Who created God?

[Vonsalza]

Each of us is far from perfect and our institutions reflect that.

That’s fair.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is it not the case that you could have taken the best from each rather than limit yourself to that which one single religion (or perhaps philosophy in the case of Buddhism) has to offer?

I can see many pluses and minuses in all religions. After all, they are, as I see it, a reflection of the human condition. Each of us is far from perfect and our institutions reflect that.

Stangely I agree. In fact One can be both a Buddhist and a Christian, at least as far as Buddhists are concerned. For myself I am very fond of Buddhism (my sister, bro in law and wife are Buddhists). I do my daily Christian meditation (using Buddhist vipassana techniques) in a local Buddhist temple. My spiritual director (a 85 yr old Monsignor priest) has no issues at all with this.

I would disagree that all Buddhism categorically denies the concept of a soul. That is a typically a European Buddhist bias (my wife is Chinese Malaysian). Sure, some of the tight scholastic prissiness of definition may need to be relaxed…but for myself I had already done so before Buddhist views became more evjdent to me.
Aristotle, who afterall gave us our basic definition of soul which was worked over by the scholastics, was far more eastern than us western Catholics.

 

[Bradski]

Stangely I agree. In fact One can be both a Buddhist and a Christian…

I was going to say that it might be more accurate to say that one encompasses ideas and concepts from both (although you would specifically need to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be classed as a Christian).

But then, neither has a monopoly on ideas. It ticks me off greatly to hear trite assertions that, for example, love your neighbour is a Christian ideal. Really? No-one prior to Christianity (or Judaism) thought that it was a good idea?

I’m a pick ‘n’ mix type of guy myself.

 

[tonyrey]

The Supreme Being cannot possibly be in the same (human) category as everything else…

All human descriptions of God are analogical and not literally true.

That does not get you away from the problem of a “creator” who has not created anything. That is of the same logical order as making a square circle, which is generally agreed to be beyond the power of God.

The designation “creator” is contingent on something having been created. It is a contingent designation.

The designation is human and therefore contingent! It doesn’t follow that the Creator is also contingent and couldn’t exist without creating the universe - or anything else for that matter. One eternal, rational Being is certainly a far more fertile, intelligible, economical and comprehensive explanation than an eternal or self-created universe which is inconsistent not only with the evidence for the Big Bang and evolution but also the Buddhist belief in spiritual reality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It ticks me off greatly to hear trite assertions that, for example, love your neighbour is a Christian ideal. Really? No-one prior to Christianity (or Judaism) thought that it was a good idea?

We never said no one before Christ ever imagined that we should love our neighbor. God himself has put that insight into all of mankind. Some reject it. It was not that Christ said something already known, but that he said it with the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So much for the notion that each of us gets to make up our morality as we go along.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was going to say that it might be more accurate to say that one encompasses ideas and concepts from both (although you would specifically need to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be classed as a Christian).

But then, neither has a monopoly on ideas. It ticks me off greatly to hear trite assertions that, for example, love your neighbour is a Christian ideal. Really? No-one prior to Christianity (or Judaism) thought that it was a good idea?

I’m a pick ‘n’ mix type of guy myself.

Its an interesting question as to what qualifies someone to be classed as a Christian.

While Buddhism and Christianity have much in common (eg “salvation” is intrinsically linked to the need for self-cultivation) I do not believe Christians are such so much because of what they conceptually believe or explicitly consent to (whether about revelation or about nature) so much as the community they belong to. Clearly personal decisions, beliefs and works have significant bearing on what community you allegedly belong to but it does not seem to be primarily being saved by knowledge or concepts. (Buddhism, it seems to me, is significantly more at risk to Gnosticism and Promethean independence/pride than Christianity). In fact sometimes the belonging is “done to us” without our explicit personal consent and so long as we don’t explicitly reject the friendship of God or the Christian Community (eg infant Baptism, marriage to a Christian) there seems good reason to believe we may still be called Christian.

Anyhow just a few off the cuff thoughts.

If we do believe Christianity involves personally assenting to some fundamental beliefs then I am not sure that belief in the Resurrection is enough. Divinity of Christ seems important as well. Were the Arians real Christians or just imperfect Christians?
It just starts becoming a game of semantics after a while. Who knows . Does it really matter if we try and get on with other Christians despite such differences.

 

[Vico]

God cannot be the creator without a creation also existing. A ‘creator’ who has not created anything is not actually a creator. I am not “rossum, creator of universes” because I have not created any universes. That designation would be false.

A designation like “creator” is contingent on there being a creation. Hence God was not “creator” before about 13.5 billion years ago. He may have been “creator-to-be” but He was not then a creator.

rossum

There is no time when the Creator did not exist. However there is the theory that time is unreal.

 

[rossum]

Is it not the case that you could have taken the best from each rather than limit yourself to that which one single religion (or perhaps philosophy in the case of Buddhism) has to offer?

I can see many pluses and minuses in all religions. After all, they are, as I see it, a reflection of the human condition. Each of us is far from perfect and our institutions reflect that.

Christianity tends to be a “orthodoxy” – right belief. Buddhism tends more towards “orthopraxy” – right actions. Yes it is possible to merge elements of the two, certainly at the level of practice. Morality and loving your neighbour are common to both. The major difference in practice is meditation and ceremonial. Some would see ceremonial as a form of meditation.

There are Christian meditations, like the Jesus Prayer, though Buddhism has more varieties.

Buddhism for Buddhists is:

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

– Dhammapada 14:5

So Buddhism for Christians becomes:

To avoid all evil: follow the Ten commandments
to cultivate good: “Love your neighbour as yourself”.
to cleanse one’s mind: meditate/pray.

rossum

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Christianity tends to be a “orthodoxy” – right belief. Buddhism tends more towards “orthopraxy” – right actions. Yes it is possible to merge elements of the two, certainly at the level of practice. Morality and loving your neighbour are common to both. The major difference in practice is meditation and ceremonial. Some would see ceremonial as a form of meditation.

There are Christian meditations, like the Jesus Prayer, though Buddhism has more varieties.

Buddhism for Buddhists is:

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

– Dhammapada 14:5

So Buddhism for Christians becomes:

To avoid all evil: follow the Ten commandments
to cultivate good: “Love your neighbour as yourself”.
to cleanse one’s mind: meditate/pray.

rossum

If someone through their own self insight and cultivation with no knlowedge of Buddhism ended up practising the same Way…could they be called Buddhist?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Christianity tends to be a “orthodoxy” – right belief. Buddhism tends more towards “orthopraxy” – right actions. Yes it is possible to merge elements of the two, certainly at the level of practice. Morality and loving your neighbour are common to both. The major difference in practice is meditation and ceremonial. Some would see ceremonial as a form of meditation.

There are Christian meditations, like the Jesus Prayer, though Buddhism has more varieties.

Buddhism for Buddhists is:

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

– Dhammapada 14:5

So Buddhism for Christians becomes:

To avoid all evil: follow the Ten commandments
to cultivate good: “Love your neighbour as yourself”.
to cleanse one’s mind: meditate/pray.

rossum

I think you are identifying Christianity too much with the Western post Constantine Roman version. If you looked at the Eastern Catholic Churches I think the above comparision would largely fall apart as the two start looking and feeling much closer…which is not surprising.

 

[tonyrey]

We never said no one before Christ ever imagined that we should love our neighbor. God himself has put that insight into all of mankind. Some reject it. It was not that Christ said something already known, but that he said it with the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So much for the notion that each of us gets to make up our morality as we go along.

On the other hand we’re certainly not members of a species whose mental processes are caused by forces beyond our control. Love implies free will which cannot doesn’t exist in the atheist’s scheme of things which reduces us to biological machines…

 

[Vico]

Christianity tends to be a “orthodoxy” – right belief. Buddhism tends more towards “orthopraxy” – right actions. Yes it is possible to merge elements of the two, certainly at the level of practice. Morality and loving your neighbour are common to both. The major difference in practice is meditation and ceremonial. Some would see ceremonial as a form of meditation.

There are Christian meditations, like the Jesus Prayer, though Buddhism has more varieties.

Buddhism for Buddhists is:

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

– Dhammapada 14:5

So Buddhism for Christians becomes:

To avoid all evil: follow the Ten commandments
to cultivate good: “Love your neighbour as yourself”.
to cleanse one’s mind: meditate/pray.

rossum

There is the Third Nobel Truth, which includes cessation of dukkha which brings the ultimate end of man of Nirvana. For Christians the ultimate end is union with the Most Holy Trinity.

 

[Aloysium]

A consistent atheist doesn’t believe in spiritual reality of any description!

My long-winded :twocents:

The problem I see with these discussions is that there is no Atheism, other than the collection of people who use the label. To define the precepts of Atheism one would have to do a statistical survey. This is in contrast with the Church, to whose teachings and traditions Catholic, in varying degrees and willingness, the faithful try to adhere. On these forums one frequently observes of non-Catholics, a tendency to focus on what we may individually believe, as opposed to an interest in the actual Faith itself, which grounded in the grace of the Holy Spirit and revealed by Jesus Christ. This is consistent with a belief that there is no absolute truth in matters of the spirit, such as beauty, morality, and the meaning of existence, other than the relative opinions of individual persons.

Along with a denial of the world of the spirit, what you generally get, as in the case of Stephen Hawking, is a dismissal of philosophy and theology. There would be no point to seeking answers to who and why we are if there exists no such truth.

The process of spiritual discovery necessarily involves confronting the ignorance that pervades the human condition, which manifests itself as the abyss, the meaninglessness, emptiness, uncaringness and disconnect that accompanies life. In Death’s domain, we can hide or collude, but only temporarily; it will find us. The only hope lies in transcendence. And, that is what religions are all about.

So Atheism boils down to a collection of individuals, using different definitions, who self-identify as such. Within this category, there are persons trying to understand themselves in the world, finding that the language of religion has no meaning for them. Others, for their own reasons, seem to be interested primarily in putting down the beliefs of others. On another axis, there are the two poles of scientism and social progressivism. Of course it’s not a matter of either or, but a combination of these approaches to religion. We are all sinners, and I believe that in general Atheism presents a dysfuctional way of dealing with that reality.

With respect to the spiritual, what is understood by those with a scientific bent is that there exists a subjective mind with the capacity of evolving ideas concerning reality, which deeply believed to be material. A pointlessness in life, fear and anxiety about death in its many forms boil down to illusory demons, which if not easily dismissed, can be controlled or abated by the distractions of the world (sex, money, power, fame), through meditative techniques, some form of psychoanalysis, and drugs, therapeutic or illicit. If all one believes in are the laws that govern the material, thoughts about God and gods are delusory and fanciful illusions that pacify children at best, the opium of the masses.

The reality is that there does exist a transcendent Divine, living Truth, whom we can know. To know Him requires a commitment, a conversion. One has to walk the walk. There is no knowledge outside of our relationship with Him. But then, there is no standing still in life, so that even waiting for such evidence to impose itself upon us is a step along the path that is the Truth. What does not help is a strict denial of what appear at the moment to be solely possibilities and a reluctance to venture forward to meet God who calls us all.In the symbol of Christian transcendence, the cross, we see the hope of life eternal in God through the confrontation of suffering with love. In and through Christ we become children of God, sharing with Him the glory that is His.

When we meet Him, the living Truth, all our questions will be answered. Those as irrational as the OP will disperse like a fog in the blazing sun that is the simple reality of God Himself.

 

[BrunoMaria]

sometimes this forum appears as if it would be a match blievers vs. atheists.
Some of the atheist team, keep on opposing in the atheist way, such as

If we imagine a universe which is shrinking as opposed to expanding, then any sentient life in that universe might surmise that everything will end up in a singularity and that it would be nonsensical to ask what happens after that point as time would cease to exist.

Then it expands again (the bounce) and any sentient life in that universe might surmise that everything started with a singularity and that it would be nonsensical to ask what happened before that point as time before that point did not exist.

Maybe the Hindus have it right and we live a cyclic, eternal existence.

Believers might write whatever they like to - however founded in the Gospel, they will always be opposed.

God btw. is NOT bound to the Universe He created. Chistians know this - atheists don’t.
Hence this is a match like in Disney’s "Bedknobs and Broomsticks "

That’s why I write so seldom here. One can’t expect any insight, but it’s always considered a foul and answered by a penalty kick.
That’s life as we all keep experiencing. So what.

But so what, when we and both parties alike see God???

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What does not help is a strict denial of what appear at the moment to be solely possibilities and a reluctance to venture forward to meet God who calls us all.In the symbol of Christian transcendence, the cross, we see the hope of life eternal in God through the confrontation of suffering with love. In and through Christ we become children of God, sharing with Him the glory that is His.

When we meet Him, the living Truth, all our questions will be answered. Those as irrational as the OP will disperse like a fog in the blazing sun that is the simple reality of God Himself.

This was a great post!

That atheist “reluctance” or indifference you speak of may be somewhat counterfeit in the end. We know that when atheists show up in this forum, despite their forceful denials, it is because God invites them to meet Him here and begin the supremely great adventure in life.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is the Third Nobel Truth, which includes cessation of dukkha which brings the ultimate end of man of Nirvana. For Christians the ultimate end is union with the Most Holy Trinity.

Somebody got a third Nobel prize for taking out Count Dooku .

 

[rossum]

If someone through their own self insight and cultivation with no knlowedge of Buddhism ended up practising the same Way…could they be called Buddhist?

Yes. That is exactly how the Buddha rediscovered Buddhism, but his own efforts and insights. In the same way, once Buddhism disappears in the future, the Maitreya Buddha will rediscover it and refound the religion.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is the Third Nobel Truth, which includes cessation of dukkha which brings the ultimate end of man of Nirvana. For Christians the ultimate end is union with the Most Holy Trinity.

s/Nobel/Noble

The major difference is that nirvana can happen before you die; it is separate from the post-death heavens. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 when he became enlightened. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the ordinary world and at the same time in nirvana.

rossum

 

[Vico]

s/Nobel/Noble

The major difference is that nirvana can happen before you die; it is separate from the post-death heavens. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 when he became enlightened. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the ordinary world and at the same time in nirvana.

rossum

Before death. Catechism:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: 78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” 79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” 80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” 81

78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

And

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church

 

[BrunoMaria]

Atheism or any other religion, is nil and nothing. Minds who think the creating God must have been created too, are simply empty minds with no understanding or comprehension at all.

To those who convert from Christian Belief to atheism or any other religion, it’s not any loss at all. It would be to us. To you and me and all real believers it would be an immense catastrophe in life, and we’d rush back into God’ loving arms and ask for forgiveness - as the Lost Son (lost in German Bibles, Prodigal Son in English) did. He was welcomed by the Father and even celebrated (Luke 15,7). Those who leave believe, in their brainless stupidity and not-thinking emotions, even are proud to follow the atheist conviction of „don’t believe, start thinking“. It’s like that goat who thought I’m not a goat, I’m a able-bodied bull. She left her protected meadow - and was killed and eaten by the wolf!

The Bible is in fact absolutely clear to those who are given understanding, if they ask God for understanding - which then is given to them. But he who denies God, can not ask God. He also won’t be given understanding. This Jesus made clear in Mt 13,13-15: Those who got some belief will be given more. And they will have all they need. Those who don’t and even deny belief, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I use stories to teach, for they see, but they don’t really see. They hear, but they don’t really understand. So they show that the things Isaiah said in Is 6,9-10 about them are true: ‘You will listen and listen, but you will not understand. You will look and look, but you will not learn. For these people have become stubborn. They do not hear with their ears. And they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might really understand what they see with their eyes and hear with their ears. They might really understand in their minds. If they did this, they would come back to me and be forgiven.’
(Copied of the International Children Bible IBC).

Here we see that God is at anytime ready to welcome them back to the fold as at the beginning if they repent…… but they don’t want to!

Many think "all religions are same - as in all religions people just try to find themselves“.
That’s simply ridiculous and denying the one and only living God and Jesus Christ the Son God in God light from light true God from true God. Woe to him who deniest Christ
John 3,18: The one who believes in Him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God

In all non-Christian „religions“ Jesus Christ is denied! Woe to the Christian who tends to this religious salad or rather stew, where all sorts of Philosophies are mixed into. Philosophies though, are human ways of thinking - not Christian truth!
All non-Christian „religions“ are mere opinions. Human opinions, that exclude Jesu Christ as Son of God and Second Person in the Most Holy Trinity, who through His deed of salvation by shedding His blood for our sins, reunited us - (many of us) with God pro multis for many (Matthew 26:28).

To convert from Christianity to Buddhism, seems fashionable in our time to do, as those who are not given understanding, think all religions are one. A mere disgrace, for really many do think „all religions are same thing“ and they are with these kind of actions reassured to think so. It’s just terrible. Ever more so, as Buddhism is another form of atheism as Pope Benedict said. Atheos = without god. Some even think atheism is another form of religion.
creation.com/atheism-a-religion
Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach, an 18th-century advocate of atheism proclaimed, that belief in God is continual error.

Buddhists and all who favor this anti-belief don’t have any god, but strive for to lose themselves in the big nothing - the Nirwana.
How hollow and empty in mind! :-((( How on earth can any modern, educated person of today believe such stuff directed against the one an only living God?!
In that case - striving for (the) nothing, the as “Aloysium” here writes “dispersing like a fog in the blazing sun” is alread now nothing but this dispersing one anyway.

Yours
Bruno