What can you say about the following claims?

[rossum]

In Western philosophy, it frequently refers to concepts, “things in themselves,” or God, which are held aparf from the world of the senses.

I do not accept the existence of “things in themselves”; that is the basic thrust of the Madhyamika concept of emptiness.

Every time someone profits from wrongdoing, karma is disproved.

Only if you have access to their entire history of actions from this and past lives. I gave you evidence, not proof. You asseerted, incorrectly, that there was “NO evidence”. By providing evidence I have shown that your assertion was incorrect.

That isn’t evidence for rebirth. I must think you know that.

Of course it is not evidence, it is a set of instructions for you to find the evidence for yourself. I cannot remember your past lives for you any more than I can remember your tenth birthday for you. They are your past lives so you have to remember them for yourself.

Or I could just look to those who follow the path, and find them no different than anyone else.

However, they are objectively different. See: Buddhists ‘really are happier’ and A new study reveals that meditation may increase empathy, benevolence for just two examples.

rossum

 

[DonM]

However, they are objectively different. See: Buddhists ‘really are happier’ and A new study reveals that meditation may increase empathy, benevolence for just two examples.

rossum

Do I really need to point out the causation/correlation issues here:

They found that experienced Buddhists, who meditate regularly, were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry compared to other people.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm

Maybe people who are less flustered and angry than enjoy mediation more than angry, impatient people, or are just able to stick with it.

And this one:

When subjects heard the sounds, both groups experienced more brain activity in areas associated with empathy and emotions while meditating than while not meditating.

msnbc.msn.com/id/23829470/

A person’s mind is more responsive to (name removed by moderator)ut prompting empathy in the midst of a compassion mediation - I wouldn’t think that you need to do a study to prove that. The study seems to imply that the same subjects were less empathic while not mediating (if the benefits are not carried beyond the mediation session, I would think that shows mediation to be useless). I also would expect that people feel more charitable after a sermon on charity. I wouldn’t be surprised if people are more violent and angry when watching a slasher film, and probably immediately afterwards.

Is this the best you have?

 

[DonM]

Only if you have access to their entire history of actions from this and past lives. I gave you evidence, not proof. You asseerted, incorrectly, that there was “NO evidence”. By providing evidence I have shown that your assertion was incorrect.

Actually, it seems it isn’t evidence at all.

Your example was the criminal law, in other words, social convention. If karma is a law larger than a social convention, then one really wouldn’t need to invent social conventions to ensure bad consequences from bad acts. We could all be certain those consequences would eventually befall the malefactor. Lots of things are illegal - parking in a tow-away zone, smoking pot - that people can argue are not bad in the slightest.

Certainly, if you alienate people through hateful acts, you will have no friends, but that is also a set of social conventions. Southern whites, for the most part, didn’t suffer any bad social consequences for the enslavement of blacks. Eventually, we had a war, but the suffering spread far beyond the malefactors. Societies allow huge atrocities to go unpunished, and reward them for decades, although they will snare a couple criminals who commit unauthorized violence.

Perhaps if you pointed to some more direct physical link, we could say it is evidence of karma and not the rules of the society. Maybe smoking and life-expectancy? Of course, smoking is a pleasure for smokers, as eating is a pleasure for many, and many people generally detest exercise. Would a universe governed by karma wreck such damage on people who enjoy life, while allowing some murderers to enjoy long lives, and allowing happy well-adjusted southerners to live on the backs of slaves for generations?

All of nature indicates karma does not exist. Nature and evolution are sustained by violence. There is cooperation within species, certianly, but the way that much of the planet survives is to inflict suffering on other animals. Would a universe governed by karma imbed violence as such a necessity for survival?

So, I don’t think you gave an example of karma: hence, for the time being, I will stand by my statement regarding NO evidence.

 

[rossum]

Is this the best you have?

There is a great deal more in Google Scholar, here are three examples:

Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation

An Electroencephalographic Study On The Zen Meditation (Zazen)

Stress Reduction through Mindfulness Meditation

rossum

 

[grace_singh]

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.

what seems right to you may not seem right to me. but independent of your view and of mine, there is a rightness and a wrongness from God’s perspective.

2. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.

many religions can teach spiritual practices, lead to transcendent experiences, give a strong ethical system, and a religious culture. but as only Christ is God in flesh, only Christian faith can reconcile us to God personally and eternally, through the person of Jesus Christ and His work on the cross.

3. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.

trying one’s best to be ethical is not the point. none of us is inherently good. but neither should going to church be an empty ritual. one should go to church to thank, praise, honor, and worship the God who made you and who became incarnate through the Man Jesus Christ, to die for you, and reconcile you to Himself.

4. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.

i would actually agree with this, but from a Catholic pov you can point out that the Scripture tells us to confess sins to one another, not only to God.

5. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas

intelligence and skepticism are good and healthy things, but wilful rebellion against God is never a good idea.

 

[rossum]

Your example was the criminal law

It was indeed. Karma can work through Criminal Law if required. Buddhism does not specify a mechanism for karma, merely that it is present and it works. Can you see a mechanism specified in this passage?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
I do not see any mechanism specified there, merely an if … then. Cause and effect.

If karma is a law larger than a social convention, then one really wouldn’t need to invent social conventions to ensure bad consequences from bad acts.

Karma is indeed larger that social conventions so karma includes social conventions as one of the possible mechanisms it can use. It can also use unsocial convertions – one of the Buddha’s disciples, Maudgalyayana, was killed by bandits because of his actions in a previous life.

smoking pot - that people can argue are not bad in the slightest.

People may argue that but one of the five moral rules of Buddhism is to avoid intoxicants so smoking pot is not a wise act.

All of nature indicates karma does not exist. Nature and evolution are sustained by violence. There is cooperation within species, certianly, but the way that much of the planet survives is to inflict suffering on other animals.

Your position is self-refuting. You say “All of nature” and then you yourself give a counter-example from nature “cooperation within species”. I could also cite symbiotes or the relationship between flowers and their pollinators. You have refuted your own argument, thank you for saving me the trouble.

rossum

 

[DonM]

Can you see a mechanism specified in this passage?

Can you give me any logical reason in the world to accept karma? Can you even give me a semi-logical example?

Not this one:

It can also use unsocial convertions – one of the Buddha’s disciples, Maudgalyayana, was killed by bandits because of his actions in a previous life.

Not only does this rely on rebirth, it is thousands of years old.

People may argue that but one of the five moral rules of Buddhism is to avoid intoxicants so smoking pot is not a wise act.

That says nothing about the point I made: that the criminal law is a convention, largely arbitrary. I say arbitrary because legal killing and oppression - through war, slavery etc - has dwarfed the number of people who have been ensnared by the criminal law throughout history. Hence, there isn’t any reason to regard the criminal law as an agent of karma. I realize you can’t deal with the argument, but quibbling with one example (where I had given several) isn’t a response, and neither are semantic games:

You have refuted your own argument, thank you for saving me the trouble.

You seem to have trouble dealing with ideas that challenge you. The argument - or observation, it is quite obvious - was that the conditions of life on this planet make karma a fairly absurd concept. It isn’t necessary that ALL of nature reward violence, or that nature reward ALL violence. The argument was that violence and the suffering othe other beings is a condition to survival, and that nature rewards violence. We live in a world in which the exploiters suffer no particular consequence for being exploiters. Unjust and oppressive social structures have been the norm throughout history. The greatest sins of any era are not punished. Can you give me any earthly reason to think that bad thoughts, bad intentions, bad acts, in themselves, bring on bad consequences - not just a convenient invention that maybe everyone switches places in the next life (a contention as unverifiable as Heaven).

 

[DonM]

There is a great deal more in Google Scholar, here are three examples:

Alterations in Brain and Immune Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation

An Electroencephalographic Study On The Zen Meditation (Zazen)

Stress Reduction through Mindfulness Meditation

rossum

Here was the statement I made:

Or I could just look to those who follow the path, and find them no different than anyone else. You could look at the cultures that are most influenced by these ideas, and find them no different than any other culture.

And all you have given me are articles that indicate that mediation can bring on certain benefits of relieving stress, etc. But every culture has practices that lead to reducing stress. And you haven’t shown that these benefits go beyond the period of actual meditation. Nor have you connected these practices to Buddhism itself. I could have told you that mediation calms you.

 

[rossum]

Can you give me any logical reason in the world to accept karma?

It works.

Can you even give me a semi-logical example?

I already have. The fact that you personally reject it does not make it any less of an example.

The argument - or observation, it is quite obvious - was that the conditions of life on this planet make karma a fairly absurd concept.

Why does it make karma “absurd”? Karma is merely cause and effect; does the condition of life in this planet make cause and effect absurd? You appear to expect karma to imply miraculous intervention, it does not. Karma is merely cause and effect as we see it from day to day.

It isn’t necessary that ALL of nature reward violence, or that nature reward ALL violence.

Then why did you use the word “all” in your post? I can only read what you write, I cannot read what you meant to write.

(a contention as unverifiable as Heaven)

I have already referred you to the Visuddhimagga if you wish to verify the action of karma in your previous lives. If you do not wish to go and look for yourself then that is not my problem.

But every culture has practices that lead to reducing stress.

How does this invalidate Buddhist practices? As you say many people have discovered such practices and make use of them. Buddhism is not a revealed religion, it is a discovered religion – other people have discovered some of the things that the Buddha discovered.

And you haven’t shown that these benefits go beyond the period of actual meditation.

Read the papers, and the earlier news stories I referred you to – the benefits extend beyond the actual period of meditation. I can confirm this from my own experience as well.

Nor have you connected these practices to Buddhism itself. I could have told you that mediation calms you.

Buddhism is a series of techniques to attain a goal. Those techniques work, whether they are used by a Buddhist, by a Hindu or by a Christian like Thomas Merton. Enlightenment is possible for all, though it is less difficult when following the Buddhist path than trying to do it following a different path or when forging your own path. The life of the Buddha shows that he took some wrong turns before he found the goal. The experience of those who have gone along the path before us is useful to help us avoid wrong turns.

rossum

 

[Contarini]

In Christianity God could in theory add an eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday”.

Rossum,

It’s probably unwise of me to jump into this long and fascinating discussion with a nit-picking comment, but your statement reflects a common misunderstanding of traditional Christianity. While there are specific regulations (in the Ten Commandments the example would be the Sabbath) revealed by God which could have been otherwise, the moral law strictly speaking cannot be other than it is given the nature of God and the natures of the human beings God has created. There are Christian theologians who have argued otherwise (Scotus and Ockham in the late Middle Ages, for instance, though some scholars try to clear them, particularly Scotus, of this charge), but they are a minority in terms of the Christian tradition as a whole.

I don’t think the gap between Christian and Buddhist understanding of moral law is quite as great as you think–at least if you look at the Thomist version of Christianity or the older traditions of Christian Platonism rather than those (aberrant, in my opinion) versions of Christianity that teach “Divine Command Theory.” Traditional Christianity also teaches that the moral law is at root a description of how things are. The difference of course is that Christians believe in an eternal Creator who made us in a certain way (in two sexes, for instance, without which the command “Do not commit adultery” would either be meaningless or look very different!) and who himself embodies the moral law. The difference does not lie in a supposed Christian belief that God arbitrarily causes the moral law to be one way rather than another–this is in my opinion a pernicious perversion of Christianity suitable only to the persnickety and puerile population of that pullulant patch of pasture where you happen to reside (Scotus and Ockham were, after all, both British–as am I, according to my passport but not my accent).

Edwin

 

[DonM]

I have already referred you to the Visuddhimagga if you wish to verify the action of karma in your previous lives. If you do not wish to go and look for yourself then that is not my problem.

You believe a series of fairly outlandlish things about the nature of reality and human life. Most Buddhist traditions are illogical and internally contradictory, as are the basic texts. This isn’t a problem - it is, honestly, the nature of religion. What is a problem is the phony, arrogant stance of certain Buddhists that their set of religious dogmas are somehow more modern or scientific than other religions.

My own personal view, based on experience, is this - there is something fundamental in the human animal that yearns for permanance. You can meditate for years, count your skandhas, envision your journey from life to life, but you will never kill that fundamental yearning. You will not extinguish suffering, in this life, or any other. The notion that you can, or that others have, is completely unproven, and just an article of faith. It is a dark world indeed that would have rebirth but no ultimate release from suffering.

Rebirth and karma are necessary to justify any significant meditation practice. There are many ways to reduce stress and increase happiness that don’t entail hours on a cushion. Whatever modest benefits casual mediation may produce can be easily found elsewhere. Given one life instead of many, there isn’t much point in worrying about clinging to the illusion of self - your safer option is to accept the world as it is, illusory or not, and enjoy it and experience the good and bad of all human tendencies, including the universal tendency to experience the self and the world as real.

Just consider being sincere about your faith. It isn’t a mere “technology,” and it isn’t “scientific” or “proved by experience.” There is no justice in this life. There is no release from suffering. You need to look to the next to reap the fruits of your karma or continue your journey. This is no less faith based than belief in the Trinity.

Because if you don’t look to the next life, all you have is plain atheism with a nihilistic spin. And when Buddhists argue on messageboards against Christians, they get the option of adopting the pose of the materialist atheist, and then scurrying off into their own faith positions, without ever acknowledging the shift. It amounts to dishonest argument, in my opinion.

The problem, perhaps, isn’t that people don’t understand what you say here. Maybe the problem is that some of them do.

 

[DonM]

Why does it make karma “absurd”? Karma is merely cause and effect; does the condition of life in this planet make cause and effect absurd? You appear to expect karma to imply miraculous intervention, it does not. Karma is merely cause and effect as we see it from day to day.

You are free to deal with my actual argument, which I will just repeat, since you ignored and mischaracterized it:

The argument was that violence and the suffering othe other beings is a condition to survival, and that nature rewards violence. We live in a world in which the exploiters suffer no particular consequence for being exploiters. Unjust and oppressive social structures have been the norm throughout history. The greatest sins of any era are not punished. Can you give me any earthly reason to think that bad thoughts, bad intentions, bad acts, in themselves, bring on bad consequences - not just a convenient invention that maybe everyone switches places in the next life (a contention as unverifiable as Heaven).

 

[rossum]

My own personal view, based on experience, is this - there is something fundamental in the human animal that yearns for permanance.

Agreed.

You can meditate for years, count your skandhas, envision your journey from life to life, but you will never kill that fundamental yearning.

Here we disagree. It is pointless to yearn for something that you can never have. There are techniques that can reduce and eliminate that yearning.

You will not extinguish suffering, in this life, or any other.

There are many people who make prophecies. Not all of them are correct in their prophecies.

Rebirth and karma are necessary to justify any significant meditation practice.

Why? Meditation is useful in and of itself, without considering any long term goals it may have. As you say, it does act to reduce stress and increase happiness. I am not aware of any Buddhist who claims that it is the only such technique.

Just consider being sincere about your faith. It isn’t a mere “technology,” and it isn’t “scientific” or “proved by experience.”

My experience has proved it to me as far as I have been able to take it. The Kalama sutta may not be a complete description of the scientific method, but it is a reasonably close approximation for 2,500 years ago.

There is no justice in this life.

I disagree. There is some justice in this life. Some criminals are caught and punished so there is some justice.

You are free to deal with my actual argument, which I will just repeat, since you ignored and mischaracterized it:

The argument was that violence and the suffering othe other beings is a condition to survival, and that nature rewards violence. We live in a world in which the exploiters suffer no particular consequence for being exploiters. Unjust and oppressive social structures have been the norm throughout history. The greatest sins of any era are not punished. Can you give me any earthly reason to think that bad thoughts, bad intentions, bad acts, in themselves, bring on bad consequences - not just a convenient invention that maybe everyone switches places in the next life (a contention as unverifiable as Heaven).

The world is imperfect. I agree. Some criminals get away with their crimes in this life. I agree. Some criminals do not get away with their crimes so your point is partial and not universal. You mention “sins” which I do not accept, some large faults are not punished while other large faults are: Hitler died early while Stalin lived to an old age.

Man is a social species. If we act selfishly then our fellow men will treat us accordingly.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Rossum: I have been going over past posts and have been trying to understand the essential difference between our faiths and where I believe your basic error is. In post 108 you responded:

I am capable of error, as are you. I have tested …

Quote:
No. Without time we cannot distinguish between cause and effect. Cause precedes effect in time. If there is no time then both are simultaneous and we can no longer distinguish them one from the other. You cannot have causation in the absence of time, neither can you have creation in the absence of time.

Quote:
If He is the uncaused cause of all caused things, then He would be the uncaused cause of all cause and effect, correct?

No. We can only describe something as “uncaused” if we know what “caused” means. Prior to the creation of cause and effect we cannot have ‘caused’ and equally we cannot have ‘uncaused’ except as a nonsense word like ‘unflargle’.

Quote:
Why is it not possible for the Creator to be first?

Because then the (alleged) Creator would not have created anything. For there to be a Creator there must also be a creation. A Creator who has not created anything is wrongly described. The Creator has to be part of cause and effect, otherwise there can be neither Creator (cause) nor creation (effect). Your use of the word “first” also implies the existence of time. Cause and effect are very closely linked to time. You will find it difficult to have either one of cause and effect without also having the other one and time as well. Since a Creator is a cause then you also require the effect, i.e. creation, and time as well.

rossum

The above is from post 108.
Some thoughts: You said (without proof) ‘Uncaused’ cannot exist prior to ‘caused’.
I believe what you said is half true.
From the point of view of the uncaused, God, there is no prior to anything. Everything is present tense. St. Agustine said, "To God, time is the revealing of truth that always was. " To God, everytime and everything in time is “present” to Him and He is unchanged by His creating, saving, judging… in time and space.
God is infinite spirit. ‘Before’ God created, (brought into existense that which was not) there was no ‘prior’ to the caused because there was no time in the uncaused, even though there was an uncaused Cause that exists. The same existense (Cause) that is now and will be ‘forever’ after time ceases.
You also responded;
"Quote:
Why is it not possible for the Creator to be first?

Because then the (alleged) Creator would not have created anything. "
This appears to reveal your thinking as constricted in ‘time’. Your “logical” contradictions might be the result of being unintentionally, but implicitly, locked into thinking about God as if He was operating only in time, not truly outside of it. Do you deny that this is possible???
Perhaps the best way is to respond is to say the Creator is ‘always’ creating? Can you accept that?
What Is the reason (evidense) why you can not accept **as possible **that God is doing everything He is doing, all at once from His point of view, outside of time?
I asked in another post, "What was the proof that buddha had at the end of His life that there was no God? If there is no proof that can be demonstrasted, then do you admit that “there is no God” is a matter of your faith and buddha’s faith, it is not a matter of knowing?
On Karma, you have said it is like gravity. It “somehow” knows all the details of each incident in every persons life, what they knew and intended, everything, and then moves them on to the next appropriate life, stage. You have said buddhism does not explain how it (karma) operates and you are not concerned about it. But karma is an essential aspect of your faith. If you can not explain it any better than essentially saying “it is magic, it just happens”, why should you ( or anyone else) believe it? You have said that karma does not have an intelligence. I have asked, "What does karma have in it’s essence that is more than a rock has, that allows karma to know all the details and understand the intent of every action of every person and then act to put each person in the “right” next life?
You believe in karma as cause and effect, and based on your belief that there is no God, claim there are no absolute moral laws or responsibilities or sins or inherent inalienable rights (but have stopped short of saying that is what you would tell your hypothetical wife and daughters). You learn your ‘objective’ moral law from observing the combined subjective opinions of the people around you ( and you apparrantly do not see the implicit contradiction). Do you claim there is no contradiction here? How does the sum of many subjective oppinions make it objective the way most people se objective to mean?
I see cause and effect and see that there are some moral absolutes and see that the only way life has true meaning, is that there must be an infinitely powerful Creator who gives true meaning to all Creation.

 

[ZDHayden]

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.
2. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.
3. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.
4. You don’t need to confess your sins to a priest. You can go straight to God.
5. Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.

Okay, I have had to face many claims like this. I shall answer each in turn.

1. The claim is Moral Relativism in its simplest form. This is a post-Modernist idea that is unsupported by science or any major religion on earth. Each faith has its own distinct set of moral dogmas, and wars have been fought over a simple misunderstanding of said dogmas. All fields of human knowledge deal in absolutes. Civilization itself is built upon such absolutes. The only place Moral Relativism can be applied is in an absolute anarchy, which quickly decays into a totalitarian despotism due to social Darwinism – survival of the fittest. It is thus that we see the danger of moral relativism: it denies facts, law, reason, and the human nature. Humans are built to socialize – to come together in an organized community with common laws. All laws are built from morality. (grant it, there is what is called a morality of reason, in which religious mores are not taken into account directly. It is through the religious mores of one’s birth that one forms his/her reasoning, and thus religious morality is applied without calling it religious). By applying Moral Relativism, in short, one attempts to deconstruct society, which all human life depends upon.
2. False. Really all religions would be offended by such. One must also consider the religion of the so-called non-religious. Humans are designed to worship something. Whatever a person worships (in practice, not in theory) – that is the god of their religion. Thus, you have the capitalist in Objectivism has a religion worshipping money, while the Marxist worships society. Some people who claim to be Christian or Buddhist or Muslim, or any other faith are actually worshippers of some other diety, be it money, society, self, family, success, or intelligence or anything else. If you want a secular claim for the importance of Christianity, consider this: it is only due to Christianity that scientific inquiry is possible as we know it today. Christianity provided the necessary justification and philosophy for linear thought and inquiry into the natural world. Also necessary is the wholly Christian idea that the universe has a certain order to it. All are required for scientific investigation. No other faith has provided such.
3. False. One goes to church to learn to be a good person. It is the regular attendance of church that strengthens one’s morals and ideally permits them to follow them. Morality is necessary for being a good person, and no one learns morality except from a religious context. A regular exposure to the source of morality strengthens morality, just as regular exercise strengthens the body.
4. While the above answers I remained in the realm of secular philosophy, this requires going into religious philosophy. According to Scripture, Christ Himself told us to confess our sins to one another; and whatever is forgiven on earth is forgiven in heaven. The pastor at my parish once said, “it is fully acceptable to go to every baptized Christian and confess your sins to them, but as there are so many, it is far easier to go to a priest, who is given the authority to represent the religious community.” Another reason for this is that the priest is to act as Christ on earth, just as the Apostles from whence they came.
5. Dissent is separate from questioning. The same priest who told me the above quote once told me: “It is good to question your faith, as through this you can find your reason for believing. From this, your faith can grow in strength. The constant questioning of the laity bolsters the Church and holds it accountable to Christ’s teachings.” Dissent is “to differ in opinion, or withhold assent” according to Merriam Webster. Dissent creates divisions. It was dissent that split the Church. It was dissent that split the Protestants. It was dissent that created the Inter-Christian war we are now facing, with hundreds or thousands of denominations, all against each other. Is this positive? An open mind does not require dissent, it requires wisdom. All an open mind truly is is the ability to accept a differing opinion as a valid opinion, so long as said opinion is supported by facts. The modern idea of an open mind, in the extreme case, is having no personal opinion, but believing everything one is told to avoid confrontation. Essentially, how the term “open mind” is used today is as a tactic to avoid making someone “feel bad.” If one differs from someone’s opinion today, one is likely to be accused of being close-minded.

Thank you.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Agreed.

Here we disagree. It is pointless to yearn for something that you can never have. There are techniques that can reduce and eliminate that yearning.
Your conclusion that we can never achieve perfect happiness or “kill that yearning” is based on your faith that there is no Creator God. Correct? If your personal subjective opinion, based on your perception of reality and your logic is in error, and ours is correct, then our God will give us perfect happiness and the perfect fulfilment of all our good yearnings.

There are many people who make prophecies. Not all of them are correct in their prophecies.

Why? Meditation is useful in and of itself, without considering any long term goals it may have. As you say, it does act to reduce stress and increase happiness. I am not aware of any Buddhist who claims that it is the only such technique.

My experience has proved it to me as far as I have been able to take it. The Kalama sutta may not be a complete description of the scientific method, but it is a reasonably close approximation for 2,500 years ago.

I disagree. There is some justice in this life. Some criminals are caught and punished so there is some justice.
Is the justice you see a truly objective justice, or is it simply the sum total of many subjective opinions (that you happen to agree with) as to what **should be **justice and therefore carries no more real weight than the “justice” carried out by the throw of the dice or ‘bones’ of a witch doctor? If it is a truly objective justice, by a truly impartial judgement, who or by what authority did this truly objective order begin?

The world is imperfect. I agree. Some criminals get away with their crimes in this life. I agree. Some criminals do not get away with their crimes so your point is partial and not universal. You mention “sins” which I do not accept, some large faults are not punished while other large faults are: Hitler died early while Stalin lived to an old age.

Man is a social species. If we act selfishly then our fellow men will treat us accordingly.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your “logical” contradictions might be the result of being unintentionally, but implicitly, locked into thinking about God as if He was operating only in time, not truly outside of it. Do you deny that this is possible?

I do not say that God is only operating in time, but the Christian God as described does at least partially operate in time - various miracles etc. Given that He is at least partly in time then my time based arguments apply to at least that part of God. You are at liberty to separate God-inside-time from God-outside-time in which case my arguments will only apply to the former while the latter cannot operate inside time and so cannot be the Creator.

Perhaps the best way is to respond is to say the Creator is ‘always’ creating? Can you accept that?

No. The Creator has stopped creating Dodos. That is a change in creation which implies a change in the Creator – as I said above, the Creator has to be God-inside-time.

I asked in another post, "What was the proof that buddha had at the end of His life that there was no God? If there is no proof that can be demonstrasted, then do you admit that “there is no God” is a matter of your faith and buddha’s faith, it is not a matter of knowing?

The Buddha did not deny the existence of gods. The attributes of the various gods are not particularly important to me. When I eventually attain enlightenment I may investigate the question; until then I will accept what the Buddha taught on the subject.

You have said buddhism does not explain how it (karma) operates and you are not concerned about it. But karma is an essential aspect of your faith. If you can not explain it any better than essentially saying “it is magic, it just happens”, why should you ( or anyone else) believe it?

Precisely how did God change dirt into Adam? What exact processes did He use? Can you provide me with any detail at all of this fundamentally important event? Do you have any more that “it was a miracle, it just happened”?

You believe in karma as cause and effect, and based on your belief that there is no God, claim there are no absolute moral laws or responsibilities or sins or inherent inalienable rights

Sin is a Christian concept, I have no conception of sin any more than you have a conception of sunyata, which is a Buddhist concept. There is no absolute moral law in the Bible which is shown by the fact that the moral laws in the Bible change over time – stoning or not stoning adulteresses was the example I used. We do have (non-absolute) responsibilities and we do have (non-absolute) inalienable rights.

How does the sum of many subjective oppinions make it objective the way most people se objective to mean?

You have not read the Kalama sutta closely. There is gives two criteria: results and informed opinion. You are leaving out the results part of the moral criteria.

Your conclusion that we can never achieve perfect happiness or “kill that yearning” is based on your faith that there is no Creator God. Correct?

No, look back through the chain of posts. DonM was talking about a “yearning for permanence”. Since change is fundamental we can never achieve permanence. The yearning for permanence can only cause suffering because it is unobtainable.

our God will give us perfect happiness and the perfect fulfilment of all our good yearnings.

How can heaven be happy? You are told the “love your neighbour as yourself” and yet some of your neighbours will be eternally suffering in Hell. If someone you love is eternally suffering then you are also eternally suffering.

Is the justice you see a truly objective justice

Yes, the Criminal Justice System objectively exists.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

I do not say that God is only operating in time, …
…No. The Creator has stopped creating Dodos. That is a change in creation from our point of view, not Godswhich implies a change in the Creator – as I said above, the Creator has to be God-inside-time.
It appears that you are not truly seeing (understandingas I do) God as doing everything all at once. God is creating adam and Eve, freeing the Isrealites… everything, (yes creating dodos) all in one, single, infinite, always in the ‘present’ tense thought, that does not change. His thought, is a single word, Jesus, and it says all that can be said, because it is infinite. We see His actions in time does not mean that is the way He sees them. He sees all creation at peace in the His Kingdom because the price (The Blood of Christ) paid for sin is worth infinitely more than the sum of all sins. My question was; “Your “logical” contradictions might be the result of being unintentionally, but implicitly, locked into thinking about God as if He was operating only in time, not truly outside of it. Do you deny that this is possible?”
I repeat; “Do you deny that this is possible”? Can you provide any evidence,( something more than you do not see it that way) to show why God can not be doing everything at once, always?

The Buddha did not deny the existence of gods. The attributes of the various gods are not particularly important to me. When I eventually attain enlightenment I may investigate the question; until then I will accept what the Buddha taught on the subject.

It was quoted in an earlier post that buddha did deny the existence of a creator God and that after buddha’s death, one of his followers elavated buddha to be above the gods. You have said that buddha taught the god’s the correct understanding of their nature. Have you gone beyond the teaching of buddha in saying there is no Infinitely powerful Creator God, or did buddha really say it? If He did really say it, was there evidence that can be shown, or was it merely faith?
Precisely how did God change dirt into Adam? What exact processes did He use? Can you provide me with any detail at all of this fundamentally important event? Do you have any more that “it was a miracle, it just happened”?
The obvious difference is that God,as we believe, has an intelligence, a mind capable of understanding. You have made the claim that karma does not have a mind and therefore it lacks what everybody knows is absolutely needed to understand the intent of every person’s every action. The prooofis that if someone told you that a rock understood that person’s intention, even you would think they had a few marbles missing. Correct? My Godis capable ofall He can do because He has an infinite intelligence, your karma, as you claim, does not have any true intelligence. therefore there seems to be an inconsistancy when you say karma reads and understands each person’s complete history, every detail even if the person has forgotten many, and this karma always sends them to the correct afterlife (so you claim by your faith, even though there is no evidence that can prove this).
Do you disagree with me when I say that a God who is infinitely powerful and infinitely intelligent is a more consistant explanation of rewarding each person according to their actions than a ‘karma’ that does not have in it’s essence, that which common sense tells everyone is absolutely needed to make suchdeterminations at each person’s death?

Sin is a Christian concept, I have no conception of sin any more than you have a conception of sunyata, which is a Buddhist concept. There is no absolute moral law in the Bible which is shown by the fact that the moral laws in the Bible change over time – stoning or not stoning adulteresses was the example I used. We do have (non-absolute) responsibilities and we do have (non-absolute) inalienable rights.

 All of them (responsibilities and "inalienable" rights) are subjective, according to each person's opinion. Correct?
    Are you confirming or denying that the sum of many subjective opinions is not really (truly) objective, it is merely the sum of many subjective opinions?
You stated early in this series of posts that you got your 'objective' morality from those around you. If circumstances changed, and you found yourself in a community where everybody believedthere were compelling reasons for all girls to beraped at a certain age (it humbles them) would you accept this 'objective' morallity as your objective morallity? If not, why not?????

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

I You have not read the Kalama sutta closely. There is gives two criteria: results and informed opinion. You are leaving out the results part of the moral criteria.
That I see the same result many times and many people have the same subjective opinion as I do, how does that make the sum of many subjective opinions, objective in the true sense of the word?

No, look back through the chain of posts. DonM was talking about a “yearning for permanence”. Since change is fundamental we can never achieve permanence. The yearning for permanence can only cause suffering because it is unobtainable.
Your conclusion that permanence can not be obtained is a conclusion based on your faith that there is no God and that change is fundamental. Correct? If we are correct, and there is an infinitely powerful Creator God, whowill join us to Himself in a permament way, then we are correct and you are not correct. Correct? My question was, and still is; "Your conclusion that we can never achieve perfect happiness or “kill that yearning” is based on your faith that there is no Creator God. Correct?

How can heaven be happy? You are told the “love your neighbour as yourself” and yet some of your neighbours will be eternally suffering in Hell. If someone you love is eternally suffering then you are also eternally suffering.
Christ suffered on the cross with perfect peace, love, joy, happiness and thankfulness. If anyone beholds the beatific vision of God in heaven, and partial knowledge ceases because we are like God because we see Him as He IS, in all His infinity, then we will know how those suffering forever and ever and ever… in hell will also have the peace, love, joy and thanksgiving that Christ had on the cross.

Yes, the Criminal Justice System objectively exists.
I thought this was a serious discussion. I am saddened by your deliberate? unintentional? misunderstanding of the clear meaning implied in my context.That the criminal justice system objectively exists does not address the question of whether or not the justice you perceive is objective justice or subjective justice. Please answer my question ?

Yes, the Criminal Justice System objectively exists.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It appears that you are not truly seeing (understandingas I do) God as doing everything all at once.

How can God do everything at once? Do you see any live Dodos around? The world changes. If God is sustaining the world from moment to moment then God is also changing. 500 years ago God was not sustaining the island of Surtsey and was sustaining Dodos. Now God is sustaining Surtsey and is no longer sustaining Dodos. Is God simultaneously sustaining and not sustaining Dodos? In which case He is logically impossible – He cannot both do and not do something at the same time. Otherwise He has changed from sustaining to not sustaining, or vice versa in the case of Surtsey.

Have you gone beyond the teaching of buddha in saying there is no Infinitely powerful Creator God, or did buddha really say it?

Read the Brahmajala sutta. The Buddha did not deny the existence of a powerful God who was convinced, incorrectly, that He was the creator God. The Buddha made it clear that the supposed creator God was in fact mistaken about His status. He was just another god, albeit a particularly powerful and long lived one.

My God is capable of all

False. He can never learn anything new. He can never move and according to you He can never change either. He is not “capable of all”. I note that you have no detailed explanation of the dirt → Adam process, merely resorting to “God did it”. Fine, then stop objecting to my “karma did it”.

All of them (responsibilities and “inalienable” rights) are subjective, according to each person’s opinion. Correct?

Do you not read what I post? I have consistently said that I support an objective, not a subjective, morality.

If circumstances changed, and you found yourself in a community where everybody believedthere were compelling reasons for all girls to beraped at a certain age (it humbles them) would you accept this ‘objective’ morallity as your objective morallity? If not, why not?

Go and read the Kalama sutta again:“Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”
Read that “these things lead to harm and ill” part carefully. Do you think that the raped girls would suffer “harm and ill”? I certainly do.

Now what if YHWH ordered the rapes, would those rapes be morally correct?

That I see the same result many times and many people have the same subjective opinion as I do, how does that make the sum of many subjective opinions, objective in the true sense of the word?

I see the Sun rise in the East. Other see the Sun rise in the East. We all agree that the Sun rises in the East. Is the Sun rising in the East subjective or objective ‘in the true sense of the word’?

Your conclusion that permanence can not be obtained is a conclusion based on your faith that there is no God and that change is fundamental. Correct?

It has nothing to do with the existence or not of God, it is a fundamental property of the universe that everything changes:“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

• Dhammapada 20:5

whether or not the justice you perceive is objective justice or subjective justice.

Objective justice.

rossum