Who is my neighbour? (in different religions)

[swariffin]

Dear notself,

Another question left, since the system did not allow me to edit anymore. What is your view of Siddharta Gothama as oppose to Buddha? Do you believe that the name/term “Buddha” refers to a sort of a Deity figure, while “Siddharta Gothama” is the incarnation of such Deity figure among human life?

 

[De_Maria]

I was speaking of Jesus Christ in his human incarnation on earth. I didn’t make myself clear.

I know. We do not believe that Jesus was ever not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, even in His human incanation on earth, Jesus was still God.

And since Jesus is God, He could not contradict Himself. The teachings of the Father are absolute.

John Paul II came out against Capitol Punishment except where there was no other way to protect society.

The Catholic Church has always been against Capitol Punishment except where there is no other way to protect society. Pope John Paul II’s position was only a matter of degree and his personal preference does not affect the Church’s absolute teaching which is in conformance to God’s Revelation.

At the time of Christ it was quite easy to break out of prison (they were made of mud bricks

If it was that easy, I’m sure many would have done it. Yet few ever did.

but today according to the Pope there is no true excuse for capital punishment. I can provide a link if you wish.

I’m sure I’ve read Pope John Paul the Great’s stance on Capital punishment from a Catholic perspective. I’ve also read the spin that many radical pro life groups give his statements. Pope JPII would be the first to tell you that his comments must be taken and interpreted in the Spirit of the Church. Not in the Spirit of Buddha or any other religious or philosophical idea.

As for self defense, there should never be an intention to kill. If one kills in the process of defending one’s self or others but there is no intent to do so then it is not a violation of the First Precept. This is the reason Buddhist monastics developed the martial arts. The wanted to defend themselves and others without killing.

Then it is unrealistic. Sometimes one must kill in order to prevent either their own death or the death of innocent victims.

I agree.

You ask excellent questions. I hope I have answered them in a coherent manner.

You have, thanks.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[notself]

Based on the fact that nothing can be ‘good’ of itself or that we can’t just say something is good, without knowing how to measure it as being good. Which is why you’re having problems in explaining it - as saying “what’s good is good” in effect.

But your own example blows this apart. You talked about the baseball player - a player might undergo tremendous hardship in order to train himself up to be the best player in his field. The ‘self-affliction’ he undertakes is therefore not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but dependent on the ultimate outcome.

If you just said “Self-affliction” is bad then no one would exercise ever. No one would strive to improve themselves through barriers of endurance and pain.

You mean that they lead to something bad, because they’re bad.

Which is to say you do good because its good… without saying why you think its good in the first place.

You just arbitrarily say “doing X action is good, because it leads to Y outcome which is good” Why’s it good? It just is.

Are you saying that nothing is either good or bad, that all action is relative?

Many will disagree with you.

I can think of no instance where sexual misconduct is good. Sexual misconduct is a form of betrayal with no purpose but to satisfy one’s sensual desires.

I can think of no instance where intoxication is good. Intoxication causes damage to one’s reputation for responsibility and restraint. It can cause long term health problems if indulged in frequently. It can lead a person to say and do things they later regret.

Taking things that are not freely given is wrong. Even the poorest in Dafur do not steal. They beg. They share what little they have. There is no excuse for stealing.

Divisive speech is wrong. Even the truth can be wrong if it is said with malice.

Killing is wrong. Many try to justify it. But if it could truly be justified why do our soldiers come home with PTSD? Why must cops go through counseling after shooting someone? It is because there is always a price to pay for taking a life. When one takes a life one takes everything that person has or could hope to have. It is the taking away the opportunity for salvation and reconciliation.

When is compassion not good? When is sympathetic joy in the virtuous success of another not good? When is equanimity, which helps you find peace, not good? When is loving kindness not good? All of these things are good.

Effort expended in learning a virtuous skill is never wrong nor is it self affliction. Affliction happens when the performance of an act morally harms oneself, another or both. It is affliction when an act physically harms oneself, another or both. It is affliction when an act mentally harms oneself, another or both.

This is perfectly clear to me. I am saddened to think it is not clear to you.

 

[notself]

Dear Ms. notself (I don’t know your name, but I think you are a female).

I thank you for your explanation regarding Budhism. My brother in law is also Budhist. I would like to exchange ideas with you, as you did very well with De Maria.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Budhism teaches that things so-called “life” goes circular, and that is why people who die will reincarnate to this world. In what level of living, or in what form the spirit reincarnate, depends on the “Karma (good deed)” that such person had during his/her lifetime. A person’s spirit could reincarnate into “richer” person, or “poorer”, or even reincarnate in a form of animal or even insect. So, a mosquito I killed, could be the reincarnation of a spirit of somebody I know.

The reason of suffering, according to Budhism I think, comes from human will. May be the willingness to possess, if I could be more specific. The more human is willing to have/gain something, the more suffering resulted.

My private view toward Budhism is the same as me toward Christianity (my belief). Budhism came long before the era of Jesus, and far away from the land of Judea, which geographically and culturally different. It is perfectly make sense to me, that people perceived the revelation of God, in a form of Budhism or Hinduism, or Confucianism, or even Islam.

The differences of the meaning of neighbourhood in this OP with respect to different religions shown by the members joining this thread, seems to me comes from the level of the inclusion. Please also correct me if I am wrong.

I think you have an excellent understanding of Buddhism.

 

[notself]

Dear notself,

Another question left, since the system did not allow me to edit anymore. What is your view of Siddharta Gothama as oppose to Buddha? Do you believe that the name/term “Buddha” refers to a sort of a Deity figure, while “Siddharta Gothama” is the incarnation of such Deity figure among human life?

The word buddha comes from the root budh which means awake. The word buddha is used to indicate someone who has reached enlightenment, is awake.

The Buddha is the title of Siddhartha Gothama the historical man who became enlightened and taught others who to be come enlightened.

The Buddha will not reincarnate because he is beyond all planes of existence and non existence.

After the teachings of the Buddha completely fade away, a new rightly self awakened person with teach the way to enlightenment. Although any number of persons can become enlightened, become a buddha, there is only one self enlightened, teaching Buddha at one time.

I hope this isn’t confusing to you.

 

[Montalban]

Are you saying that nothing is either good or bad, that all action is relative?

No.

For me all that is good is God.

But you are…

Many will disagree with you.

Given that’s not an argument I’m making, I’d not be surprised

I can think of no instance where sexual misconduct is good. Sexual misconduct is a form of betrayal with no purpose but to satisfy one’s sensual desires.

The fact you call it misconduct is confusing you. It’s simply shifting my challenge to you to define what’s good. In other words you’re saying “Thing X is already defined as being bad - I can’t think of anything that comes from doing something bad that’s good”

I can think of no instance where intoxication is good. Intoxication causes damage to one’s reputation for responsibility and restraint. It can cause long term health problems if indulged in frequently. It can lead a person to say and do things they later regret.

Someone needs an emergency operation. They’ve only got grog. They get the patient intoxicated so as to numb the senses so he can have an arm amputated.

What about the examples you raised about the baseball player?

You said all forms of self-harm are bad (because they are, because they are, because they are). But as I pointed out that the person exerts himself in order to excel.

This is where Buddhism falls apart on what’s ‘good’ and what’s bad.

 

[notself]

No.

For me all that is good is God.

But you are…

Given that’s not an argument I’m making, I’d not be surprised

The fact you call it misconduct is confusing you. It’s simply shifting my challenge to you to define what’s good. In other words you’re saying “Thing X is already defined as being bad - I can’t think of anything that comes from doing something bad that’s good”

I didn’t say that. I was defining bad actions as a contrast to good actions of kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity

Someone needs an emergency operation. They’ve only got grog. They get the patient intoxicated so as to numb the senses so he can have an arm amputated.

First of all alcohol in that situation would probably kill the patient. Secondly, in that instance as misguided as it may be, alcohol would be used as an attempt at anesthesia not as an intoxicant. Intent is the key here.

What about the examples you raised about the baseball player?

You said all forms of self-harm are bad (because they are, because they are, because they are). But as I pointed out that the person exerts himself in order to excel.

I covered that. You choose to ignore my statement that effort towards a virtuous goal is not self harm. It may be work, it may occasionaly be boreing or tiring. But it is not self harm.

This is where Buddhism falls apart on what’s ‘good’ and what’s bad.

You are welcome to your opinion. I wish you well.

 

[KarenNC]

For me all that is good is God.

Why is God good?

 

[De_Maria]

Why is God good?

He created us, we are wonderfully made.
He created the world, it is wonderful.
He revealed Himself to us in the world and by messages to His chosen Prophets and His message is beautiful and gives us great hope of an eternal life with Him.
Those of us who have discovered the Peace which only He can give could give you more superlative reasons, but you probably wouldn’t believe it. And the Scriptures counsel us not to reveal everything to those who are not ready to receive it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Montalban]

Why is God good?

Everything that he is *is *what we call ‘good’.

Whatever God is, is good.

That which is not of God is not of goodness.

 

[Montalban]

First of all alcohol in that situation would probably kill the patient. Secondly, in that instance as misguided as it may be, alcohol would be used as an attempt at anesthesia not as an intoxicant. Intent is the key here.

It might. It might not. But you’re missing the point. It’s more clear with your baseball dilemma…

I covered that. You choose to ignore my statement that effort towards a virtuous goal is not self harm. It may be work, it may occasionaly be boreing or tiring. But it is not self harm.

But you may harm yourself in doing so. You could injure yourself - that was something you came up with!
You said

It is affliction when an act physically harms oneself, another or both. It is affliction when an act mentally harms oneself, another or both.

etc.

So you have something that is harmful, 'cause it’s an affliction, but because of it’s ends it’s not harmful?

And why is the ends good? It just is, or it isn’t. Or you keep doing is shifting the 'good’ somewhere else without saying why it’s good.

Given your objections to the incident above re: alchahol, it may, or may not be harmful, in the long term.

You said it was bad, absolutely. But if the person didn’t die, would that then be good?

 

[notself]

Montalban;2808603]It might. It might not. But you’re missing the point. It’s more clear with your baseball dilemma…

But you may harm yourself in doing so. You could injure yourself - that was something you came up with!
You said

All skillful and unskillful action must be volitional. You have to intend to do it. If you are practicing throwing a ball and you injure your shoulder, that is an accident. It is not considered to be unskillful for the purposes of our discussion. If you continue to play with that injured shoulder knowing that you have a substantial risk of worsening that injury, that is unskillful.

In the first instance, what a shame. In the second instance, what a dink.

So you have something that is harmful, 'cause it’s an affliction, but because of it’s ends it’s not harmful?

If when in the process of doing an action you note that it is harmful, you stop. You have still caused the harm of the action you have completed, but you have stopped taking any further action and therefore stopped the harm from continuing.

And why is the ends good? It just is, or it isn’t. Or you keep doing is shifting the 'good’ somewhere else without saying why it’s good.

You have defined as anything from God as good. This is a rather vague definition. Why is it good?

Given your objections to the incident above re: alchahol, it may, or may not be harmful, in the long term.

You said it was bad, absolutely. But if the person didn’t die, would that then be good?

I explained that in your example the alcohol was being used as a medicine/anesthesia and there for it’s use would be done with that intent. Because it is being used as a medicine it is not a violation of the Fifth Precept. You may have miss read the comment.

 

[Montalban]

Why is God good?

He is.

It’s like asking why is air invisible.

It’s the property of it.

Let me put this another way, whatever God is, is good.

It’s not God is good so much - but goodness is whatever God is. Whatever he is, whatever that may be, whether we know it or not, is good. Nothing is good that is not of God.

So for instance if you pat your dog, that is not ‘good’ unless it is an act of God. It might seem ‘good’ to do but it is devoid of goodness if it is removed from God.

I think that may have confused you.

 

[Montalban]

All skillful and unskillful action must be volitional.

Why is something skillful? Who knows

You have defined as anything from God as good. This is a rather vague definition. Why is it good?

See post above.

I explained that in your example the alcohol was being used as a medicine/anesthesia and there for it’s use would be done with that intent. Because it is being used as a medicine it is not a violation of the Fifth Precept.

Unless used by that person themselves for that purpose.

 

[notself]

He is.

It’s like asking why is air invisible.

It’s the property of it.

Let me put this another way, whatever God is, is good.

It’s not God is good so much - but goodness is whatever God is. Whatever he is, whatever that may be, whether we know it or not, is good. Nothing is good that is not of God.

So for instance if you pat your dog, that is not ‘good’ unless it is an act of God. It might seem ‘good’ to do but it is devoid of goodness if it is removed from God.

I think that may have confused you.

I understand.

Tell me about evil. What is evil?

 

[Montalban]

I understand.

Tell me about evil. What is evil?

Evil is that which closes its eyes to God/separates itself to God

In the OT it talks about how God 'hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This was an attempt to show how this man reacted to God.

But a proper understanding of God is that He is eternal…
God is love (1 John 4:8). He does not change (Hebrews 13:8). He never angers. He eternally loves. When we refer to God’s anger it is how we react to His love. We describe it as anger as an anthropomorphism - using a human characteristic to describe God.
"God is the sun of justice, as it is written, who shines rays of goodness on simply everyone. The soul develops according it its free will into either wax because of its love for God or into mud because of its love of matter. Thus just as by nature the mud is dried out by the sun and wax is automatically softened, so also every soul which loves matter and the world and has fixed its mind from God is hardened as mud according to its free will and by itself advances to its perdition, as did Pharaoh.* However, every soul which loves God is softened as wax, and receiving divine impressions and characters it becomes ‘the dwelling place of God in the Spirit’

• St. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Knowledge 1:12 (quoted in Carlton, C (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press), pp94-5)

 

[notself]

"God is the sun of justice, as it is written, who shines rays of goodness on simply everyone. The soul develops according it its free will into either wax because of its love for God or into mud because of its love of matter. Thus just as by nature the mud is dried out by the sun and wax is automatically softened, so also every soul which loves matter and the world and has fixed its mind from God is hardened as mud according to its free will and by itself advances to its perdition, as did Pharaoh.* However, every soul which loves God is softened as wax, and receiving divine impressions and characters it becomes ‘the dwelling place of God in the Spirit’

The development of all pervasive love, love for all beings is the goal of MettaBhavana or Loving Kindness Meditation. The sutta which is the basis for this meditation and practice of Metta says in part:

Just as with her own life
A mother shields from hurt
Her own son, her only child,
Let all-embracing thoughts
For all beings be yours.

Cultivate an all-embracing mind of love
For all throughout the universe,
In all its height, depth and breadth —
Love that is untroubled
And beyond hatred or enmity.

As you stand, walk, sit or lie,
So long as you are awake,
Pursue this awareness with your might:
It is deemed the Divine State here.

MettaBhavana is the means by which we soften our hearts towards all beings. It is why we carry insects outside in cups and release them, it is why we love our enemies and wish them well.

Delusion is the mud. Delusion is what covers our minds with the mud of craving, hatred, and of ego.

 

[Valke2]

He is.

It’s like asking why is air invisible.

It’s the property of it.

Let me put this another way, whatever God is, is good.

Can there be anything that God is not? Untimately is not God more than everything?

 

[De_Maria]

Can there be anything that God is not? Untimately is not God more than everything?

God is not evil.

 

[Montalban]

The development of all pervasive love, love for all beings is the goal of MettaBhavana or Loving Kindness Meditation. The sutta which is the basis for this meditation and practice of Metta says in part:.

Yes, but for you you just arbitrarily asign to something that it is love.