A
Ahimsa
Guest
Whether someone can be both Christian and Buddhist simultaneously is addressed in another thread. All of my answers are there.
- Status
A
agent_grey
Guest
The single number one belief system on planet earth among the educated is agnostic.
Each and every muslim that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
Each and every Christian that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
Each and every Jew that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
Each and every (instert what you like) that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
To deviate from the agnostic process of choice is flat out Idolatry.
Oh… and to believe that a book is innerant or holy is a primary clue to the practice of Idolatry.
Each and every muslim that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
Each and every Christian that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
Each and every Jew that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
Each and every (instert what you like) that actualy believes in the true God is Agnostic.
To deviate from the agnostic process of choice is flat out Idolatry.
Oh… and to believe that a book is innerant or holy is a primary clue to the practice of Idolatry.
meltzerboy
New member
Sufjon, I recall your relating this teaching to me previously. In Western thought, I believe it is called panentheism, in which G-d is apart from Nature while simultaneously being expressed in all things (as distinct from pantheism, in which G-d is Nature). For the most part, Traditional Orthodox Judaism is uneasy about this idea since it does not fully separate G-d from His creation. On the other hand, Jewish mysticism, inherent in the teachings of the Kabbala and espoused by Chasidic Judaism, teaches that the presence of G-d can be found not only in nature but in mundane things. Every object and activity in life is sanctified and becomes spiritual. In fact, this is the basis of Torah teaching, which takes nothing for granted since everything reflects G-d’s presence and gift, not only the creation of Man in the image of G-d. This would include the foods we prepare and eat, the clothes we wear, the words we utter or refrain from uttering, the business transactions we conduct, and so forth. And in what is considered particularly spiritual activity, such as lighting the Sabbath candles and studying Torah, the presence of G-d is felt in a tangible sense.
meltzerboy
New member
Your best explanation so far, Ahimsa, and much appreciated!
C
catharina
Guest
Unfamiliar with that thread, I’m saying thatWhether someone can be both Christian and Buddhist simultaneously is addressed in another thread. All of my answers are there.
the Christian faith accepts one who is wholly
commited to Christianity and therefore not
anyone who considers himself to be Buddhist.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You wrongly conclude that it is marketing. In any business one has to look at the product, the nature of the product, marketing, satisfaction, and all other sorts of things that cause a message to be transmitted. You may want to look at a book called “virus of the mind” and see how your message fails to be transmitted. Cognitave dissonance, repetition, and use seem to be the way thoughts travel in time.
Your conclusion as to what happens after death is supposition and may be why your marketing strategy fails. You cannot be certain however certainty is not prerequisite for transmission of thought. What is necessary is hope and in consideration that your message lacks hope and is concrete that may be why it fails.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
What Ahimsa is saying is that it is OK for Ahimsa to believe in theism/Christianity and nontheism/buddhism. This allows Ahimsa to spout the Buddhist nonsense. In consideration that nirvana is understanding that nonsense is relevant to life then this is not an insult and should be understood by Ahimsa. Making the world, the suffering, the toils and all other sorts of things is nonsense and in that sense Ahimsa spouts nonsense. In buddhist thinking that is a compliment. In Christianity well that is another thing.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Hallo, Ahimsa,
I believe you’re confusing monism (the belief in only one true reality) and monotheism (the belief in only one God). Let me demonstrate with a question: Does their belief in an ultimate reality negate their belief in multiple deities? Do they still believe in many gods/goddesses? Monotheism is belief in a single (only one) God. When you say you’re a monotheist, people will be confused if they discover that you have a goddess of this, and a god of that aspect of reality, and you worship them either as multiple manifestations of Brahman or in their own right. Every polytheistic religion has an ultimate god who creates the others, does that mean that there is really no polytheist religion?
I wont pretend to know a lot about Buddhism except
a) That it teaches a beautiful morality, the only one (in my very humble opinion) outside Christianity, that resembles closest the teaching of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
b) That it was founded by a very wise, good and humble sage who appears to me to resemble very much a great Christian Saint called st. Francis of Asisi.
c) That it’s focus is the truth as it can be found through man’s own experience of reality rather than an attempt by man at understanding deity- So I see it as natural religion, or religion by science, or even just a philosophy based on “Let’s focus on what we really know and do the best with it”. It therefore appears to be atheistic, but my view is that it just does not pretend to know what has not been revealed to it.
That again, is my humblest opinion, But it appears to me to be the best form of a natural religion and truly the highest moral perfection that man can acquire without special intervention and revelation from God, that is intervention beyond what he has made naturally or ordinarily available. It’s based on observation and "science’ therefore it’s a form of truth, as can be found without revelation, and based on experience. But that’s just my own personal view:shrug:.
There’s a lot of philosophical discussion, Greek to me, about the monism that many Buddhists believe in (only one true reality), that it is a consequence of the type of meditation they engage in, negating all thought and directly experiencing being (natural contemplation); that it negates all essences (distinctions) and experiences being (which all creatures and God, all that exists have in common) directly via negation such that if you base truth only on this experience you’ll end up concluding monism. This is discussed in comparisons with Thomistic thought by the great Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain about being(existence) and essence(distinctions between different beings) and how depending on how you approach it, you could end up experiencing one without the other…Any way, I’m already confused
and that is a topic for another thread.
I’ll focuss on the underlined part about Jesus in Christianity in the next post.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Ahimsa,
The nature of Christ is directly tied to the inner nature of God as understood by Christianity, that is God’s own experience in/of himself as opposed to his nature as understood by us and all that is not God.
I’m sure, you know that Christians believe in a single ultimate being, therefore one God. But Christians also believe he has three subjects (a subject here is person-hood, ie an experience of oneself that cannot be shared). These three by virtue of being persons are distinct, but since they each fully possess to the “ultimatest” limits the one divine nature, each as his own, they could never be more than one single being, never more than a single instance of existence, never three beings, never like you and I are two human beings- Never. Because that which is each one’s “own” fully is the exact same that is the other’s own fully. We say they are distinct not separate, we say they are in each other fully, and a single being. The 2nd person (God the Son, or the Divine word) took on a human nature, not a human person-hood as I explained it. Jesus is the divine Word, A distinct Person still posessing the entire divine nature from eternity (therefore always fully God), but also possessing a complete human nature like you and I have, (body and soul), as his own, like your own body and soul are your own, therefor fully human. One person, acting in two natures, each as his very own. Basically, we differentiate in all intelligent free beings, man, angel, God, the person-hood and the nature. Each person (except christ) has a single nature in which he acts, a single instance of being. Each being (except God) is possessed by a single person.
As a human being, Christ is not as you put it “equated” with God. Our creed says he is equal to the father in divinity, inferior to him in his humanity. His created human nature is not equal to God, but since it’s “God’s nature” as my own single human nature is my own, we don’t differentiate in speech. We say God, because whenever that limited nature acts, it’s God who is acting.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi Marybeloved,
I assume by “they” that you mean the Hindus, in which case I will refer to a specific Hindu tradition called Shaiva. Shaivas are those who believe that Shiva is the One Supreme Divine Person. At the same time, Shiva is the Ultimate Reality. So, Shaivas would say that both monotheism and monism apply to how they conceptualize Shiva.
In regards to the “multiple deities”, in Shaivism, these “multiple deities” (or “devas”) are not eternal, not all-powerful – they are simply spiritual beings with a large degree of power and knowledge, but they are not Shiva Himself. As such, these “deities” are analogous to the “angels” of Christian tradition – angels being also spiritual beings with a large degree of power and knowledge, without being God Himself. So, from a Shaiva perspective, an “angel” would be seen as a “deity”, a “deva” – and a deva is simply a spiritual being of significant power and knowledge; from a Shaiva perspective, any religion that believes in multiple angels is a “poly-devic”, or “poly-theistic”, religion.
I’m basically just making a single point: whether a religion is “monotheistic” or “polytheistic” depends upon how a person is defining, or conceptualizing, the “theos” in those two terms. Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Person” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual being”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva are “polytheistic”.
“Monism”, as defined by the OED: “Any theory, or system of thought or belief, that assumes a single ultimate principle, being, force, etc., rather than more than one.” The terms “principle”, “being”, “force” can be interpreted in many different ways, so this definition doesn’t tell us a whole lot, but it does point in the right direction. One can imagine that there might be a religion that says that “there is a single ultimate principle”, while at the same time saying that “there are multiple forces that exist in the cosmos”. Such a religion would be monistic in one way, non-monistic in another. I would suggest that Christianity teaches that “there is a single ultimate principle”, and that principle is love (“God is love”, e.g.). As such, Christianity can be seen to be monistic, at least on the level of principle.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Yes, that is a very common perspective.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Buddhism doesn’t deny that “theoi” exist, so Buddhism is hardly “non-theistic”.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi Marybeloved,
I put “equated” there because the early Christians gradually understood more and more Christ’s Divinity; that is, the early Christians gradually understood that Christ was to be equated (or understood as being equal with) God the Father. But my larger point was simply to point out that, whereas in Judaism, God is worshipped via human interaction with the Torah, the Torah is not equated with Divinity Itself; whereas in Christianity, Christ (the one Way to the Father) is seen as Divine.
W
Warrenton
Guest
A very close friend of mine is a Japanese Buddhist priest (cannot recall exactly which sect). We concluded that one can be Buddhist and Christian, but not the other way around!
It is complex.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I would not disagree with that statement. It is certainly easier to be Buddhist-and-then-also-Christian, than Christian-and-then-also-Buddhist (but I know instances of each).
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Hi, Ahimsa,
I’m sorry I’m a bit lost especially the last paragraph. Perhaps you could explain it a bit further. But Christianity has no equivalent of monism, we have no belief that we are ultimately one substance of any kind, be it love or other things. We don’t say that humans are love or the angels are love, but only God, so it has a specific meaning. But I could be wrong, I am not a philosopher. Again, if you could explain that last paragraph a bit more, that would be helpful.
The multi-vedas is very interesting. It appears to be close to our understanding of the hierarchy of angels, especially as taught by st Thomas Aquinas. But I don’t think that makes us poly-theistic in any way. To us they are simply other forms of beings, other than “human” beings that God has created like he has created us. They have their own story with God, their own relationships with God. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Devil being a “fallen angel”. The demons are the sinners among the angels, the good angels are the “saints/righteous” among the angels. So though they truly have unimaginably superior beings, they are like aliens discovered in another galaxy, perfect creatures though of a different and vastly superior form. They are more like brothers, never worshiped, and aren’t even contacted directly (apart from specific angels whose intercession is sought as with any other human saint- like the archangels St. Michael, St. Gabriel and St. Raphael and a person’s guardian angel). God himself uses them as messengers, protectors, maintainers of the order of the universe, but humans don’t make contact with angels. I believe it’s considered quite dangerous due to the presence of the dark angels among us. Do the Shaivas worship the vedas as intermediaries? Are they deities? The angels are not deities, God is the single deity to Christians.
Peace.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Ahimsa,
I’m not sure what you mean by early Christians. Do you mean the Christians of the first few centuries or the disciples of Jesus and the Christians taught directly by them? The Christians of the first centuries did formulate our creeds as a means of safeguarding the faith from heresies. But the idea that early Christians only slowly over time began to see Christ as God is a fallacy perpetuated by modernism, who want people to think that Christians “invented”.the Divinity of Christ in later centuries. You should not believe it, It’s not true.
Even in the gospels, you can find Jesus being called God by the Apostle st. Thomas, who fell on his knees to Jesus and exclaimed to him “My Lord and My God!”. St John says, in the beginning of his gospel, that in the beginning was the word, it was with God and was God, and became flesh and dwelt among us. Clearly the Apostles knew that Jesus was God. Even St. Paul wrote in his epistle that Christ “did not cling to his equality with God, but took the form of a slave and was born of a woman”. I forget the details, but even a pagan source from the 1st century describes christian practices at the time involving gathering to sing hymns to Christ “as to a god”, clearly those early Christians saw christ as nothing less than God, and the people recognized that they treated Christ the same way others treated their gods.
But I get your main point, so it’s Ok…just needed to clarify this.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi Marybeloved
Monism need not be the idea that everything is of one substance. It can also be the idea that everything is of one principle (see the OED quote above). And in Christianity, “everything” refers to Creation, and the source of Creation is God’s Love. So, in terms of a single, underlying principle in Christianity, that single principle is Love. God made the cosmos because of Love, He made plants and animals because of Love, He made humans (and the human ability to reject Him) out of Love. All of Creation is a result of the one principle of Love, according to Christianity. So, in that sense, Christianity is monistic, with the monistic principle being Love.
You’re defining “deity” in a limited way, to mean “the Ultimate Divine Person”, whereas “deity” is not limited to that definition; it can also mean “a very powerful spiritual being”. I understand why most Christians define “deity” in this way, because that is how Christianity has historically defined it, but that is not the only definition of “deity”. In fact, the word “polytheism” must define deity as “a very powerful spiritual being”, because it is possible to have many of those sort of deities; whereas it is impossible to have more than one “Ultimate Divine Person”.
Christians do pray to Angels, because Angels have power and knowledge.Guardian Angel,
watch over those whose names you can read in my heart.
Guard over them with every care
and make their way easy and their labours fruitful.
Dry their tears if they weep;
sanctify their joys;
raise their courage if they weaken;
restore their hope if they lose heart,
their health if they be ill,
truth if they err,
repentance if they fail.
This prayer is very similar to Hindu prayers to devas.
Likewise, Shaivas pray to the devas, because the devas have power and knowledge. But neither Christians nor Shaivas would think that the Angels or devas are the Ultimate Divine Person, God or Shiva. Neither Christians nor Shaivas “worship” in the sense of “giving Ultimate worth” to Angels or devas. But both Christians and Shaivas certainly do “venerate/respect/honor” the Angels and devas.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Hi Marybeloved,
I’m referring to the apostles who were with Jesus during His earthly life. St. Thomas recognized Jesus’ Divinity only after the Resurrection. And St. John is describing Christ as the Word, but John is writing well after the Resurrection. But, if you look at the gospels themselves, you’ll see the the apostles did initially recognize something “special” about Jesus, but did not fully recognized His divinity until later, especially after the Resurrection.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
The definition of “deity” can include the deity, as a very powerful spiritual being, as itself being a creation of the Ultimate Divine Person. As such, a deity is a created creature, which is true of both devas (who originate from Shiva) and Angels (who originate from God).
- Status