to utter despair and the false “nirvana” of “I don’t care for creation or any other creature anymore!”

When reality becomes unreal, the unreal run rampant. The “goal” of this “anti-Mahamaya”, anti-great-delusion, is pure nothingness.

Christians take the position that the world is real, and for our edification.

I prefer the goal of finding goodness in reality much more sensible than finding nothing in reality.
This text isn’t “anti-Mahamaya” or anti reality, on the contrary it is calling Mahamaya the Highest God:

“She creates this entire universe, both moving and unmoving. It is she who, when propitious, becomes a boon-giver to human beings for their final liberation. She is the supreme knowledge, the cause of final liberation, and eternal; she is the cause of the bondage of transmigration and the sovereign over all lords.”

I don’t think it is saying that the “final liberation” is “nothingness” In fact, my understanding is that final liberation is an eternal relationship with God. I don’t see how this is all that different that what Christianity teaches.

From Srimad Bhagavadgita (15:18-20)

sri bhagavan uvacha:

yasmat ksaram atito’ham aksarad api chottamah
ato’smi loke vede cha prathitah purusottamah (18)

yo mam evam asammudho janati purusottamam
sa sarva-vid bhajati mam sarva-bhavena bharata (19)

iti guhyatamam sastram idam uktam mayanagha
etad buddhva buddhiman syat krta-krtyas cha bharata (20)

The Supreme Lord said:

"Because I am transcendental to the perishable beings and also superior to My imperishable eternal associates, My glories are sung in the world and in the scriptures as Purusottama, the Supreme Person.

O Bharat, one who is free from delusion and knows me as the Supreme Person of eternal, all conscious, blissful form, is the perfect know of full-fledged theism, and worships Me in all ways.

O pure-hearted Arjun, I have thus explained to you this most hidden treasure of all scriptures. Embracing this in their hearts, people of fine theistic knowledge attain the perfection of all their endeavors."

So there you go. The highest knowledge is knowing (having a relationship with) God…NOT “nothingness.”

I believe you’re confusing the Hindu concept of “moksa” with the Buddhist idea of “nirvana.” (Nirvana isn’t a Hindu term, actually)

“Nirvana” means “extinction,” but it isn’t “nothingness.” “Nothingness” in Buddhism isn’t “absence” it is “completeness.” “Extintion” is the ending of all that is selfish, egotistical and, dare I say, “sinful.”

Here’s the definition from “The Collected Works of Shinran; Volume II” (Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha Shin Translation Series, Kyoto 1997)

“Supreme Nirvana” (Jp: mujo-nehan) Nirvana is the goal of Buddhist life, where false life is annihilated, never to emerge again,
and a new being of true compassion and true wisdom, concerned with the welfare of all beings is born. Supreme nirvana is contrasted with nirvana limited to personal emancipation.

Doesn’t sound like “finding nothing in reality.” To me it sounds more like being more grounded it true and ultimate reality than we otherwise are.

Here is a quote from Shinran’s “Notes on Essentials of Faith Alone”

“Nirvana is called extinction of passions, the uncreated, peaceful happiness, eternal bliss, true reality, dharma-body, dharma-nature, suchness, oneness, and Buddha-nature.”

Again, this doesn’t sound like “nothingness” or “emptiness” or “detachment-from-reality.” If anything it sound like a state that is connected with Ultimate Reality.

This sounds very similar to the teachings of Jesus, if you ask me.

I suggest that you do your homework before jumping to conclusions about things. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top