SPLIT: Catholicism vs. other world religions

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
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.

You once again put the cart before the horse.

God simply IS just, and can’t be otherwise. You think that God might NOT be just and needs to show that He IS just.

This is our “impasse”. Those who don’t know what “God” means assume that one can “deduce” God from their own senses regardless of their “habitual preconceptions”.

God is known primarily, and initially, from revelation, and not from “sense data”. Sense data about God must be “fit into” the known “shape” of God, and God must not be “constructed” from fragments of “sense data”.

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.

Your “prima facie” evidence is faulty because it is always incomplete, and doesn’t consider that nature of the source of the phenomena under consideration.

I don’t need to show you that God is always just, and in fact admittedly can’t do so, any more than I can “prove” revelation to you as being truth, because only God Himself can do that, and your preconceptions forbid your thinking processes from allowing God to actually do that for you.

I don’t claim that God is always just. I boldly assert that God is always just. I do this because it has been proved to me, via revelation, that it is utterly true.

You can construct a very interesting “God”, or otherwise “basis” for your belief system, from your “sense data”, but the ultimate “destination” of where that construction takes you is acceptance of sinful (though not necessarily mortally sinful) behavior as “not sinful”.

 

[rossum]

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.

I realise that Buddhist and Christian attitudes to God/gods are different. That does not prevent us having a discussion, even if we do not agree we can gain a better understanding of each other’s position.

God simply IS justice

This I do not accept. You are just assuming what you have to prove. That is not a valid argument.

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”.

Then one rule applies to God and a different rule to us. God becomes a “do as I say, not as I do” kind of God. Why should I show any reppect for rules laid down by a God who cannot even keep to His own rules? Actions speak louder …

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.

Then you definition of “perfectly just” differs from mine. Why would you expect me to follow a God who would commit such an atrocity and pretend that His action was “perfectly just”. You are not making your God look very attractive here.

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!

My point is that the method of chosing was unjust, based on tribal affiliation rather than on anything the unborn children in question had actually done. That makes God’s action arbitrary rather than just.

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.

I do not pass judgement, moral law ensures that all actions get their appropriate reward. If God did act as reported then He is in for an unpleasant time.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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.

Manichaenism

Quote:
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.

The student “prefers” easy lessons as opposed to those he most wisely needs to learn which are “harder”.

The buddhist is not really interested in “wisdom”, but only “comfortable avoidance”. He prefers to listen to “comforting half-truths” instead of “hard truths”.

I would also prefer “comforting half-truths” as my lessons, but I value wisdom (truth) over (supposed) ease.

Quote:
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.

Hah ha ha ha ha!!

Oh, very good! Meanwhile, back to the thinking of Mani…

A buddha’s prime “goal” is the escape from conscious existence, which means to “de-person” the person. This is the exact opposite of what God wants. God will never allow persons to be “de-personed”, as only He can do that and won’t, as God values ONLY persons since they are “His image” given to us.

Buddhas wants oblivion, which is the goal sought for by the “power” which is called “evil”. Buddhas THINK (too much and listen too little) that they want “peace”, but their “peace” is actually a “mask” which evil uses to draw them (of their own goodness) into an everlasting desire for oblivion.

Oblivion can never be had, as God won’t allow it, but evil LOVES company in it’s eternal misery in wanting it.

 

[rossum]

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.)

So God cannot keep to His own rules. What an inconsistent God you have.

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

But your God is allowed to kill the innocent. What an unattractive God you have.

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

No argument will convince me that the God you portray is worthy of my worship.

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

But He is constrained by moral law. This is a fundamental difference between Buddhism and Christianity, they give different answers to the Euthyphro dilemma. In Christianity things are moral purely because God says they are. In Buddhism things are moral and the gods have no choice about the matter. Christianity sees God as a monarch, who is above the law. Buddhism has a more republican outlook where all living beings are governed by the same moral law.

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?

I merely asked why an omnipotent deity could not find a better way to give a lesson than to slaughter innocents. Is you God that bereft of ideas that He cannot think of a better way to do things?

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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.

A buddha’s goal is “enlightenment”, which means “oblivion” in practice.

The “end product” of buddhism is universal oblivion. The “end product” of Christianity is universal allowance of the will of the person.

Those who will joy will be allowed it. Those who will torment will be allowed it.

The Christian chooses. The buddhist equivocates. What does the buddhist equivocate about? About how to avoid the worst path toward the worst goal.

It’s fine to choose the not-worst (less evil) path, or even the BEST (most good) path, toward one’s goal, but if the goal is the “peaceful” mask of evil, is one really being wise?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
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.

I realise that Buddhist and Christian attitudes to God/gods are different. That does not prevent us having a discussion, even if we do not agree we can gain a better understanding of each other’s position.

I have no problem discussing the consequences of a “theology” based on “gods” (as opposed to God).

But we mustn’t conflate “gods” with God.

Polytheism, which is what buddhism is in actuality with the addition of the “uber-enlightenment” state that “surmounts” the gods, and the god’s gods, and THEIR god’s into infinitum, is quite logically supportable given it’s axioms.

But the conclusion, the actual POINT of buddhism, is “oblivion”, which one must accept given buddhism’s structure.

And while I can certainly see the logic that leads to the conclusion that oblivion is the end-product of buddhism, I can’t accept that conclusion as REAL because I have information that makes that conclusion nonsensical.

Your “position” is that the structure of buddhism and it’s necessary conclusion is acceptable as truth to you, and (presumably) you can show me why you’re right.

My “position” is that you’re wrong, and I can show you precisely how you’re wrong.

We’re not having this discussion to convince each other that the other is wrong, but only to explicitly expose how the other is wrong.

I have no problem with you exposing how I am wrong. Do you have a problem with me exposing how you are wrong?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
God simply IS justice

This I do not accept. You are just assuming what you have to prove. That is not a valid argument.

But that’s just IT!

I do NOT have to prove this assertion!

It was given to me as a REVELATION (via the Magisterium) as a dogma, an axiom.

Since “revelation” (via the Magisterium) is nonsense to non-Christians, it’s not surprising that you’d need proof that this simple truth is true. The problem is that it is to be accepted axiomatically, or the proof of it is to be perpetually chased after unsuccessfully until earthly-death.

That is simply the nature of true religion. Accept what is to be accepted, or chase your tail until “decision time”.

Quote:
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”.

Then one rule applies to God and a different rule to us. God becomes a “do as I say, not as I do” kind of God. Why should I show any reppect for rules laid down by a God who cannot even keep to His own rules? Actions speak louder …

What you SEE (sense data) as God not doing as He says is simply an incorrect interpretation of what He is showing you, based on your habitual perceptual tendencies.

In other words, you don’t like the lesson because it’s “too hard” and call the teacher “mean” because “no true God would be mean”.

This allows you to “conspire” (with yourself and others) to conceive of God having teacher-peers, His colleagues, and these “gods” having teachers of their own, His teachers (god’s gods), and for reality (meaning “the ultimate ground of being”) to be pushed back into the “obscurity” of irrelevancy at an infinite distance.

This allows the “conspiring student” to sit in his chair, humming “ohm”, and being “nice” (whatever he thinks that means) to his fellow students while learning little to nothing about the lesson for the period.

In the end, the student is allowed his choice to consider the teacher as “just some mean do-as-I-say tyrant” who is irrelevant in the great scheme of things whose lessons about reality are self-serving.

Then comes his exposure to actual reality, when it becomes quite obvious that he should have paid attention.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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.

Then you definition of “perfectly just” differs from mine. Why would you expect me to follow a God who would commit such an atrocity and pretend that His action was “perfectly just”. You are not making your God look very attractive here.

I don’t expect you to follow A God. I expect you to follow God, Himself. One doesn’t choose a god from amongst a set of gods. One chooses God or not-God.

Why would the utter destruction of the earth be “an atrocity”, from the buddhist perspective?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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!

My point is that the method of chosing was unjust, based on tribal affiliation rather than on anything the unborn children in question had actually done. That makes God’s action arbitrary rather than just.

Is choosing “Bobby” over “Susie” to answer the question on the board being “unjust” to either Bobby or Susie?

Do you realize that when you say “unjust” you actually mean “not nice”?

Quote:
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.

I do not pass judgement, moral law ensures that all actions get their appropriate reward. If God did act as reported then He is in for an unpleasant time.

You are perfectly correct!

What you think you know as “reported acts of meanness” by God is your problem. That you accept “tales” (interpretations) that God has been “mean” simply says that you don’t know what “God” means, and nothing more.

And, since you are at base polytheo-mechanicalistic, it’s quite logical that you’d consider God as subject to “others” judgment.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
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.)

So God cannot keep to His own rules. What an inconsistent God you have.

But He does keep His own rules!

He can’t murder, but He can kill, just as we are never allowed to murder, though we are allowed to kill.

Why can’t He murder? Because murder is against God’s will, whose will God can’t be against.

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

But your God is allowed to kill the innocent. What an unattractive God you have.

God allows the killing of the innocent, such as by the action of His non-person creation (e.g. the aforesaid “killer asteroid”), but does not actually KILL the innocent.

Those killed, in ANY case, are rewarded for their suffering while “earthly”, and if they are truly innocent (not in the state of mortal sin) then they will not be “rewarded” with hell.

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

No argument will convince me that the God you portray is worthy of my worship.

Ah, there you go needing proof before you’ll believe, instead of the necessary order of things, which is to believe before receiving proof!

And as long as you require that order of reasoning, you will be searching for a goal for your “right behavior”.

Without a proper goal, all the “striving”, all the “right behaving”, is worthless.

Luckily, you are embedded in a world where the default goal is in fact God. It takes (much intellectual) work to find the “masks” of God that are placed before us by evil which draw us into seeking oblivion, and into hell.

You may well be quite far along in having found one of those masks.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
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?

I merely asked why an omnipotent deity could not find a better way to give a lesson than to slaughter innocents. Is you God that bereft of ideas that He cannot think of a better way to do things?

That is the same exact question as, “Why wasn’t the world created perfect to begin with?”

I can’t give you an explanation as to why the world a it is now is the most wise way to move humanity along in it’s education of the consequences of sin, simply because I’m not God.

You want God to explain to you PERSONALLY why “all is not perfect”, and use the lack of that explicit explanation as PROOF that God is not God, but only one of a nearly infinite pantheon of “powerful daddies and mommies” who will “get theirs!” for being “mean” to their “children”, such as yourself.

And what do you replace God with? A “machine”, who is not a person but only an inexorable mechanism, which had no creator and will never wear-out, which we “polluted persons” should emulate in it’s impersonality and in it’s seeking toward oblivion.

Thus, the buddhist follows after the mask of the oblivion-seeker out of frustration at having been “hurt” and “wounded” by reality.

 

[rossum]

God simply IS just

You are assuming what you need to prove. Argument by assertion will not convince many people.

Manichaenism

Please read your own reference. Mani incorporated elements of Buddhism into his religion. You would be more correct to call it Buddhism.

The buddhist is not really interested in “wisdom”, but only “comfortable avoidance”. He prefers to listen to “comforting half-truths” instead of “hard truths”.

Your attempt to describe this Buddhist has failed. How about:The Christian is not really interested in “wisdom”, but only “comfortable avoidance”. He prefers to listen to “comforting half-truths” instead of “hard truths”.
Not really a very good argument was it.

A buddha’s goal is “enlightenment”, which means “oblivion” in practice.

No. Enlightenemt is not oblivion. The Buddha became enlightened at age thirty five, he died at age eighty. He was alive and living and preaching in the intervening forty five years. That was definitely not oblivion. You have misunderstood the nature of enlightenment so your argument based on that misunderstanding fails.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I do NOT have to prove this assertion!

It was given to me as a REVELATION (via the Magisterium) as a dogma, an axiom.

You may not have to prove it to yourself, but you do have to prove it to me if you want me to accept it. I am not Catholic so I do not accept the authority of the Magisterium unless I can see that it is supported by evidence that I can accept. It is your job to provide that evidence. Mere assertion does not provide sufficient evidence.

Since “revelation” (via the Magisterium) is nonsense to non-Christians, it’s not surprising that you’d need proof that this simple truth is true.

Many people from many different religions make many different assertions. Why should I treat your assertions any differently?

That is simply the nature of true religion. Accept what is to be accepted, or chase your tail until “decision time”.

How do I know what is the true religion? There are many who claim to have such a thing. Why should I accept your claim above all the others? Show me the evidence.

Why would the utter destruction of the earth be “an atrocity”, from the buddhist perspective?

The first of the Buddhist moral rules is to “avoid causing injury to living things.” Destroying the earth would cause injury to a great many living things. The perpetrator would suffer the consequences of such an evil act:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
God simply IS just

You are assuming what you need to prove. Argument by assertion will not convince many people.

But I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m simply stating facts. I have no desire to convince you (or anyone) that 1+1=2 either. That is simply a fact to be “given”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Manichaenism

Please read your own reference. Mani incorporated elements of Buddhism into his religion. You would be more correct to call it Buddhism.

And both Manichaenism and buddhism suffer from the same error. That was my point.

Quote:
The buddhist is not really interested in “wisdom”, but only “comfortable avoidance”. He prefers to listen to “comforting half-truths” instead of “hard truths”.

Your attempt to describe this Buddhist has failed. How about:

The Christian is not really interested in "wisdom", but only "comfortable avoidance". He prefers to listen to "comforting half-truths" instead of "hard truths".

Not really a very good argument was it.

Your response is an echo of 4th grade: “I know you are, but what am I?”

If you’d like to try to respond to my point that the buddhist is not concerned with learning from the world about how to be more human by being less attached to the unimportant (comfort) and more attached to what IS important (God), but only in avoiding the “bad feelings” of the world by concentrating on the illusion that the world is unreal, I’d be happy to respond to that.

And once again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, nor change your belief system. I’m simply showing you the natural consequences of holding the beliefs that you choose to hold within this reality as it actually is, as made known to us by God via the Church.

You’re more than welcome to show me the consequences of my beliefs according to your faith. Go for it!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
A buddha’s goal is “enlightenment”, which means “oblivion” in practice.

No. Enlightenemt is not oblivion. The Buddha became enlightened at age thirty five, he died at age eighty. He was alive and living and preaching in the intervening forty five years. That was definitely not oblivion. You have misunderstood the nature of enlightenment so your argument based on that misunderstanding fails.

Where is the Buddha now? Is he in his “oblivion”?

Enlightenment, as buddhists describe it, is a delusion.

There is no difference between “ultimate enlightenment”, which is the de-personing of the person, and oblivion, as described by buddhist teaching.

The goal of so-called enlightenment is “detachment from personal consciousness”, which is the very description of the goal of evil to a Christian. Detachment from the unimportant is NOT a goal of evil, of course, but if one does not know God as the most important of a hierarchy of important goals then whatever one’s goal IS is a relatively unimportant one, and will inevitably lead one to seek oblivion (the goal of evil) as the relief for the “pain” of knowing (inherently) that one’s goal is fatally flawed.

All that is necessary to know about buddhism to describe it as a “false goal” (or rather a system which helps one work toward a false goal) is to know the aforementioned, and it can easily be shown, though utterly unconvincingly to the non-Christian, what the “not always good” consequences of that “faith” are for each individual belief within it.

So, show me a behavior, belief or dogma of said faith and I’ll show you why it’s good or bad.

 

[rossum]

You’re more than welcome to show me the consequences of my beliefs according to your faith. Go for it!

Beliefs do not have consequences, actions do. The consequences of beliefs are indirect, caused by the actions motivated by those beliefs.

The Dhammapada says:To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one’s mind - this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5
The first two can be found in Christian belief, the third is present but not as strongly as in Buddhism.

• avoid all evil: follow the Ten Commandments.
• cultivate good: “love others as you love yourself.”
• cleanse one’s mind: try saying the Jesus Prayer.

Following these actions will lead to a better rebirth and eventually you will be reborn into a life where you become Buddhist. From there you can learn in a lot more detail about the path and the various meditation techniques. Christianity has a generally good morality, but it is deficient in meditation. Becoming Buddhist allows you to remedy that deficiency; it also makes following the first two easier because meditation helps you become more aware of your actions and their consequences.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
I do NOT have to prove this assertion!

It was given to me as a REVELATION (via the Magisterium) as a dogma, an axiom.

You may not have to prove it to yourself, but you do have to prove it to me if you want me to accept it.

I DON’T want you to accept it! It would be great if you did, but that’s just my selfish desire for others to know the truth as opposed to them not knowing the truth, as I happen to think that it’s a good thing fo people to know the truth.

YOU have come HERE to interact with Catholics and get their reactions as to your buddhism. I’m simply giving you what you want.

I am not Catholic so I do not accept the authority of the Magisterium unless I can see that it is supported by evidence that I can accept. It is your job to provide that evidence. Mere assertion does not provide sufficient evidence.

Once again, we are not here to convert you. We are here to INFORM you.

We are not trying to convince you, by feeding you “evidence you’ll accept”, to change your faith. We are showing you the consequences of your faith within a reality that you don’t now accept AS the only reality that exists.

Which brings us right back around, once again, to our axiomatic belief that reality is only as that described to us by “our authority” in such matters, which to a Catholic is the Church Magisterium.

Quote:
Since “revelation” (via the Magisterium) is nonsense to non-Christians, it’s not surprising that you’d need proof that this simple truth is true.

Many people from many different religions make many different assertions. Why should I treat your assertions any differently?

You shouldn’t! If you fail to see the perfect coherence, explanatory power, and “anti-anxiety (‘productivity’) producing” sense in Christianity (Catholic) then your not up to the challenge of doing what is necessary to see it and have it.

Once again, WHY have you come here if you don’t want to hear about the “good news” of Christianity, and how it relieves the “bad news” of all lesser (in terms of “communional distance from God”) faiths?

Quote:
That is simply the nature of true religion. Accept what is to be accepted, or chase your tail until “decision time”.

How do I know what is the true religion? There are many who claim to have such a thing. Why should I accept your claim above all the others? Show me the evidence.

All our responses are our hints at why being Catholic is better than being elsewhat.

Only God can actually show you that His religion is the true one. That’s not our job, but God’s.

It’s very “fashionable” these days to give God peers. To say that all religions are on an equal footing as to their “validity”. That “your god and my god can co-exist”.

That is not compatible with Catholic belief, and we’re more than happy to show you why.

 

[rossum]

Where is the Buddha now?

Your question is wrongly put. Does God have green eyes or grey eyes?

Enlightenment, as buddhists describe it, is a delusion.

I know of some enlightened people and they say otherwise. Have you attained enlightenemnt yourself so you are in a position to contradict them?

Buddhists are well aware of the danger of mistaking a delusion for enlightenmenteople long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring.

There is no difference between “ultimate enlightenment”, which is the de-personing of the person, and oblivion, as described by buddhist teaching.

Nobody can become “de-personed” because everybody is already de-personed. You think you have a “self” but you are mistaken, what you think of as your “self” actually isn’t. Enlightenment is the process of realising that you have been mistaken. What you think of as your “self” is a deceptive mirage. Neither is it oblivion since oblivion would not look like a self. A mirage is not nothing because nothing does not look like water, while a mirage does. A mirage is not nothing but neither is it what it appears to be. Similarly your “self” is not nothing but neither is it what it appears to be. You have misunderstood Buddhism here, you are erring on the side of non-existence (“oblivion”) when Buddhism is the Middle Way between existence and non-existence.

So, show me a behavior, belief or dogma of said faith and I’ll show you why it’s good or bad.

For me one of the most important differences is that the final goal, nirvana, does not require my death to attain it. In Christianity the final goal, heaven, it not attainable this side of death.

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You’re more than welcome to show me the consequences of my beliefs according to your faith. Go for it!

Beliefs do not have consequences, actions do. The consequences of beliefs are indirect, caused by the actions motivated by those beliefs.

Agreed! All actions are based on our beliefs.

The Dhammapada says:

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind - this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada 14:5

The first two can be found in Christian belief, the third is present but not as strongly as in Buddhism.

* avoid all evil: follow the Ten Commandments.
* cultivate good: "love others as you love yourself."
* cleanse one's mind: try saying the Jesus Prayer.

Following these actions will lead to a better rebirth and eventually you will be reborn into a life where you become Buddhist.

From there you can learn in a lot more detail about the path and the various meditation techniques. Christianity has a generally good morality, but it is deficient in meditation.

The reason that buddhists say that is because of the inherent “sorcery” proclivity within buddhism. Buddhist meditation is seen, rather gnostically, as a means of manipulating reality, whereas Christian meditation is a means of hearing FROM reality.

Becoming Buddhist allows you to remedy that deficiency; it also makes following the first two easier because meditation helps you become more aware of your actions and their consequences.

Listening to reality (Christian meditation) does indeed make you more aware of why one should follow God’s rules (the consequences of good and bad behavior), while trying to manipulate reality by becoming a “non-person” is an attempt to force-fit behaviors one WANTS to do into “goodness”.

The prime “wanted behavior” of the buddhist is to “zone out” (aka “bliss-out”) so that suffering “disappears”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Where is the Buddha now?

Your question is wrongly put. Does God have green eyes or grey eyes?

Hah ha ha ha ha… nice koan.

To answer you directly, which you seldom seem to do for me, God the Son had eyes of some color, but I don’t know what they were. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit had no “biological” eyes, so their color is not an issue.

So, where (or “in what state”) is (the) Buddha now?