What can you say about the following claims?

[Douglas_Kraeger]

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a-s-s.” 1 Samuel 15:3

rossum

rossum, we believe all men are sinners, (except Jesus who was sinless by His Divine Nature and Mary who was sinless by God’s grace, and little children who are to young to personnaly commit sins). Therefore we sinners deserve to be punished by God for our sins. If God punishes us for our sins and is just in His choice of means, does that deny the assumption that each man should consider every other man’s life sacred? So, if God does tell someone to kill every one in an area as a punishment for their sins against man and God, Is He just?
If people kill other people without God telling them to, then they are violating God’s law. You might argue that we cannot know that God told the Jewish people to do what they did. I believe that if anyone honestly looked at all the miracles performed in Jewish history, it would be hard to explain them all away as fairy tales, especially when we Get to Jesus.
As I have said before: God revealed how much he hates sin by His revelations in the old testament,and how much mercy and love He has for sinners in Jesus Christ. Where does budda teach by his example, the love that Jesus reveals by His suffering and death in atonement for our sins? Where does budda come close to showing such love for one’s enemies? When Christians properly follow the example of Jesus and sacrifice all they have in an effort to help reconcile others to God, Do you or budda say that it is a good thing, objectively right and good?

 

[rossum]

rossum, we believe all men are sinners, (except Jesus who was sinless by His Divine Nature and Mary who was sinless by God’s grace, and little children who are to young to personnaly commit sins).

Did you notice the “infant and suckling” in the Bible quote I gave? Some of those God ordered killed were not guilty of any personal sin.

I was responding to grannymh who claimed that the sacredness of human life was an absolute.

Therefore we sinners deserve to be punished by God for our sins. If God punishes us for our sins and is just in His choice of means, does that deny the assumption that each man should consider every other man’s life sacred? So, if God does tell someone to kill every one in an area as a punishment for their sins against man and God, Is He just?

As has been evident in our discussion, we have different attitudes to the relationship between God and moral law. For monotheists God is the source of moral law and is not bound by it, in the same way as the Monarch is not bound by UK law – technically the Queen can, literally, get away with murder. For Buddhists all the gods, including YHWH, are subject to moral law and if YHWH is guilty of those things which are claimed in the OT then He will suffer the consequences of His actions.

Where does budda teach by his example, the love that Jesus reveals by His suffering and death in atonement for our sins?

I have said before that sin is not a concept in Buddhism, likewise there is no need for atonement for something that does not exist in the first place.

Where does budda come close to showing such love for one’s enemies?

Read the story of the Prince and the Tigress from the Jatakas, also found in the Suvarnaprabhasa sutra. He gave his own flesh, blood and life so that the hungry tigress could eat and feed her cubs.

When Christians properly follow the example of Jesus and sacrifice all they have in an effort to help reconcile others to God, Do you or budda say that it is a good thing, objectively right and good?

Sacrificing time, resources and effort to help others is a useful purpose.

rossum

 

[Abu]

rossum
I have said before that sin is not a concept in Buddhism, likewise there is no need for atonement for something that does not exist in the first place…there is no ultimate truth.

That is precisely why discussion is pointless with anyone so far removed from reality.
They blindly reject the eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (which as reader I was able to offer on Easter Sunday at Mass), and couldn’t understand the eyewitness accounts of the Miracle at Fatima!

As Avelino deAlmeida, the chief editor of “O Seculo,” the large “liberal” anticlerical and masonic daily of Lisbon, writes:

Before the dazzled eyes of the people, whose attitude transported us to biblical times, and who, dumb-founded, heads uncovered, contemplated the blue of the sky, the sun trembled, it made strange and abrupt movements, outside of all cosmic laws, “the sun danced”, according to the typical expression of the peasants…(2)"

Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony, fifteen days later, in his review, l’“Ilustra‡ao Portuguesa”. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw…I saw…I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: "Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church.".(3) [My emphasis].
Note:
2) O Seculo of October 15, 1917.
3) Article of October 29, 1917.

 

[Abu]

rossum
The Buddha was enlightened so everything he said was correct.
From where I stand the actual actions I must follow change, hence I am in effect following a changing morality
There is no absolute truth, or if there is we can never know it so it is irrelevant.

This man, Buddha, you claim has spoken nothing “incorrect”: how can you know that since you have nothing with which to compare the truth or otherwise of this assumed “correctness”? Such an assumption is most unreasonable.

You claim not to know whether there is “absolute truth” because you feel you cannot know even if there is. So how could you know that Buddha is correct in everything? Such an assumption is most unreasonable.

The Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism, and Buddhism.

 

[Podo2005]

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a-s-s.” 1 Samuel 15:3

rossum

The Ancient Israelites were at war with the Amalekites…I suppose you think it would have been fun if you guys had simply surrendered to the Nazis during the Battle of Britain in WW2…

 

[Podo2005]

Did you notice the “infant and suckling” in the Bible quote I gave? Some of those God ordered killed were not guilty of any personal sin.

You’re taking the quote out of context… The Lord commanded the Ancient Israelites to defend themselves against a nation that wanted to kill them. Do innocents sometime die in war? Unfortunately yes but that is not something that is controlled. I doubt when the Allies landed in Europe in WW2 they “intended” to kill civilians who were accidentally killed, thats just one of the tragedies of war. Besides The Lord also commanded the Ancient Israelites in the book of Exodus "Thou Shall Not Murder"

I was responding to grannymh who claimed that the sacredness of human life was an absolute.
It is…you could say that it is morally wrong to take the life of the innocent

As has been evident in our discussion, we have different attitudes to the relationship between God and moral law. For monotheists God is the source of moral law and is not bound by it, in the same way as the Monarch is not bound by UK law – technically the Queen can, literally, get away with murder. For Buddhists all the gods, including YHWH, are subject to moral law and if YHWH is guilty of those things which are claimed in the OT then He will suffer the consequences of His actions.

**Either God is the creator of the moral law & not subject to it or He is not the creator & subject to the moral law. **

I have said before that sin is not a concept in Buddhism, likewise there is no need for atonement for something that does not exist in the first place.
Well that doesnt make sense… it seems to be quite clear that sin exists…just turn on the 6 o’clock news…

Read the story of the Prince and the Tigress from the Jatakas, also found in the Suvarnaprabhasa sutra. He gave his own flesh, blood and life so that the hungry tigress could eat and feed her cubs.

Sacrificing time, resources and effort to help others is a useful purpose.

I agree, it is

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Did you notice the “infant and suckling” in the Bible quote I gave? Some of those God ordered killed were not guilty of any personal sin.

I was responding to grannymh who claimed that the sacredness of human life was an absolute.

Am I correct that Buddhists also see a spiritual component, maybe four aspects? If so, then it would be possible for both of us to say that an objective [absolute] truth is that human life is sacred

The reason human life is sacred is its spiritual component. Way, way back, before the ban I had started a proposed thesis: “The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.” My theoretical intention was to demonstrate the spirituality of human nature; yet, stopping before claiming a deity. For many reasons, I was interrupted in this pursuit. Supposedly, I could pick up this proposed thesis but the discussion would be rather one sided while I would prefer both pros and cons in order to demonstrate the thesis adequately.

For now, I will say that an universal objective truth [absolute truth] is that human life is sacred. I see the possibility that religions other that Catholicism could agree . Non-theists could also agree on the basis of the inherent dignity of the human person.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a message of faith in the future.

 

[rossum]

The Ancient Israelites were at war with the Amalekites…I suppose you think it would have been fun if you guys had simply surrendered to the Nazis during the Battle of Britain in WW2…

Are you saying that we were wrong not to kill every German infant and every German nursing baby?

If God orders the killing of human beings, including infants and nursing babies then it is not possible, from a Christian point of view, to say that “all human life is sacred”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That is precisely why discussion is pointless with anyone so far removed from reality.
They blindly reject the eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (which as reader I was able to offer on Easter Sunday at Mass), and couldn’t understand the eyewitness accounts of the Miracle at Fatima!

Just as you blindly reject the eyewitness account of the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeding 80,000 people with a single bowl of rice. All religions have their accounts of miracles.

rossum

 

[Thing]

Just as you blindly reject the eyewitness account of the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeding 80,000 people with a single bowl of rice. All religions have their accounts of miracles.

rossum

Translator Burton Watson argues that the Vimalakirti Sutra was likely composed in India in approximately 100 CE. - Wiki

 

[rossum]

This man, Buddha, you claim has spoken nothing “incorrect”: how can you know that since you have nothing with which to compare the truth or otherwise of this assumed “correctness”? Such an assumption is most unreasonable.

Wherever I have tested the Buddha’s words they have been correct. That is good enough for me.

You claim not to know whether there is “absolute truth” because you feel you cannot know even if there is. So how could you know that Buddha is correct in everything? Such an assumption is most unreasonable.

In order to know “absolute truth” I need to have an absolute source of knowledge. I do not have such a source since my senses are sadly imperfect and not themselves absolute. My eyes are less sharp than an eagle’s. My hearing is less sharp than a rabbit’s.

Without an absolute source of knowledge I cannot know what the absolute truth is.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Translator Burton Watson argues that the Vimalakirti Sutra was likely composed in India in approximately 100 CE. - Wiki

The written version, probably was. The earliest texts were not written down but were transmitted orally so the origins of the sutra will have been earlier. Most Mahayana sutras are a written elaboration on a small, originally oral, core.

There are miracles in the Pali Canon as well, such as the Miracle of the Pairs. I use Vimalakirti because of the similarity to certain other miracles I could mention.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It is…you could say that it is morally wrong to take the life of the innocent

Unless those ‘innocents’ are Amalekite babies and YHWH has ordered them to be killed. If God can order this done and it was not immoral for the Israelites to do so, then it is not absolutely wrong to kill babies.

Either God is the creator of the moral law & not subject to it or He is not the creator & subject to the moral law.

For a Buddhist it is the latter. God is not the creator and He is subject to moral law (karma).

Well that doesnt make sense… it seems to be quite clear that sin exists…just turn on the 6 o’clock news…

Sin can be defined as “an offence against God’s law”. Using that definition, sin does not exist. I do not deny that some people act in morally wrong ways, but I do not use the word “sin” to describe such actions. The downside of there being no sin is that there is no forgiveness of sin either. Buddhists have to be very careful when they act because there is no way to undo the results of any action.

This is another case of the Buddhist approach differing from the Christian approach.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Are you saying that we were wrong not to kill every German infant and every German nursing baby?

If God orders the killing of human beings, including infants and nursing babies then it is not possible, from a Christian point of view, to say that “all human life is sacred”.

rossum

I am on line briefly. It is especially possible from a Christian point of view to say that “all human life is sacred.” I need to roll this between my ears for a bit and later I will answer. Maybe someone else will come up with the same thoughts since I have seen a similar idea in another thread.

In the meantime, I will wait until you have a chance to respond to post 86.

Blessings,
granny

All human life deserves profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Are you saying that we were wrong not to kill every German infant and every German nursing baby?

If God orders the killing of human beings, including infants and nursing babies then it is not possible, from a Christian point of view, to say that “all human life is sacred”.

rossum

I find it difficult to understand why it has not occured to you that since for deists, God is the creator and therefore the owner of all things. If God decides to take back a life to Himself, to give it eternal life united to Himself, shortly after birth by either a desease, accident, or war, He has the right to take it because He owns it. He is not destroying it, or taking something away from that life, He is giving it something more that we can not give it if we take that human life and end it. To say that all human life is sacred is another way of saying all human life belongs to God.
Now do you understand that from a Christian point of view, God ordering the death of infants along with all adults and animals does not contradict the idea that all human life is sacred, all human life belongs to God and this life is only temporary and eternal life, (hopefully in heaven in God), is the goal?
Do you see that it is possible (since you have admitted that it is possible that you are wrong and therefore it is theoretically possible that we are correct and there is a Creator God who rewards correct behaviour with eternity in heaven) that some children killed in these circumstances would be very thankful for all eternity in heaven?
Also, we could include that the sins of the parents will incur punishments in this life for themselves and their children, sometimes even death.

 

[rossum]

Am I correct that Buddhists also see a spiritual component, maybe four aspects?

Buddhists analyse humans into five parts, skandha, only one of which is material. The other four are: feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

If so, then it would be possible for both of us to say that an objective [absolute] truth is that human life is sacred

There are objective truths in Buddhism but no absolute truths. I do not like the word “sacred” which carries too much of God about it for my taste. Human life is to be respected at all times.

The reason human life is sacred is its spiritual component.

Here we disagree. None of the five components is particularly spiritual. Human life is to be respected because not to do so is to act unwisely.

rossum

 

[Thing]

The written version, probably was. The earliest texts were not written down but were transmitted orally so the origins of the sutra will have been earlier. Most Mahayana sutras are a written elaboration on a small, originally oral, core.

There are miracles in the Pali Canon as well, such as the Miracle of the Pairs. I use Vimalakirti because of the similarity to certain other miracles I could mention.

rossum

Yes, I was, funny enough, thinking that maybe St. Thomas did go to India, as all those protesters say.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

rossum: In post 70, I asked, “You say it is not possible that Budda is in error or incomplete in His understanding of the Creator God, because he was enlightened. So, essentially you are saying Budda is infallible in your opinion. Correct? Or are you saying he is infallible and that is a verifiable fact? What is the evidence that proves your fact? Do you claim that you are infallible? Is it possible that your opinion that the “budda is infallible because he was enlightened” could be wrong and therefore the budda might not be infallible?” You responded as below: Please explain the difference between saying, “The Buddha was enlightened so everything he said was correct.” and saying " In my opinion, the budda was infallible, everything he said was correct, true".
From my understanding, if everything is correct, it must mean that it is in agreement with an objective standard. Do you agree?, disagree? Where does that objective standard come from? What brought it into existance?

You said below, “Much of what the Buddha said is verifiable. Those parts of it that I have been able to verify for myself I have found to be correct”. I asked in another post “Do you mean that it can be verified that He said it, or do you mean that it can be verified that it is objectively true?” I do not see where you answered this question directly, maybe I missed it.
I also asked something like, “What test did you test with that showed you that the answer must be karma and could not be because of an All-knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving Creator God who created and revealed an objective moral order?” I did not see where you answered this specifically. Can you sight one example that proves to you that it must be karma and could not be because of the aforementioned Creator God?

The Buddha was enlightened so everything he said was correct.

Much of what the Buddha said is verifiable. Those parts of it that I have been able to verify for myself I have found to be correct. This gives me confidence that those parts I have not yet verified are also correct and that they are worth pursuing.

Buddhism is a practical religion. Much of what the Buddha said was in the form, “If you want this result then do these things.” In all cases I have tested when I have done these things I got the predicted result.

Of course I could be wrong, I am not enlightened. However I do have a reasonable basis for my belief – I have tested some parts and those tests have succeeded.

So the existence of an unchanging moral law is at best irrelevant. What I really need to know is the changing standard to which I am expected to adhere in my current situation. From where I stand the actual actions I must follow change, hence I am in effect following a changing morality. You assert the existence of an unchanging morality but that has no impact on what God expects from me here and now. God’s expectations of me change.

It may not be a change from God’s side, but I am not God so from where I am standing it is a change. Yesterday I was expected to stone the adulteress, today I should let her go with an admonition. I am looking at this from my point of view because I need to know how I should act. From my perspective I am seeing a changing morality.

One of the characteristics of Buddhism is that it accepts the ubiquity of change. You seem to be trying to reify the changing morality we get here and now into an unchanging morality that has no real effect on us here and now. I do not accept your reifying of morality; much of Buddhist philosophy is a rejection of various forms of reification.The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
You are assuming an “ontological depth” to morality - your underlying permanent unchanging absolute morality - that does not exist. All we get is the changing morality that we have to work with day to day.

rossum

 

[rossum]

rossum: In post 70, I asked, “You say it is not possible that Budda is in error or incomplete in His understanding of the Creator God, because he was enlightened. So, essentially you are saying Budda is infallible in your opinion. Correct? Or are you saying he is infallible and that is a verifiable fact? What is the evidence that proves your fact? Do you claim that you are infallible? Is it possible that your opinion that the “budda is infallible because he was enlightened” could be wrong and therefore the budda might not be infallible?” You responded as below: Please explain the difference between saying, “The Buddha was enlightened so everything he said was correct.” and saying " In my opinion, the budda was infallible, everything he said was correct, true".

If enlightenment is as described and if the Buddha was enlightened then all that the Buddha said was true. I am not enlightened, though there are others that are. Those that are verify the truth of both these statements. When I attain enlightenment I will be able to verify them directly for myself. Until then I have been able to verify a part of what the Buddha said but the rest I take on faith. Over time the amount of faith I need will reduce and the amount of direct knowledge I have will increase.

From my understanding, if everything is correct, it must mean that it is in agreement with an objective standard. Do you agree?, disagree? Where does that objective standard come from? What brought it into existance?

The objective standard is reality, the universe. The universe, in both its material and immaterial parts, is a product of cause and effect which is brought into existence by the previous state of the universe.

You said below, “Much of what the Buddha said is verifiable. Those parts of it that I have been able to verify for myself I have found to be correct”. I asked in another post “Do you mean that it can be verified that He said it, or do you mean that it can be verified that it is objectively true?” I do not see where you answered this question directly, maybe I missed it.

It can be verified that it is true. Whether or not he said it is not particularly relevant; some suttas are spoken by other enlightened monks and not by the Buddha. People other than the Buddha can speak the truth.

I also asked something like, “What test did you test with that showed you that the answer must be karma and could not be because of an All-knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving Creator God who created and revealed an objective moral order?” I did not see where you answered this specifically. Can you sight one example that proves to you that it must be karma and could not be because of the aforementioned Creator God?

The Creator is a part of cause and effect. He must be because the action of creation is the cause part of a cause and effect process with the Creator as the cause and the whole of creation as the effect. Since the Creator is part of cause and effect then ipso facto the Creator is subject to karma because karma is just cause and effect. Causes give rise to effects. Actions give rise to results. Wise actions give rise to pleasant results; unwise actions give rise to unpleasant results.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Buddhists analyse humans into five parts, skandha, only one of which is material. The other four are: feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

There are objective truths in Buddhism but no absolute truths. I do not like the word “sacred” which carries too much of God about it for my taste. Human life is to be respected at all times.

Here we disagree. None of the five components is particularly spiritual. Human life is to be respected because not to do so is to act unwisely.

rossum

Thank you for your explanations.

I can work with objective truths as long as objective retains its original meaning.

At first, there was discomfort using the word sacred because there is quite a bit of God about it. However, when I looked at sacred as something set apart for a purpose (worship of a deity according to my dictionary) I thought of a cemetery which some cultures consider sacred ground. Also, in my humble opinion, being distinct from brute animals, humans could be considered sacred. This does not mean that animals should worship us; only that there is something about us which puts us in a higher order so to speak.

When I got down to the 5th dictionary definition, I decided to retain the word sacred. From The American Heritage College Dictionary: “5. Worthy of respect; venerable.”
This sounds like what you said above.

As for feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness, would you consider at least one immaterial? Having at least one immaterial component, higher in degrees than in sentient animals, would work for me.

When I think of an objective truth such as human life is sacred, I don’t think it is necessary to have a precise universal definition because concepts can be defined differently yet have the same basic thrust. It is common sense to look at human life being sacred from a variety of views.

Easter Blessings,
granny,

John 20: 24-31