Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You keep asking for proof that Ripperger is a creationist.

It is also instructive to have a look at Father Ripperger’s references in the article o_mlly linked to. Alongside the philosophy and theology references, we find Philip Johnson, Guy Berthault, John Sanford and Michael Behe.

A man is known by the company he keeps. Aesop.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Buddhism has many gods, but they do not need appeasing. You are free to ignore them if you wish. Gods are not important in Buddhism.

Actually Buddhist cultures appear to me to require quite a bit of conformity and bowing at the waist. It’s not just “do your own thing”.

All living things – humans, gods, animals – eventually end up in nirvana.

Universalism is also taught by some sects of “Christianity” like Unitarianism where the doctrine is that everyone goes to heaven / nirvana. Under such doctrines, there is no separation of the sacred from the profane nor of the “sheep” from the “goats”. Universalism is an appealing doctrine to human vanities but it seems to me to lack dimensions like justice and mercy, sacrifice, worship and redemption.

 

[rossum]

Universalism is also taught by some sects of “Christianity” like Unitarianism where the doctrine is that everyone goes to heaven / nirvana. Under such doctrines, there is no separation of the sacred from the profane nor of the “sheep” from the “goats”. Universalism is an appealing doctrine to human vanities but it seems to me to lack dimensions like justice and mercy, sacrifice, worship and redemption.

I cannot speak for Unitarianism/Universalism. From a Buddhist point of view there is a difference, some people take 200 million lifetimes to attain nirvana, and so will die 200 million times. Others may take just 50 million lifetimes, and so will only die 50 million times. Lives spent in one of the (temporary) heavens are more pleasant than lives spent in one of the (temporary) hells. In your terms the sheep have a better time of it than the goats. The goats have a longer and less pleasant route to the same eventual destination.

If you like, the Buddhist hells are somewhat similar to the Catholic Purgatory: unpleasant but temporary.

 

[stoplooklisten]

From a Buddhist point of view there is a difference, some people take 200 million lifetimes to attain nirvana, and so will die 200 million times. Others may take just 50 million lifetimes, and so will only die 50 million times. Lives spent in one of the (temporary) heavens are more pleasant than lives spent in one of the (temporary) hells. In your terms the sheep have a better time of it than the goats. The goats have a longer and less pleasant route to the same eventual destination.

200 million lifetimes…Do all Buddhists subscribe to that? I think that our earth is not environmentally sustainable for that many lifetimes. Global warming, pandemics, nuclear threats, lack of clean water and other natural resources could put limits on life being sustainable for that long. Jesus Christ became God Incarnate as a human to redeem the human race and no one else.

 

[stoplooklisten]

200 million lifetimes…really? Shouldn’t we be grateful to the Creator for the one life that we have and make the most of it. Almighty God didn’t owe us even one lifetime and it seems like presumption that we would get another lifetime. The Bible’s message declares that we die once.

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him. (Hebrews 9:27–28)

 

[stoplooklisten]

From a Buddhist point of view there is a difference, some people take 200 million lifetimes to attain nirvana, and so will die 200 million times.

It looks that Buddhism and Catholicism share the belief in an eternal afterlife. However, in the Gospel, Jesus Christ “works out the karma” for those who believe in him with their whole heart. Jesus lived the life, suffered the pains, carried the cross, took the nails, took the shame to work things out for us so that we might be given the gift of the Love and Mercy of Almighty God. We don’t need to work it for ourselves but Jesus worked it out for those who truly believe in Him and “walk the talk”. Mercy is a marvelous gift from God. In covenant with God, we show mercy to others and He shows mercy to us.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, this might prompt a response.

You keep asking for proof that Ripperger is a creationist.

Fred, it’s not a very smart thing to start a post with an obvious lie. Only you and Rossum (who is 95% certain of his uncertainty) are obsessed with avoiding Ripperger’s arguments by flashing the Atheist Rule #1 card rather than engage the man’s arguments.

Rossum originally played his religion card to get a pass but unfortunately continues act like your toady with each of your silly posts. Are you going to address Ripperger’s arguments or are you going Buddhist? Those are the only ways out for you Fred. Remember, this is the Philosophy Forum. Try doing some philosophy for a change.

 

[rossum]

200 million lifetimes…Do all Buddhists subscribe to that?

The Indian religions share their general view of the universe. The writers realised that the stars in the sky are distant suns together with their own sets of planets. The material universe appears and disappears on a long cycle, “the breathing out and the breathing in of Brahma,” while the non-material parts persist. Those lives may be on Earth, on planets round other stars or they may be in one or other of the immaterial realms, whether in a heaven or in a hell.

For an idea of the timescale in Indian scriptures, here is something from the Assu sutta (SN 15.3):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

“This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.”

 

[rossum]

It looks that Buddhism and Catholicism share the belief in an eternal afterlife.

No. The lives in heavens and hells may be long, but they are not eternal. Nowhere is there any eternal life to be found; all the gods die eventually, to be replaced by new gods.

Nirvana is not an “afterlife” since it is attained during one’s current life. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35; he died age 80. For 45 years he was simultaneously in nirvana and living his life on earth. If anything, nirvana is a “duringlife” not an “afterlife”.

 

[rossum]

Only you and Rossum (who is 95% certain of his uncertainty) are obsessed with avoiding Ripperger’s arguments by flashing the Atheist Rule #1 card rather than engage the man’s arguments.

I did engage Ripperger’s arguments. His philosophical argument is based on Thomist premises. Since I reject his Thomist premises, specifically Substance as a faulty reification, then I reject his arguments as they rely on Substance. Substance is an illusion, as with the water in a mirage.

If you read The Questions of King Milinda as I suggested, you would have seen Nagasena’s argument about the King’s chariot which applies in this case.

 

[o_mlly]

I did engage Ripperger’s arguments. His philosophical argument is based on Thomist premises. Since I reject his Thomist premises, specifically Substance as a faulty reification, then I reject his arguments as they rely on Substance. Substance is an illusion, as with the water in a mirage.

If you reject self-evident principles then you cannot engage any arguments that follow. Since western philosophy rejects Buddhist (lack of) philosophical principles as absurd, no engagement is possible.

OK, we give you a pass. But we seriously wonder how a Buddhist can do science and, I agree, that’s another thread. Your admission, though, it seems to me, makes your posts in this Philosophy forum problematic.

 

[rossum]

If you reject self-evident principles then you cannot engage any arguments that follow.

That is the point, they are not self evident. The existence of substance/Essence is not self-evident; it can be challenged. Have you read about Nagasena and the King’s chariot yet?

 

[o_mlly]

That is the point, they are not self evident. The existence of substance/Essence is not self-evident; it can be challenged.

Essence is not a Christian theological concept but a western philosophical one. Western philosophy claims the principle of sufficient reason is self-evident (Leibnitz, Atheist, Polymath). Essence is a similar concept to species. It seems odd one would reject the former and advocate the latter. Are universal accidents not essences?

Have you read about Nagasena and the King’s chariot yet?

We agreed that conversation would require a new thread.

 

[rossum]

Are universal accidents not essences?

An essence is an immaterial relification. Thomist Substance is also an immaterial reification. Would you care to clarify the difference?

Father Ripperger relies on Thomist premises. Since I reject those premises then I also reject the conclusion of his logic.

 

[Maximus_Power]

Substance is an illusion

Buddhism has many gods, but they do not need appeasing. You are free to ignore them if you wish. Gods are not important in Buddhism.

Sadly it’s because your God’s are devils and can’t be appeased anyways.

All living things – humans, gods, animals – eventually end up in nirvana. Some can do it after a few lives, some take a lot more, but everyone ends there eventually. The heavens and hells are merely other places to live while on the path to nirvana.

If Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa both end up in the same place eventually then there is no justice in Nirvana. A truly diabolical concept.

 

[ImQuiet]

If Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa both end up in the same place eventually then there is no justice in Nirvana. A truly diabolical concept.

Adolf Hitler can’t be definitively said to be in Hell according to Catholicism either.

 

[StudentMI]

If Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa both end up in the same place eventually then there is no justice in Nirvana. A truly diabolical concept.

A similar sentiment led Peter Steele of the band Type O Negative to revert to Catholicism.

 

[Techno2000]

Maximus_Power:

If Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa both end up in the same place eventually then there is no justice in Nirvana. A truly diabolical concept.

Adolf Hitler can’t be definitively said to be in Hell according to Catholicism either.

But, I still get the point…you don’t ?

 

[o_mlly]

Father Ripperger relies on Thomist premises. Since I reject those premises then I also reject the conclusion of his logic.

At this point, to continue this thread, we need to know what first principles you accept, not reject. If we can accept some of your principles on the nature of reality perhaps progress is possible.

However, if you reject, as Buddhists do, the principles of non-contradiction and the excluded middle then we would regard you as an extreme skeptic. It should be obvious at once that, in going to this extreme, the skeptic necessarily contradicts himself.

 

[buffalo]

Adolf Hitler can’t be definitively said to be in Hell according to Catholicism either.

If not, I wonder if his capacity to experience the beatific vision is the same as Saint Faustina’s?