Why should I remain Catholic vs. become a Buddhist or a Hindu?

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

God is not a creature but the creator of all creatures.

I was not talking about “creatures” but about everything. God did not create everything because God did not create Himself. It is an error to say, “God created everything”.

The Creator is not one thing or individual among many, rather, esse ipsum subsistens , the sheer act of being itself.

 

[rossum]

The Creator is not one thing or individual among many, rather, esse ipsum subsistens , the sheer act of being itself.

This may be good Catholic theology, but it fails to convince this Buddhist. It seems to me that you are using Humpty Dumpty argumentation here.

If God exists then there is at least one God that God did not create.

 

[rossum]

That’s why mystics like St. John of the Cross could ultimately only say of God, “Nada, nada, nada.” (“Nothing, nothing, nothing.”).

From the Hrdya prajnaparamita sutra:

Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps and He saw that in their own-being they were empty.

Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, whatever is form, that is emptiness, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.

Here, O Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

Therefore, O Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element. There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: There is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path.

The negative approach to reality is not unique to Christianity.

 

[christofirst]

True, each in our own way. Those attributes of God which I referred to above are immanence and transcendence, that God is in all things, but all things are not God. God transcends all things, but is not a thing, so we can rightly say that God created everything. I submit that if a person can accept a concept like Nirvana, then perhaps God is also possible .

 

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

The Creator is not one thing or individual among many, rather, esse ipsum subsistens , the sheer act of being itself.

This may be good Catholic theology, but it fails to convince this Buddhist. It seems to me that you are using Humpty Dumpty argumentation here.

If God exists then there is at least one God that God did not create.

Per Aquinas, simplicity is defined as: (1) not composed of matter and form, or (2) no composition whatsoever (“utterly simple” or “pure act”).

Also to be ( esse ) and that which is ( ens ) are different. Esse , expresses existence as a principle, an action, and can be conceived separately from some thing, for example, knowing what “to eat” is without picturing someone eating.

An intelligence is form and existence. That which exists without matter, must be limited in some way.
All forms with a separate existence, must have some potentiality which imports composition. God (pure act) has no composition.

 

[rossum]

Per Aquinas, simplicity is defined as: (1) not composed of matter and form, or (2) no composition whatsoever (“utterly simple” or “pure act”).

Also to be ( esse ) and that which is ( ens ) are different. Esse , expresses existence as a principle, an action, and can be conceived separately from some thing, for example, knowing what “to eat” is without picturing someone eating.

An intelligence is form and existence. That which exists without matter, must be limited in some way.
All forms with a separate existence, must have some potentiality which imports composition. God (pure act) has no composition.

1. We have drifted away from the topic of this thread.
2. You would do better to quote Nagarjuna than Aquinas; tailor your posts to your audience.
3. If God is not form, and intelligence is form then what does that say about God?

 

[SaberBob]

There’s a meme out there of various religions in truth-relation to the Catholic Church. Two of the types are Buddhism for White People and Taoism for White People;

The point being, many in the West are highly enamored of watered down, low demand “spirituality” but still call these highly attenuated versions of Eastern religions “authentic”.

 

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

Per Aquinas, simplicity is defined as: (1) not composed of matter and form, or (2) no composition whatsoever (“utterly simple” or “pure act”).

Also to be ( esse ) and that which is ( ens ) are different. Esse , expresses existence as a principle, an action, and can be conceived separately from some thing, for example, knowing what “to eat” is without picturing someone eating.

An intelligence is form and existence. That which exists without matter, must be limited in some way.
All forms with a separate existence, must have some potentiality which imports composition. God (pure act) has no composition.

1. We have drifted away from the topic of this thread.
2. You would do better to quote Nagarjuna than Aquinas; tailor your posts to your audience.
3. If God is not form, and intelligence is form then what does that say about God?

Neither Buddhaghosa nor Nagarjuna would accept a Creator, I believe.

God is not an intelligence, such as an angel. God has knowledge by one simple act of knowledge but the knowledge is not discursive as is in rational creatures or understands simply but with limit as with angels. Also, God is self-subsisting form not like that of creatures which is subsistent.

 

[rossum]

Neither Buddhaghosa nor Nagarjuna would accept a Creator, I believe.

Probably not. Neither would accept the Abrahamic God, He contradicts too many of the fundamentals of Buddhism, and is far too immoral (in Buddhist terms) to be worthy of emulating.

Jesus was (probably) a Bodhisattva, but His Father…

 

[GiftofMercy]

Jesus was (probably) a Bodhisattva, but His Father…

His Father is God. Please do not disrespect my God

 

[rossum]

His Father is God. Please do not disrespect my God

I typed an ellipsis. How you filled in that ellipsis came from within yourself.

 

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

Neither Buddhaghosa nor Nagarjuna would accept a Creator, I believe.

Probably not. Neither would accept the Abrahamic God, He contradicts too many of the fundamentals of Buddhism, and is far too immoral (in Buddhist terms) to be worthy of emulating.

Jesus was (probably) a Bodhisattva, but His Father…

So that can be an explanation for Catholics defecting to assume Buddhism, disbelief in the Father.

John 14:9-11 (RSVCE)​

9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

Matthew 16:13-20 (RSVCE)​

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 26:63-66 (RSVCE)​

63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”

 

[rossum]

So that can be an explanation for Catholics defecting to assume Buddhism, disbelief in the Father.

Not so much disbelief in, as disgust at some of His actions:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” – 1 Samuel 15:3

For someone who is inclined towards Buddhism, killing animals is immoral. Even more so killing infants. The Old Testament God kills far too many people and animals. Compare that to how many people and animals the Buddha killed.

 

[GiftofMercy]

I typed an ellipsis. How you filled in that ellipsis came from within yourself.

Not buying it, ellipsis bear intent, otherwise a person does not use/expend energy publishing them on a forum.

 

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

So that can be an explanation for Catholics defecting to assume Buddhism, disbelief in the Father.

Not so much disbelief in, as disgust at some of His actions:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” – 1 Samuel 15:3

For someone who is inclined towards Buddhism, killing animals is immoral. Even more so killing infants. The Old Testament God kills far too many people and animals. Compare that to how many people and animals the Buddha killed.

However Gautama Buddha is not God, the author of life.

 

[rossum]

However Gautama Buddha is not God, the author of life.

How is this relevant to morality? Is Christian morality a version of “might makes right”? Buddhist morality certainly is not. All gods are subject to morality: karma, no matter how powerful they are.

“As you sow, so shall you reap,” applies to all living things, whether in the hells, on earth as animals or humans or as gods in the heavens. Buddhism is not Christianity, and this is one of the differences.

 

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

However Gautama Buddha is not God, the author of life.

How is this relevant to morality? Is Christian morality a version of “might makes right”? Buddhist morality certainly is not. All gods are subject to morality: karma, no matter how powerful they are.

“As you sow, so shall you reap,” applies to all living things, whether in the hells, on earth as animals or humans or as gods in the heavens. Buddhism is not Christianity, and this is one of the differences.

God is one of the many differences. God is not one god among others, but the only God. God is not subject to the laws of creatures, yet God is both merciful and just. The destruction of the Amalekites was a punishment from God on an unrepentant nation.

 

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

God is one of the many differences. God is not one god among others, but the only God. God is not subject to the laws of creatures, yet God is both merciful and just. The destruction of the Amalekites was a punishment from God on an unrepentant nation.

So an unborn child can sin and not repent? All pregnant Amalekite women were killed after all. Cows can sin and not repent; they were killed as well. Camels can sin and not repent; another species that was killed.

It seems to me that you are stretching standard Christian theology beyond its limits here.

A camel is not descended from Adam, so does not have original sin. A camel is not human and so does not have free will. How can a camel sin that it deserves death because it is owned by an Amalekite rather than, say, by an Egyptian?

I thought your God was meant to be just.

Metaphysical evil – the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world – are a consequence of creation.

God is just. All creatures die and are not owed a long life, for life is a gift. A person does not know what God knows. See the concept expressed here in Job 1:

21 And said: Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord, so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.

An unborn child and animals cannot sin, yet we do not know the length of life for them. The unrepentant may have a shorter life as a consequence.

 

[rossum]

An unborn child and animals cannot sin,

Yet your allegedly just God punishes them anyway.

This thread started with a question about why some Christians convert to Buddhism. The behaviour of the Old Testament God is one of those reasons.

 

[Vico]

Buddhism and converts

An unborn child and animals cannot sin,

Yet your allegedly just God punishes them anyway.

This thread started with a question about why some Christians convert to Buddhism. The behaviour of the Old Testament God is one of those reasons.

Death is punishment for some creatures but not for others. Nothing created deserves a particular length of life since it is a gift.

Deuteronomy 32

35 Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time, that their foot may slide: the day of destruction is at hand, and the time makes haste to come.
36 The Lord will judge his people, and will have mercy on his servants: he shall see that their hand is weakened, and that they who were shut up have also failed, and they that remained are consumed.
37 And he shall say: Where are their gods, in whom they trusted?