SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[CatsAndDogs]

Speculation on origins is at best useless and at worst a distraction from the work we have to do following the path. What would you think of someone who refused to become a Christian because you could not tell him the name of Seth’s wife? Your question is not relevant:

[The Buddha said:] ‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

Source: Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

Buddhism is not a path. It is a pointless (utterly singular and “atomic”) “point”. Nothing leads to the point. The point is to achieve pointlessness by the acceptance of oblivion.

It is easy to “declare the extinction” of “sufferings”, but to do so makes them a waste.

Christianity has a point, and the path to it is described by a cross, and intersection of whose arms are the point.

We don’t “declare the extinction” of suffering, but the path of the cross brings us to the point of suffering, which is not a void but a fullness.

All of buddhism is in the service of oblivion, which is the desire of irrevocable evil to cease to exist, which God will not allow as even evil itself doesn’t realize that eternal existence as evil is preferable to lack of existence in oblivion.

God does not “uncreate”. That is the vain hope, never to be requited, of evil itself, in all it’s nearly infinite demonic forms.

 

[Swan]

All this before realizing that there have been those who practiced buddhism for years, then fell away from it - or even became Christians or otherwise. Why should we discount their experiences, and not those who claim to have achieved nirvana - that thing they can’t put into words, dependent on philosophies they offer no defense of, and disagree about amongst each other? Meanwhile, plenty of people have claimed a knowledge and undeniable experience of God, sometimes as a result of prayer and living their life according to christian or religious teaching - perhaps they’re right as well, eh?

Buddhism has many good teachings, teachings that if adhered to will certain lead to some improvement in life. But that alone doesn’t make their faith right - Tony Robbins can make the same claim. I’ll bet you can even find a number of scientology practices that are undeniably positive. So what buddhists are trading on to persuade others with in this thread just doesn’t add up to much in the end. The only buddhist teachings that aren’t just as or more controversial than what other faiths offer are certain fundamentals - behaving morally, improving yourself, harboring no ill will towards others - that our faiths already contain in large part, often with vastly more philosophy and argument to back them up (since we typically come from traditions where reason and understanding are valued, whereas such things are at times considered distractions in the east).

Or, boiled down: Thanks, but we already have what you offer, including everything you’d argue is truly essential.

I practiced Christianity for decades - first Prot then RC. Even when I didn’t practice it, I “believed” it. Now, at 49, I realize that I no longer believe it. I’m basing my conclusions on personal experience, observation and reason/study. I no longer believe in a “personal” god, going with polytheism instead. Buddhism is one of the spiritualities that I am interested in.

Speaking of Tony Robbins, he says in one of his books “we cannot know if our beliefs are true, but we can know if they work for us”. IMO, there’s a lot of truth in that statement. At least for me.

 

[notself]

All of buddhism is in the service of oblivion, which is the desire of irrevocable evil to cease to exist, which God will not allow as even evil itself doesn’t realize that eternal existence as evil is preferable to lack of existence in oblivion.

God does not “uncreate”. That is the vain hope, never to be requited, of evil itself, in all it’s nearly infinite demonic forms.

This is not a teaching of Buddhism. Perhaps a section from this essay on Nibbana by de Silva will help to clarify matters.

Nibbana [nibbaana] is the culmination of the Buddhist quest for perfection and happiness…

It means happiness, contentment, and peace. Nibbaayati also means to extinguish, to blow out as in the blowing out of a lamp.Nibbana is so called because it is the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion. When these fires are blown out peace is attained, and one becomes completely cooled… But it is certain that the term “cool” was chosen to convey a literal psychological reality. Anger makes us hot and restless. We use expressions such as “boiling with anger,” and they clearly express the intensity of the aggressive emotion. When such negative emotions are completely eradicated, never to arise again, the temperament has to be described as cool.

Nibbana is a state to be attained here and now in this very life and not a state to be attained only after death. In terms of living experience Nibbana can be characterized by four special attributes: happiness, moral perfection, realization, and freedom.

Here is a link to the entire essay.

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Nibbana [nibbaana] is the culmination of the Buddhist quest for perfection and happiness…

It means happiness, contentment, and peace. Nibbaayati also means to extinguish, to blow out as in the blowing out of a lamp.

To “blow out” is to “dis-create” (or uncreate), which IS oblivion, which is the ultimate goal of evil.

The buddhist “God substitute” (whatever that may be called) wishes the uncreation of the world into an oblivion. God, who is God qua God, has precisely the opposite “goal”. God wishes the world to become as real (as anti-oblivious) as possible, and the eventual “confinement” of the oblivian-desirers to their self-chosen hells.

Nibbana is so called because it is the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion. When these fires are blown out peace is attained, and one becomes completely cooled…

Thus the buddhist-scientistic “entropic end”. I would BET that the buddhists have a “black-hole”/“white-hole” conception of a “cyclical creation(s)” theory which so many scientistic materialists propose as an “answer” to the “infintely old cyclical creation” problem.

But it is certain that the term “cool” was chosen to convey a literal psychological reality. Anger makes us hot and restless. We use expressions such as “boiling with anger,” and they clearly express the intensity of the aggressive emotion. When such negative emotions are completely eradicated, never to arise again, the temperament has to be described as cool.

Nibbana is a state to be attained here and now in this very life and not a state to be attained only after death. In terms of living experience Nibbana can be characterized by four special attributes: happiness, moral perfection, realization, and freedom.

Yet another example of “Oprahistic Wisheology” in action.

The point of reality is not the obliviation of reality. Even the pointless buddhist knows that, and (usually) proposes that after the “great entropic cooling” is fully complete and all is “dark gray”, some “cosmic restart” will initiate another “round” of suffering.

So, the “buddhistic God substitute” has WHAT as it’s goal?

Another round of suffering after the reason for the previous round of suffering has been “run through”?

Who learns from this NEXT round of suffering? Where are all those who learned from the previous round of suffering?

If no one learns from THIS round of suffering, and those who are to learn from the next round don’t learn from it, how is this “Round and Round the Merry-Go-Round of Suffering” not as pointless as it seems?

 

[notself]

To “blow out” is to “dis-create” (or uncreate), which IS oblivion, which is the ultimate goal of evil.

The buddhist “God substitute” (whatever that may be called) wishes the uncreation of the world into an oblivion. God, who is God qua God, has precisely the opposite “goal”. God wishes the world to become as real (as anti-oblivious) as possible, and the eventual “confinement” of the oblivian-desirers to their self-chosen hells.

There is no Buddhist God substitute. Oblivion is not the goal. Nibbana is. By the way, the word oblivion means to forget or to be unconscious. How does one go about confining oblivion?

Thus the buddhist-scientistic “entropic end”. I would BET that the buddhists have a “black-hole”/“white-hole” conception of a “cyclical creation(s)” theory which so many scientistic materialists propose as an “answer” to the “infintely old cyclical creation” problem.

My understanding of current physics theory is that the universe is expanding and will continue to do so. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say black hole/white hole. What for goodness sake is a white hole? Perhaps you can clarify.

Yet another example of “Oprahistic Wisheology” in action.

The Buddha predates Oprah by 2500 years and again I have no idea what you are talking about. What does Oprah have to do with anything but TV?

The point of reality is not the obliviation of reality. Even the pointless buddhist knows that, and (usually) proposes that after the “great entropic cooling” is fully complete and all is “dark gray”, some “cosmic restart” will initiate another “round” of suffering.

Please explain what you are talking about. What does entropy have to do with anything that has been posted on this thread? Perhaps I missed it. Is obliviation a word?

So, the “buddhistic God substitute” has WHAT as it’s goal?

Another round of suffering after the reason for the previous round of suffering has been “run through”?

Who learns from this NEXT round of suffering? Where are all those who learned from the previous round of suffering?

If no one learns from THIS round of suffering, and those who are to learn from the next round don’t learn from it, how is this “Round and Round the Merry-Go-Round of Suffering” not as pointless as it seems?

There is no God substitute in Buddhism as I said before. Where ever did you get the idea that there was? Can you provide a quote or link to clarify what you are saying?

Who said that no one learns from suffering? The goal of Buddhism is to realize Nibbana which is the ending of suffering. It is not oblivion. If you read the link that I provided in my last post, things should clear up for you.

Whatever happened to the polite discourse that was predominant on this thread. Has the political situation made everyone a little crazy?

 

[rossum]

Buddhism is not a path.

And your source for this is?

It is easy to “declare the extinction” of “sufferings”, but to do so makes them a waste.

Do you like to suffer or would you rather avoid suffering, both for yourself and for others?

Christianity has a point, and the path to it is described by a cross, and intersection of whose arms are the point.

Buddhism is symbolised by a wheel, which has a single point at its centre - which proves nothing. Neither Buddhism nor Christianity are defined by their symbols.

All of buddhism is in the service of oblivion

You have greatly misunderstood Buddhism. I would advise you to learn more about it before criticising it.

God does not “uncreate”

If God is, as claimed, omnipotent then God can uncreate whatever He wishes to uncreate. If God cannot uncreate then God is not omnipotent. You need to think carefully what you are saying here.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
To “blow out” is to “dis-create” (or uncreate), which IS oblivion, which is the ultimate goal of evil.

The buddhist “God substitute” (whatever that may be called) wishes the uncreation of the world into an oblivion. God, who is God qua God, has precisely the opposite “goal”. God wishes the world to become as real (as anti-oblivious) as possible, and the eventual “confinement” of the oblivian-desirers to their self-chosen hells.

There is no Buddhist God substitute. Oblivion is not the goal. Nibbana is. By the way, the word oblivion means to forget or to be unconscious. How does one go about confining oblivion?

It’s easy to say that buddhists have no “God substitute”. Their “God substitute” is “that which ultimately guides their actions without interfering with their free will”.

What satisfies this description?

On the oblivion question: One does not confine oblivion. One allows oblivion-desirers their choice, which is their self-confinement in hell.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Thus the buddhist-scientistic “entropic end”. I would BET that the buddhists have a “black-hole”/“white-hole” conception of a “cyclical creation(s)” theory which so many scientistic materialists propose as an “answer” to the “infintely old cyclical creation” problem.

My understanding of current physics theory is that the universe is expanding and will continue to do so. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say black hole/white hole. What for goodness sake is a white hole? Perhaps you can clarify.

What I’m getting at is the idea of a “cycling universe” of infinite age (never not existing) which cycles between “infintely small” and “very very large”. The “sleeping and waking of Brahma” cycle kind of thing, basically. The “great fluctuation” between existences (whatever that means).

The “black hole” is an “archetype” (as it were) of the eventual “end” of this universe, while the “white hole” is the “archetype” of the “beginning” of this universe (a localized “big bang”).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The point of reality is not the obliviation of reality. Even the pointless buddhist knows that, and (usually) proposes that after the “great entropic cooling” is fully complete and all is “dark gray”, some “cosmic restart” will initiate another “round” of suffering.

Please explain what you are talking about. What does entropy have to do with anything that has been posted on this thread? Perhaps I missed it. Is obliviation a word?

One of my many “eccentricities” is making up words which SHOULD exist but which no one seems to have gotten around to doing so just yet! English is such a nice “flexible” language, isn’t it?

Care to guess what “obliviation” might mean? <chuckle, chuckle>

What I mean by it is to allow a thing to find it’s oblivion. To be “dis-created” (uncreated), which is not mere “dissolution” into it’s component parts, but a complete un-creation [verb] which results in no “stuff” left behind. This is of course a violation of thermodynamics (1st law I believe).

“Entropy” is the tendency of energy to flow from higher concentration to lower concentration areas.

The goal of “cooling”, which is what you say buddhists say is their goal, is an example of entropy. The human tendency toward “negentropy” is “wishfully” denied as a worthy goal by buddhists, while it is prized by Catholics but ONLY if it is directed toward becoming MOST HUMAN by us wanting to be conformed to the example of Jesus.

The buddhist wants escape from being human, while Catholics want to become the MOST human possible.

But, even the buddhist needs SOME “continuation” of existence, and is satisfied with a “cycle of creations”, which do nothing but more of the same as the infinite number of previous creations, making all of them essentially pointless. They “go” nowhere.

Without a point, there is only meaninglessness.

 

[notself]

What I’m getting at is the idea of a “cycling universe” of infinite age (never not existing) which cycles between “infintely small” and “very very large”. The “sleeping and waking of Brahma” cycle kind of thing, basically. The “great fluctuation” between existences (whatever that means).

The “black hole” is an “archetype” (as it were) of the eventual “end” of this universe, while the “white hole” is the “archetype” of the “beginning” of this universe (a localized “big bang”).

I think you are getting Hinduism confused with Buddhism. It is my understanding that Hindus believe that the universe begins and ends with the blinking of the eye of Brahma. Of course this blinking take eons. Brahma is the Supreme God of Hinduism.

The Buddha did not speak about the beginning or creation of the universe. There is no creation story in Buddhism.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
So, the “buddhistic God substitute” has WHAT as it’s goal?

Another round of suffering after the reason for the previous round of suffering has been “run through”?

Who learns from this NEXT round of suffering? Where are all those who learned from the previous round of suffering?

If no one learns from THIS round of suffering, and those who are to learn from the next round don’t learn from it, how is this “Round and Round the Merry-Go-Round of Suffering” not as pointless as it seems?

There is no God substitute in Buddhism as I said before. Where ever did you get the idea that there was? Can you provide a quote or link to clarify what you are saying?

Just as you believe that buddhism has no “God”, substitute or otherwise, Catholics believe that all humans have a “God shaped hole” within them which they (humans) seek to fill as an inherent “drive” (hunger) and WILL fill with SOMETHING, be it natural law, various perversions of natural law, or actual demonic “interlopers”.

Now, the consequences of this is that those who SAY they have no God are simply substituting some thing into “God’s place”, and buddhists appear to fill that space with “self-created ethics”, which are largely derived from natural law, but which are errant in their not being grounded in God explicitly, which allows for various “perversions” of natural law to be mistaken as natural law.

Now, I tend to believe that buddhists by and large are pretty good at telling the difference between actual natural law and the perversions of natural law, but not accepting revelation as the guide to doing so authoritatively is why the various errors of buddhism are what they are.

Who said that no one learns from suffering? The goal of Buddhism is to realize Nibbana which is the ending of suffering. It is not oblivion.

Buddhism as described in that article is merely an extreme elaboration of a few principles of natural law, which tries to refine what a person needs to do to be able to not be “not overly attached” to “things”.

The basic error of it is that it is a “salvation exclusively through works” behavioral model, which will produce as much chaos as it purports to “cure”.

To be intellectually capable of SAYING that one understands how to achieve “disinterest” (detachment) and hiding the fact that chaos rules the mind that thinks it can control all “passions” is all that is necessary to be a good buddhist.

Simply saying, “I’m happy, which means I understand that ‘happiness’ means ‘nibbana’!” is a wish for one’s personal oblivion in the dark gray “fog” created by the “machinations” of “whatever variety of buddhism” one operates.

It is all vanity. Vanity of vanities. Look at the claims in that article. It claims absolute control of that which is not humanly controllable, but only humanly forsakeable to God. It is, essentially, attempted “wizardry” (attempted control of the uncontrollable), and thereby foundationally in error.

If you read the link that I provided in my last post, things should clear up for you.

Whatever happened to the polite discourse that was predominant on this thread. Has the political situation made everyone a little crazy?

How have I, or others, been impolite?

I’m simply pointing out to you how you are in error. You came here to present your beliefs and recieve feedback on them. Why do you object when people give you feedback on them?

 

[notself]

One of my many “eccentricities” is making up words which SHOULD exist but which no one seems to have gotten around to doing so just yet! English is such a nice “flexible” language, isn’t it?

What I mean by it is to allow a thing to find it’s oblivion. To be “dis-created” (uncreated), which is not mere “dissolution” into it’s component parts, but a complete un-creation [verb] which results in no “stuff” left behind. This is of course a violation of thermodynamics (1st law I believe).

Uncreation has nothing to do with Buddhism. You may be thinking of something else.

“Entropy” is the tendency of energy to flow from higher concentration to lower concentration areas.

The goal of “cooling”, which is what you say buddhists say is their goal, is an example of entropy. The human tendency toward “negentropy” is “wishfully” denied as a worthy goal by buddhists, while it is prized by Catholics but ONLY if it is directed toward becoming MOST HUMAN by us wanting to be conformed to the example of Jesus.

You must have misread the section I posted. Here it is again.

It means happiness, contentment, and peace. Nibbaayati also means to extinguish, to blow out as in the blowing out of a lamp. Nibbana is so called because it is the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion. When these fires are blown out peace is attained, and one becomes completely cooled… But it is certain that the term “cool” was chosen to convey a literal psychological reality. Anger makes us hot and restless. We use expressions such as “boiling with anger,” and they clearly express the intensity of the aggressive emotion. When such negative emotions are completely eradicated, never to arise again, the temperament has to be described as cool.

The goal of Buddhist practice is to blow out the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion and thereby cool ones psychological temperament. There is nothing in this to refer to entropy. It is a physics free comment.

The buddhist wants escape from being human, while Catholics want to become the MOST human possible.

But, even the buddhist needs SOME “continuation” of existence, and is satisfied with a “cycle of creations”, which do nothing but more of the same as the infinite number of previous creations, making all of them essentially pointless. They “go” nowhere.

Without a point, there is only meaninglessness.

Buddhists do not wish to escape from being human. In fact being born human is considered the most favorable of all possible rebirths because as a human one can fully practice the dhamma. It is through the practice of dhamma one can end the cycle of rebirth and find the release of Nibbana. Nibbana is not a place and it is not “nowhere”. It is unconditioned, unestablished, released. It is beyond the understanding of an unawakened mind.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Buddhism is not a path.

And your source for this is?

My source is myself, and is a simple assertion based on my observations of that buddhism has shown me.

I actually AM being a bit hyperbolic, of course, but I say buddhism is not a PATH because a path is a track from one place to another, while buddhism is “track” from “where one is” to either “nowhere at all” or “where one is”.

It is at best a loop. And while the scenary around the loop is an “interesting” experience it gains you nothing but only dumps you back where you started while the “conductor” claims, “Now you know why non-existence as a person is preferable to existence!”

Quote:
It is easy to “declare the extinction” of “sufferings”, but to do so makes them a waste.

Do you like to suffer or would you rather avoid suffering, both for yourself and for others?

The goal is not to avoid suffering, but to not create it and to endure and relieve it when it does occur.

But suffering is not to be “wished away” but endured, and relieved by us as best we can, and DOES have a point (a reason) for happening.

The greatest promoters of suffering are those who merely deny it’s existence.

Where buddhists listen to natural law, which they largely do quite well, they are following God’s “rules” by enduring and relieving suffering, but when they develop “systems” which claim that it’s possible to “overcome through willpower” suffering, they give excuse to those who would rather WORK on their “nibbana” than endure and relieve suffering.

Suffering is to be given (to God), not dodged.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
God does not “uncreate”

If God is, as claimed, omnipotent then God can uncreate whatever He wishes to uncreate. If God cannot uncreate then God is not omnipotent. You need to think carefully what you are saying here.

To say that God CAN do anything does NOT mean that He WILL or MUST do any one thing!

He COULD un-create His creation, but to do so would be a contradiction, because God does not “go back on” His gifts, and all things are His gifts to us (and the angels).

God does not DO contradiction, because if He did, He would not be God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
What I’m getting at is the idea of a “cycling universe” of infinite age (never not existing) which cycles between “infintely small” and “very very large”. The “sleeping and waking of Brahma” cycle kind of thing, basically. The “great fluctuation” between existences (whatever that means).

The “black hole” is an “archetype” (as it were) of the eventual “end” of this universe, while the “white hole” is the “archetype” of the “beginning” of this universe (a localized “big bang”).

I think you are getting Hinduism confused with Buddhism. It is my understanding that Hindus believe that the universe begins and ends with the blinking of the eye of Brahma. Of course this blinking take eons. Brahma is the Supreme God of Hinduism.

The Buddha did not speak about the beginning or creation of the universe. There is no creation story in Buddhism.

You are quite right. Buddhism doesn’t consider eschatology (reasons FOR being) as relevant to “enlightenment” because the goal is not “an end” (a “learning”) but an oblivion (a “stopping”).

 

[notself]

Just as you believe that buddhism has no “God”, substitute or otherwise, Catholics believe that all humans have a “God shaped hole” within them which they (humans) seek to fill as an inherent “drive” (hunger) and WILL fill with SOMETHING, be it natural law, various perversions of natural law, or actual demonic “interlopers”.

Now, the consequences of this is that those who SAY they have no God are simply substituting some thing into “God’s place”, and buddhists appear to fill that space with “self-created ethics”, which are largely derived from natural law, but which are errant in their not being grounded in God explicitly, which allows for various “perversions” of natural law to be mistaken as natural law.

Now, I tend to believe that buddhists by and large are pretty good at telling the difference between actual natural law and the perversions of natural law, but not accepting revelation as the guide to doing so authoritatively is why the various errors of buddhism are what they are.

I understand that you believe that Buddhism is wrong and Catholicism is right. How could you as a Catholic believe otherwise?

Buddhism as described in that article is merely an extreme elaboration of a few principles of natural law, which tries to refine what a person needs to do to be able to not be “not overly attached” to “things”.

The basic error of it is that it is a “salvation exclusively through works” behavioral model, which will produce as much chaos as it purports to “cure”.

To be intellectually capable of SAYING that one understands how to achieve “disinterest” (detachment) and hiding the fact that chaos rules the mind that thinks it can control all “passions” is all that is necessary to be a good buddhist.

It is possible to control ones passions and understand the workings of one’s mind. This is specifically why Buddhists meditate. Meditation disciplines the rapid fire wandering of the mind and strengthens concentration. Meditation must be practiced with sila (virtue and morality). The combination of strength of concentration and sila develops wisdom leading to calm.

You seem to like science so here are some links about the study of the brains of experienced meditators.

psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/News/Meditation_Alters_Brain_WSJ_11-04.htm

newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8317

Simply saying, “I’m happy, which means I understand that ‘happiness’ means ‘nibbana’!” is a wish for one’s personal oblivion in the dark gray “fog” created by the “machinations” of “whatever variety of buddhism” one operates.

It is all vanity. Vanity of vanities. Look at the claims in that article. It claims absolute control of that which is not humanly controllable, but only humanly forsakeable to God. It is, essentially, attempted “wizardry” (attempted control of the uncontrollable), and thereby foundationally in error.

Please provide sources or links for your statements.

How have I, or others, been impolite?

The Oprah comment was a bit over the top as well as your comments equating Buddhist beliefs with irrevocable evil. Not exactly the language of polite discourse. Your recent posts are fine.

I’m simply pointing out to you how you are in error. You came here to present your beliefs and recieve feedback on them. Why do you object when people give you feedback on them?

Different peoples believe different things. You are welcome to think that my beliefs are wrong. It doesn’t bother me at all.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The buddhist wants escape from being human, while Catholics want to become the MOST human possible.

But, even the buddhist needs SOME “continuation” of existence, and is satisfied with a “cycle of creations”, which do nothing but more of the same as the infinite number of previous creations, making all of them essentially pointless. They “go” nowhere.

Without a point, there is only meaninglessness.

Buddhists do not wish to escape from being human. In fact being born human is considered the most favorable of all possible rebirths because as a human one can fully practice the dhamma. It is through the practice of dhamma one can end the cycle of rebirth and find the release of Nibbana. Nibbana is not a place and it is not “nowhere”. It is unconditioned, unestablished, released. It is beyond the understanding of an unawakened mind.

I agree with you that you think that the goal of nibbana is worthy.

I happen to see “nibbana” as described as a pale imitation of “the beatific vision” which “nibbana desirers” think they can attain through human effort alone.

When persons claim that the “ultimate goal” of being human is obtainable by their own efforts they (claim to) make themselves God, which is the “God substitute” that I was refering to earlier.

The “massively complex” (and continually more complexifying) “systems” of buddhist intellection disguise the simple fact that we are singularly created immortal persons, we live and learn and choose revocably before earthly-death, then choose irrevocably after earthly-death and live with our irrevocable choices in eternity.

Buddhism’s major “fault” is that it gives near-bulletproof (intellectual) armor to any consideration of divine revelation to it’s adherents.

But then, there is a reason that some major part of humanity is “made bulletproof” to the truth. What that reason is will eventually be disclosed.

(( Actually, reading some conversion stories of former buddhists would probably give some good hints at this reason or reasons. ))

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Some people believe his death in an auto accident was God’s means of calling him home.

Thomas Merton died in Bangkok on 10 December 1968, having touched a poorly grounded electric fan while stepping out of his bath. His body was flown back to Gethsemani where he is buried.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I understand that you believe that Buddhism is wrong and Catholicism is right. How could you as a Catholic believe otherwise?

Indeed!

My problem with buddhism is not that it’s claims for “mental/emotional control” are ineffective, which they ARE effective, or that the ethics/morals generally developed by it are entirely perverse, which they CERTAINLY aren’t, but that it makes it’s less-adept (lazy/“luke-warm”) adherents prone to demonic forces (which actually means “prone to incorrect “self”-interpretation of natural law” [thus substituting sinful behavior for correct behavior[).

Different peoples believe different things. You are welcome to think that my beliefs are wrong. It doesn’t bother me at all.

I actually believe that most non-Catholic folks, which you are, tend to overwhelmingly (and mostly unconsciously) follow Catholic-borne ethics/morals simply because they are planetarily most prevalent, and hard to get away from.

Before Christianity most people were, much as they are today, behaving as “good people” more than not, and THAT was because natural law tends to “rule the lowly”, which are the vast majority of people.

There WERE of course pockets of “bad guys”, but the rule was the rule of natural law.

Buddhism is merely a “complex codification” of natural law, with many inconsequetial errors included and a very few very consequential errors included in it (most of which preclude true revelation as being considered and seen as what it is).

The danger of these “systems of salvation through human-only work” is that they lack grounding in the absolute and are prone to “chaotic perturbation” of minor error into major error.

 

[rossum]

My source is myself, and is a simple assertion based on my observations of that buddhism has shown me.

Your opinion is noted. What you are arguing aginst is not Buddhism, but your opinion of Buddhism. Those are two different things.

The goal is not to avoid suffering, but to not create it and to endure and relieve it when it does occur.

You are setting your goal too low.

The greatest promoters of suffering are those who merely deny it’s existence.

Possibly so, but what does that have to do with Buddhism? The First Noble Truth of Buddhism deals with suffering:[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.”

Samyutta Nikaya 56.11
That is not a denial of the existence of suffering. Both Buddhism and Christianity deny the permanence of suffering, because that allows both heaven and nirvana to exist. Neither deny the existence of suffering.

Suffering is to be given (to God), not dodged.

Why would God want our suffering? Surely God has better things to collect?

rossum