SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[CatsAndDogs]

First of all, I have repeatedly said that one cannot be a Catholic and a Buddhist. A Catholic on this thread disagrees with me and said that one could. I never said such a thing and do not believe it to be true.

Then why do you act that way?

Second, your “correction” of my belief is based on misinformation. When I have provided you with evidence of what the Buddha actually taught you ignore it completely and respond with more inaccuracies and inventions.

As with all complex systems with which one is unfamilar, it’s difficult to have an “insiders perspective” of it until one is familiar with it, which is precisely what one is not!

All I respond to are assertions imbedded necessarily imbedded in what I AM familiar with, which is a cursory acquaintance with buddhism and a slightly more familiar acquaintance with the Church’s doctrine.

Simply show me how I’m incorrect, and leave the “annoyance” to one side, as neither of us (hopefully) are interested in dealing with being annoyed.

I don’t expect you to agree with the teachings nor do I expect you to believe as I believe but I do expect you to accept what I have provided about Buddhist beliefs to be true teachings of the Buddha. Instead you quote non-Buddhists sources to correct me about Buddhism. This just does not make sense.

I quote Catholic understanding of buddhist tenets. If that understanding is wrong, show me where. Then we can simply agree to disagree about the results OF the tenets refered to (of which we don’t agree as to their truth).

I do in fact agree with you that you are a better describer of the tenets of buddhism, but the Church is a better interpreter of the results of your descriptions than you are.

Just as you would say (and had probably BETTER say) that YOU (or your “spiritual authority”) are a better interpreter of ANY “spiritual teaching” as described by anyone of any “faith tradition” (religion), I claim the same “privilege”.

If you DON’T think that you (or your “tradition”) can best interpret “all things spiritual”, then why ar you of that tradition?

If you intend to continue this discussion then you need to accept the definitions of my belief that I provide just as I would accept the definitions of your beliefs if I asked for them.

I do! Show me where I haven’t?

But do you also demand that I accept your interpretation of the results of those “definitions of belief”, of the “reasons those definitions are as they are”?

The whole point to talking about what we KNOW that we will have essential (axiomatic) disagreements about is to show each other HOW and WHY the other is wrong! It is NOT to try to “change minds”. It might be to “influence” the minds of those “on the fence”, of course, but I’m not here to convert anyone overtly, but only to demonstrate the differences between utterly intransigent presenters of incompatible belief systems.

Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t agree on some things, such as “murder of innocents is BAD”, so our differences are not total, and showing where our faiths ARE aligned is a lovely side-benefit!

To tell you that what you say as a Catholic is not true because I rely on Hagee would be unacceptable to you. And you would be right.

If you (for example) take Hagee’s explanation as plausible, and you then present his plausible explanation to me, and then I respond in a way that you see as implausible, and then decide that Hagee seems to be right about “Catholicism”, then Hagee has done a better job than I have and you (most probably) will probably think less of Catholicism.

That has no effect on the truthfulness of Catholicism in any way!

I can’t complain to you that you haven’t been sensible because I didn’t do my job in being more plausible in my explanations.

You are complaining to me that you haven’t been more plausible in your explanations! Complain to yourself! You’re the one not being “convincing”.

Actually, you CAN’T be convincing with me in this matter, but you CAN be cogent and responsive so that those observing our conversation might be more convinced by you than by me.

I could NOT care less if you, or I, am being convincing to our observers! My only concern is to respond to what you present in a way which is authoritative according to the Church.

continued below…

 

[CatsAndDogs]

continued from above:

I have no intention, as you say, of tossing out my beliefs for your evaluation. I find the suggestion rude.

I don’t suggest that! Why would you toss out your BELIEFS for my interpretations of the CONSEQUENCES of your beliefs!?

You confuse “beliefs” with “evaluations”. You may have your beliefs and I may have my evealuations of your beliefs AT THE SAME TIME!

At no time does the fact that you have your beliefs and I have my interpretations of your beliefs imply that you should TOSS OUT your beliefs!

You have repeatedly attributed quotes to me that I have not said.

Rubish! Show me where!?

You have repeatedly put your words in quotes which designate sarcasm in most forums and I read them as such.

The “quotes” are there not to imply sarcasm (necessarily) but to signal that I’m using the word/phrase in question in an “alternative” fasion. It basically means “be a little loose in interpreting this word/phrase”.

I have always tried to respond to Catholic posters with courtesy and respect for their religion and their beliefs. Please show the same courtesy to me.

Once again, show me where I’ve been discourteous or disrespectful!?

I never asked you to evaluate my beliefs nor have I ever tried to critique or evaluate yours.

What total nonsense! What do you think this forum is FOR!?

When I post an assertion here, or anywhere for that matter, I expect it to be critically evaluated for it’s meaning to those who see it!

I am here to answer direct questions about Buddhist beliefs.

So, you’re NOT here to expain what your answers MEAN after you’ve stated them!?

Does that not seem a bit “incomplete” to you?

You can ask for clarification of what I have said if you feel I have not been clear. You can reject the beliefs outright (politely and without sarcasm).

But, I do not seek nor require your evaluation nor do I consider what you have said to be honest in that you have repeatedly distorted Buddhist beliefs even when corrected.

So, I can’t comment on what your statements MEAN as they relate to my beliefs?

I don’t distort your beliefs! I explain your statements of belief as they are understood by me in relation to my beliefs.

Just as buddhists don’t “denigrate” (which I don’t see as denigration, actually) belief in divine revelation by stating that “God does not speak to men that way”, I don’t “denigrate” the buddhist belief in reincarnation by stating that “we are created as persons once and are immortal from that point forward passing through life then either heaven or hell”.

If you wish information about Buddhist beliefs I will do my best to explain. If you want to criticize them based on false or distorted information, then our discussion is at an end.

Do you really expect me to NOT COMMENT on the meaning of what you say as I see it?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

God is said to be just. In Numbers 31 He orders the killing of pregnant women (“who have known men”).

Because they would never have come into existence without His creative act, it is just that He - as the author of these lives - decides it is a time for death. We do not know their ultimate destination. Perhaps an early death saved these women and children from eternal damnation? We cannot know the reason. But we can concede that as the author of life, God’s decision to allow death is just.

rossum:

What crime had those unborn children committed that they deserved death?

What did they do for god such that they deserved life? You are assuming that God was not intimately involved in their very existence from the beginning. From such a position, the Author of life has every right to impose death.

rossum:

If they were criminals then why can we not kill any unborn child as a criminal?

First, criminality is not the only justification for God’s decision to act, or not act in such a way that it causes a death (or many many deaths). But His acts are just because He - as the intimate and sole author of that life has every right to decide how long it will continue.

rossum:

If they were not criminals then God is not just, merely arbitary.

First, God need not withhold death from all except those who are criminals. If that were the case, there would be many very old good people on this planet. There are not. By the same rationale, you could ask why is it that God only allows human beings to live for an avearage of about 78 years. Is this unjust? Is it arbitrary? Or is it that we - as finite human beings with limited human intellects cannot grasp the full nature of God’s reason for allowing death in this world.

rossum:

One of the differences between Buddhism and Christianity is that for Buddhists all gods, including the highest, are subject to moral law. Judging by His actions, the OT God was not enlightened.

God is subject to His own nature. God’s nature is that He is Justice. Our inability to perceive the full nature of His justice does not mean He acts arbitrarily or contrary to justice.

rossum:

Where did God get His capacity for creation from? You are also stopping your analysis at a convenient point (for you). These questions can easily be extended into an infinite chain of causes.

That’s just the point my friend. God is the One Divine Being at the end of that chain of causes. The chain is NOT infinite. God is the ONLY ONE that is omnipotent and omniscient. He is the source of creation and there is nothing that comes before or after Him. He is the beginning and the end.

rossum:

We just pick different points to stop the chain. I choose to stop the chain one step earlier than you; I could equally well choose to extend the chain one step beyond you.

By this statement, you seem to be revealing to me that you have not fully grasped the omnipotence and the omniscience and omniprecense of the One True God. What you seem to see - instead - is an ever increasing rank of divine beings, with each rank more powerful than the next. That is not Monotheism. You are grasping at monotheistic concepts with the wrong tools my friend.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Sarpedon]

Is it a good idea to test something out if there is a potential for great harm, and there is nothing provided to assure you that everything will work out fine?

 

[rossum]

Because they would never have come into existence without His creative act, it is just that He - as the author of these lives - decides it is a time for death.

This argument also applies to pregnant Israelite women and their unborn children. Is God applying one set of criteria to pregnant Midianites and a different set of criteria to pregnant Israelites? How is it just to apply different criteria on the basis of tribal affiliation?

But we can concede that as the author of life, God’s decision to allow death is just.

I will concede no such thing. You claim that God is just. I deny that the God of the Old Testament is just. You cannot merely assume what you have to prove.

What did they do for god such that they deserved life?

Again, exactly the same question applies to the pregnant Israelites and their unborn children. Why does God treat Midianites and Israelites differently? When God is described as “The God of Israel” does that mean that He is biased towards Israelites? I am not Jewish so should I find a different God who is not biased against me? How can a biased God be just? Justice is not biased.

You are assuming that God was not intimately involved in their very existence from the beginning. From such a position, the Author of life has every right to impose death.

A parent is “intimately involved” in their children’s very existence from the beginning. Does that give parents the right to kill their children? This is a very weak argument.

First, criminality is not the only justification for God’s decision to act, or not act in such a way that it causes a death (or many many deaths).

If not criminality then what? What had the unborn Midianites done, or not done, that was different from what the unborn Israelites had done, or not done? If there is no difference then how can God’s actions be just?

God’s nature is that He is Justice. Our inability to perceive the full nature of His justice does not mean He acts arbitrarily or contrary to justice.

I do not accept this. You have to show that God’s actions are just, not merely define them as ipso facto just.

Read Buddhist scriptures alongside the Old Testament. Count up how many people the Buddha kills. Count up how many people God kills. I know which of the two I prefer.

That is not Monotheism.

Indeed not, I accept the existence of many supernatural beings. I do not accept that they are all just. You need to show me.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert in SD
Because they would never have come into existence without His creative act, it is just that He - as the author of these lives - decides it is a time for death.

This argument also applies to pregnant Israelite women and their unborn children. Is God applying one set of criteria to pregnant Midianites and a different set of criteria to pregnant Israelites? How is it just to apply different criteria on the basis of tribal affiliation?

Do you believe that God will repay the suffering of those who suffer, or not?

Since everyone gets their due reward during their eternal existence (part of which is “earthly life” and the [obviously] vastly major part of which is “post-earthly-life”) the choice of circumstances (when and how they live or die) for one group is a matter of the MEANING of those circumstances in the story of history (salvation history).

In other words, history is GOD’S STORY to tell, and the MEANING of any “living and dying, suffering and prospering” is what are to “read” (and have interpreted by the Church) from what has happened.

I am “highly favored” by God compared to people suffering in less affluent parts of the world. Does that mean that God is evil because He allows this disparity?

No. It means that I’m more burdened with needing to help my less fortunate neighbors than they are, and that they are more likely to be rewarded with heaven (all other thngs being equal) due to their suffering.

I know it’s “disconcerting” for the “materialist”, or whatever one is who sees God as being “fundamentally unjust”, to consider that people, and whole peoples, are “story elements”, but to consider our place in the “grand scheme of things” as anything BUT that is to simply not know what “God” means.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
You are assuming that God was not intimately involved in their very existence from the beginning. From such a position, the Author of life has every right to impose death.

A parent is “intimately involved” in their children’s very existence from the beginning. Does that give parents the right to kill their children? This is a very weak argument.

Show me how God “kills” His children?

The transition from “earthly life” to “post-death life” is merely a transition, a “phase change”, which does not END anything (other than our ability to make revocable choices).

God does not “un-create”! Once we are created, by God with the cooperation of our parents, our existence is assured for ETERNITY.

That we die is guaranteed. The MEANING of our death, to ourselves and to mankind, is the important aspect of our life.

The Midianites had one meaning in that episode, and the Israelites had another meaning in that episode.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
God’s nature is that He is Justice. Our inability to perceive the full nature of His justice does not mean He acts arbitrarily or contrary to justice.

I do not accept this. You have to show that God’s actions are just, not merely define them as ipso facto just.

Why? I can’t show you that which I am incapable of showing you, now can I?

You seem to want PROOF, from those from whom you wouldn’t accept it (which is itself nonsensical), that something you wouldn’t believe anyway, due to some past “injury from ‘God’ as seen by you”, is true. Namely, that God qua God (God as the thing “God” as defined by God as we know Him via the Magisterium) is not evil.

Do you, or do you not, consider the “Christian God” as evil (or non-existent)?

Read Buddhist scriptures alongside the Old Testament. Count up how many people the Buddha kills. Count up how many people God kills. I know which of the two I prefer.

Buddha does not claim to be God, now does He? How is comparing God (THE God) with a mere “enlightened” mortal in any way meaningful?

Does Buddha deny that death is “meaningless”? Of course he doesn’t. And in that he agrees with God.

Quote:
That is not Monotheism.

Indeed not, I accept the existence of many supernatural beings. I do not accept that they are all just. You need to show me.

We also believe in the existence of many supernatural beings.

There are exacty three types:

1. God
2. Angels-type-good
3. Angels-type-evil

One of those types is “unjust” in intent (intending evil), though it has no power to actually BE unjust, as it doesn’t “pass judgement”.

Does the buddhist consider God as evil (unjust)?
Does the buddhist consider Angels-type-good as evil?
Does the buddhist consider Angels-type-evil as evil?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

This argument also applies to pregnant Israelite women and their unborn children. Is God applying one set of criteria to pregnant Midianites and a different set of criteria to pregnant Israelites? How is it just to apply different criteria on the basis of tribal affiliation?

Now you seem to be confusing mercy and justice. God spared the Israelites. God did not spare the Midianites. That does not make one “tribal affiliation” justified - it underscores the lack of righteousness in both and reveals God’s mercy to the Israelites.

rossum:

You claim that God is just. I deny that the God of the Old Testament is just. You cannot merely assume what you have to prove.

I am not assuming anything here. I’m relying on revelation from scripture that states God is just and mercifull. You are the one who assumes - based upon flawed human notions of “justice” - that God’s taking of one human life as opposed to another human life must be deemed unjust absent criminal conduct. You have it backward again. Every moment of life is a gift from God. He does not owe us life unless we commit a crime. Quite the contrary. We know from the OT (Genesis) that we humans rejected God’s love from the beginning. Without redemption, we are doomed to remain in fear of God’s judgment. We have no right to demand anything from God.

rossum:

Again, exactly the same question applies to the pregnant Israelites… Why does God treat Midianites and Israelites differently?

It is not because the Israelites “deserve” to live while the Midianites “deserve” death. Again, I think you are confusing mercy and injustice.

rossum:

When God is described as “The God of Israel” does that mean that He is biased towards Israelites? I am not Jewish so should I find a different God who is not biased against me? How can a biased God be just? Justice is not biased.

First, God loves all of His children. (I am the father of my son. Am I therefore not the father of my daughter?) Second, there is no other God.

The Israelites were/are a necessary part of salvation history. They were shown mercy, but they were also chastized and punished, and overrun, and taken into captivity, and dispersed. Does that mean God loves them or others less? Of course not. (Does the Buddha teach that love is a zero-sum game?)

rossum:

A parent is “intimately involved” in their children’s very existence from the beginning. Does that give parents the right to kill their children? This is a very weak argument.

Again, I think you misunderstand the difference between God and parents. God is the author of all life. Parents are the pen and paper - at best - mere cooperants with His creative power. Does your pen have a right to decide what you write. Can your paper “object” to what is written on it? To what extent do either pen or paper take part in your act of creativity?

rossum:

If not criminality then what? What had the unborn Midianites done, or not done, that was different from what the unborn Israelites had done, or not done? If there is no difference then how can God’s actions be just?

What makes you assume that either group had the right to demand from God that they continue to live? Do you think God owes you anything - do you really think you can demand anything at all from God? God as the author of all life, can give it out in whatever measure He chooses. Every moment of it is His gift to the individual person.

rossum:

I do not accept this. You have to show that God’s actions are just, not merely define them as ipso facto just… Count up how many people the Buddha kills. Count up how many people God kills. I know which of the two I prefer.

Count up how many persons God created (all of them) and how many persons Buddha created (none of them). How many people that were “killed” by God had the right to demand that He not kill them? On what basis? If parents give one child a jelly bean and another child two jelly beans, does the first child have the right to demand 1 more?

rossum:

Indeed not, I accept the existence of many supernatural beings. I do not accept that they are all just. You need to show me.

I do not believe that all supernatural beings are just. Supernatural beings include God (the Just Judge), angels who are good in nature but do not judge and fallen angels who are bad in nature but also do not judge. All but God are creatures. There are no lesser gods. Divinity belongs only to One God.

Nothing you have argued disproves the just nature of God. Indeed, it would be unjust to say that a person who was given all things - including their very existence - by God is owed any right to compel God to maintain any present condition.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[rossum]

Do you believe that God will repay the suffering of those who suffer, or not?

I believe that all living beings, gods included, will reap the consequences of their actions. God’s action in ordering the killing of pregnant women, and hence the killing of their unborn children, was unwise, and He will suffer consequences of His actions.

You have not said why it can be just for God to discriminate between unborn children on the basis of tribal affiliation. It is Christians who claim that God is just; I dispute that claim in the case of the God of the Old Testament.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Show me how God “kills” His children?

The commandment “You shall not kill” refers to the end of physical life. If “kill” does not apply because the soul of the murder victim survives, then all murders cease to be immoral. In this case “kill” refers to the death of the body and not to the death of the soul. Abortion is wrong, but you seem to be saying it is allowed because the soul survives.

The Midianites had one meaning in that episode, and the Israelites had another meaning in that episode.

That argument does not convince me. Could not an omnipotent and omniscienct God have found a way to get His point across without killing people?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why? I can’t show you that which I am incapable of showing you, now can I?

I am not asking you for anything about yourself, I am asking for evidence that the OT God was just in his actions. It is you who are making the calim that God is just; I wish to see the evidence to counteract the prima facie evidence that many of his actions were not just.

Do you, or do you not, consider the “Christian God” as evil (or non-existent)?

Buddhist scriptures describe a very long lived and powerful god who believes (wrongly) that he created the universe and all other living beings in it, see the Brahmajala sutta DN 1. That god is unenlightened and capable of mistakes. Like all other living beings he needs to become enlightened in order to escape further rebirths.

Buddha does not claim to be God, now does He? How is comparing God (THE God) with a mere “enlightened” mortal in any way meaningful?

A Buddha is higher than any god precisely because a Buddha is enlightened. Buddhas are not reborn, gods are. The Buddha does not kill as many people as the OT God does, which is one reason I prefer the Buddha.

Does Buddha deny that death is “meaningless”? Of course he doesn’t. And in that he agrees with God.

The Buddha tells us not to injure living things. The OT God failed to do that and will suffer the consequences of His actions.

Does the buddhist consider God as evil (unjust)?

Does the buddhist consider Angels-type-good as evil?
Does the buddhist consider Angels-type-evil as evil?
Some of God’s action are unwise and/or unjust; other actions are wise and/or just. All living beings, including both God and the Devil, including angels and devils, will eventually become enlightened.

rossum

 

[rossum]

My apologies for not replying earlier, I have been away for three days staying in Tom Paine’s cottage in Sandwich.

Now you seem to be confusing mercy and justice. God spared the Israelites. God did not spare the Midianites. That does not make one “tribal affiliation” justified - it underscores the lack of righteousness in both and reveals God’s mercy to the Israelites.

Then the question becomes why did God spare the Israelite, Chinese, Native American, Celtic and all other tribes worldwide with pregnant women, but just not spare the Midianites. An arbitrary, tribally based mercy cannot be justice or indeed true mercy if it is tribally based. You still have the problem of the tribal bias in God’s actions.

I am not assuming anything here. I’m relying on revelation from scripture that states God is just and mercifull.

That is one of my problems with the Christian God. The words say “just” and “merciful” but the actions, especially in the Old Testament, say differently. Actions speak louder.

You are the one who assumes - based upon flawed human notions of “justice” - that God’s taking of one human life as opposed to another human life must be deemed unjust absent criminal conduct.

The word “justice” is a word in a flawed human language, defined in a flawed human dictionary. Since we are not gods, but only humans, the only understanding of “justice” we can have can only ever be human. I can have no other notion of justice, nor can you and nor can any other human being. It is pointless discussing a notion of “justice++” that we cannot ever understand. On any practical notion of justice, God’s actions are difficult to justify. I do not accept the reified notion of justice you are trying to introduce here.

First, God loves all of His children. (I am the father of my son. Am I therefore not the father of my daughter?)

Then he had a strange way of showing it to those unborn Midianite children.

Second, there is no other God.

My scriptures say different.

Again, I think you misunderstand the difference between God and parents. God is the author of all life.

God may possibly be a distant cause, but the immediate cause of all life we observe is a parent or parents, depending on whether the species is asexual or not.

Parents are the pen and paper - at best - mere cooperants with His creative power. Does your pen have a right to decide what you write. Can your paper “object” to what is written on it? To what extent do either pen or paper take part in your act of creativity?

This is a flawed analogy; paper and pen are not alive and do not have the ability to act on their own account.

What makes you assume that either group had the right to demand from God that they continue to live?

That is not my point. My point is about the actions of God, not the actions of the Midianites or Israelites.

Count up how many persons God created (all of them) and how many persons Buddha created (none of them).

The Buddha had a child, Rahula, in his last life. He will have had other children in his previous lives.

How many people that were “killed” by God had the right to demand that He not kill them?

All of them. Moral law forbids killing, and moral law applies to gods as much as it applies to humans. I am not attracted to a God who says “Do as I say, not as I do.”

rossum

 

[Robert_in_SD]

My apologies for not replying earlier, I have been away for three days staying in Tom Paine’s cottage in Sandwich.

Not a problem. I hope you had a grand holiday.

rossum:

Then the question becomes why did God spare the Israelite, Chinese, Native American, Celtic and all other tribes worldwide with pregnant women, but just not spare the Midianites. An arbitrary, tribally based mercy cannot be justice or indeed true mercy if it is tribally based. You still have the problem of the tribal bias in God’s actions.

Because God chose - for whatever reason - to set forth the children of Abraham as an important step in salvation history. I suppose he could have chosen the Irish, Chinese, or Native Americans and accomplished a similar result. The fact that he selected the Israelites to assist in salvation history does not make God unjust.

Remember that Christians believe that the "family of God was initiated with Adam and Eve, progressed through family to tribe (Abraham), to nation (Judah), and with the New Covenant - a worldwide family of God. The fact that God revealed his mercy and his nature to the world through the Israelites and not another semetic tribe does not establish his injustice. The question has an answer. You just do not seem to accept it.

rossum:

That is one of my problems with the Christian God. The words say “just” and “merciful” but the actions, especially in the Old Testament, say differently. Actions speak louder.

You are not considering the bigger picture - from a salvific point of view. God’s concerns in the OT are oriented towards eternal destiny and salvation from eternaly separation, rather than towards earthly lifespans. Everything that happened and is recorded in the OT foreshadows the absolutely unmerited salvation that comes about in the NT. Your “problem” is that you reject the necessity of salvation; therefore you cannot understand the OT in light of eternal salvation.

rossum:

I do not accept the reified notion of justice you are trying to introduce here.

It is not a refined notion of justice that I am introducing. I am simply telling you that God owes us nothing. If God gives you 60 years of life and me 50, am I “cheated” by God? Of course not. Instead I have been given the unmerited gift of 50 years of life. For God to take my life at any point is simply not unjust, because I have done nothing to demand continuing life from God. This is not a “refined” definition. It is quite simple.

rossum:

Then he had a strange way of showing it to those unborn Midianite children.

And do you know where those Midianite children are now? Perhaps they are enjoying the beatific vision of God, and have been doing so for centuries without ever knowing a life of pain and suffering under a despotic ruler?

rossum:

My scriptures say different.

But you are judging my scriptures and to do so you must be internally consistent, right?

rossum:

God may possibly be a distant cause, but the immediate cause of all life we observe is a parent or parents, depending on whether the species is asexual or not.

Just as a pen is the immediate cause of ink on a page. But it isn’t the creator… it is a tool. In the case of a mother and father, they cannot create life apart from God. It is only by cooperating with God in the creative process that life is created. The parents, as the pen and paper, are not in the same position as the author.

rossum:

This is a flawed analogy; paper and pen are not alive and do not have the ability to act on their own account.

It is an analogy which by nature is not an exact thing. But my point is that parents, apart from God have no power to create life. Therefore, they do not have the authority of a creator to end life. It is the authority that is at issue here. Animation certainly would give your pen the ability to edit your writing, but would you say that animation also gives a pen the right to edit what you have written?

rossum:

That is not my point. My point is about the actions of God, not the actions of the Midianites or Israelites.

If the Midianites had no right to stop God from ending their lives, and if God as creator had the right to measure out the amount of life given to every one of His creations, there is no injustice.

rossum:

The Buddha had a child, Rahula, in his last life. He will have had other children in his previous lives.

Buddha fathered a child. He cooperated in the divine act of creation. He was not the author of his son’s life… merely a participant (although an important one) in God’s act of creating. Buddha did not create his son’s sould. He contributed the DNA (which was given to Him by God) that was necessary for his son’s life.

rossum:

All of them. Moral law forbids killing, and moral law applies to gods as much as it applies to humans. I am not attracted to a God who says “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Moral law forbids US from killing each other, although there are even exceptions to that rule - e.g. self-defense. God, on the other hand cannot be compelled by us to provide life beyond what He has ordained. This is not injustice. It is God’s plan.

God does not say, “Do as I say, not as I do.” He says pick up your cross and follow me. I am very attracted to a God who shows the depth of His love for me, by laying down His very life for me.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[rossum]

I hope you had a grand holiday.

Very nice thank you, we seem to have picked a part of England that had four days of sunshine, rather than cloud and rain.

I suspect that we are not going to agree on God and moral law. You seem to be going for the monarchial view of God: God makes the laws so He is not subject to them Himself - just as the English monarch is not subject to English law.

Buddhist moral law is different, it is more like the law of gravity and it applies to all living beings. No living being is exempt and all will have to live with the consequences of their actions.

You seem to be applying one set of rules to God and a different set of rules to humans. Buddhism applies the same set of rules to both. That seems to me to be a fundamental difference with each side getting support from its own scriptures.

rossum

 

[soma]

Jesus said, “You reap what you sow.” The gravity seems to apply to all even Christians.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Very nice thank you, we seem to have picked a part of England that had four days of sunshine, rather than cloud and rain.

I’m not familiar with that region. I thought Parliament passed a law saying no place in England could go without rain for more than 3 consecutive days?

rossum:

I suspect that we are not going to agree on God and moral law. You seem to be going for the monarchial view of God: God makes the laws so He is not subject to them Himself - just as the English monarch is not subject to English law.

Not quite. God is subject to His own nature - which is perfect. He cannot act contrary to his own nature. We are subject to God in a greater sense than we are subject to earthly monarchs. And of course we would both agree that earthly monarchs are human with flawed human natures that are ultimately subject to God’s laws and must answer to Him - eventually. God has no such obligation to comply with human law. But He cannot act contrary to His own nature.

rossum:

Buddhist moral law is different, it is more like the law of gravity and it applies to all living beings. No living being is exempt and all will have to live with the consequences of their actions.

This distinction makes perfect sense to me, as Buddhism operates separate and apart from the notion of a personal Divine Being. Your flaw is that you presume to make a monotheistic God subject to human rules rather than contemplating the nature of a supreme being who - by definition would answer to no one. Notwithstanding the fact that God is not subject to any human notion of law and justice, He cannot change His perfect nature or act contrary to it.

rossum:

You seem to be applying one set of rules to God and a different set of rules to humans. Buddhism applies the same set of rules to both. That seems to me to be a fundamental difference with each side getting support from its own scriptures.

I agree. God is clearly not subject to the human law. If He were, then only practicing Catholics would be able to get to heaven - through the ordinay means of salvation that flows from the sacraments of the Church. Since God is not subject to the rules set for humanity - and that is entirely consistent with God being who He is - you too have the possibility of salvation although not in conformity with God’s plan for humanity as provided in the visible Church. In other words, He instituted the Church and the sacraments but is not thereby compelled to operate within that framework as it pertains to each person’s salvation. In the same way, the author of all creation set forth standards of behavior and conduct for all of humanity, but is not bound to act within those boundaries.

Nevertheless, God (as the Creator of all) is the source of all Mercy and Justice and - because that is part of His divine and perfect nature - His actions cannot depart from these virtues, even though we may see (as through a mirror darkly) the human deaths of individuals. It is not God’s flaw - it is our flawed understanding and flawed perception of God’s reality.

Rossum, I think we’ve taken this discussion about as far as it can go. However, if you want the last word here, please feel free to take it. I’m sure we’ll talk again on this thread.

Peace be with you,
-Robert

 

[rossum]

Rossum, I think we’ve taken this discussion about as far as it can go.

Agreed. Thank you for providing an interesting and thoughtful alternative.

Peace be with you

And with you.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I believe that all living beings, gods included, will reap the consequences of their actions. God’s action in ordering the killing of pregnant women, and hence the killing of their unborn children, was unwise, and He will suffer consequences of His actions.

One who has a basic non-understanding of what “God” means can’t be conversed with about anything “theological”, as the “theo” portion of their understanding is simply missing.

Best to you!

You have not said why it can be just for God to discriminate between unborn children on the basis of tribal affiliation. It is Christians who claim that God is just; I dispute that claim in the case of the God of the Old Testament.

rossum

God simply IS justice, and can’t DO injustice, therefore (quite logically) it is not unjust for God to do what God does, one case of which is your description of His “unjust discrimination” based on “tribal affiliation”.

It would be perfectly just for God to allow a massive asteroid, or a planet-evaporating gamma-ray burst, to kill off all life forms on the earth.

His allowing us to HAVE life at this moment, even if it’s only for the next millisecond, is an infinitely gratuitous gift which we don’t deserve in the least.

That a few people were chosen to be an “object lesson” of the consequences of sin is simply His way of doing that particular days syllabus!

You arrogate to yourself the “right” to pass judgment on that which it is not possible to pass judgment on, which by definition is what God is.

That is why discussing “theology” with folks like yourself is like discussing advanced math with a bowl of porridge.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Show me how God “kills” His children?

The commandment “You shall not kill” refers to the end of physical life. If “kill” does not apply because the soul of the murder victim survives, then all murders cease to be immoral.

Who is the “you” in “you shall not kill”?

It is particular men, and not God, nor even the non-person creations of God who are commanded to “not kill” (which really means “not murder” by the way).

God, and His non-person creations, are fully allowed to kill those persons which can earthly-like DIE. (This leaves out angels and demons of course, as they can’t earthly-like die.)

Why is God (and His non-person creations) allowed to kill, and to kill even the innocent? Because He does so without sin, because He can’t sin. If HE does it, it is for a most-wise purpose (as He is the all-wise), and because when He does it He is most-just in doing so (as He is the all-just), meaning that He rewards more than abundantly any suffering incurred.

In this case “kill” refers to the death of the body and not to the death of the soul. Abortion is wrong, but you seem to be saying it is allowed because the soul survives.

Abortion is wrong because it is murder of the innocent, which we are not allowed to do.

Natural “abortion”, due to malformation of the growing person, is like “death by old age”, which is done (allowed) by God and not “wrong” (not a sin) because no person culpable of sin “did” it.

Quote:
The Midianites had one meaning in that episode, and the Israelites had another meaning in that episode.

That argument does not convince me. Could not an omnipotent and omniscienct God have found a way to get His point across without killing people?

No argument will convince you until you understand what “God” means.

God is not constrained to YOUR sense of how things should be done “properly”.

You can certainly CLAIM that you know what is the most-wise way for any “lesson” to be taught about the consequences of sin (which is why this world is as it is), but do you really think it’s wise of you to do so?

Even you would have to demand “support” for your own claim, which you know full well you can’t give.