Why do people believe in God? - results

Re: Before and after death...how's that?

Hmm. I thought I'd already replied to this. Perhaps I dreamt it.

Perhaps. But some claim to know what is coming.

I suspect you don't agree, because you see God as an objective and external entity, and good and evil as arising from Him. This is not the Buddhist view.

See above.

Well, it is not a philosophy or a theory or magic. But it not a spell either.

The practice includes these things, but they are a means, not an end.

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. Think of the colour 'red'. Could you understand it in the absence of an experience of it?

What mumbo jumbo was that? I've been entirely consistent in what I have said (I hope). My comment here simply supports the previous one. All I've said is that an understanding of Buddhism (or rather, a Buddhist understanding of reality), doesn't come out of a book.

Ok, well just a humble (ish) opinion.

Knowledge will not in or of itself lead to enlightenment. But it does depend on what you mean by knowledge. Most people mean the provisional and contingent knowledge that comes from science and the like. That sort of knowledge is metaphysically useless, and tells us nothing important about reality, being trivia about Plato's cave.

However if you mean knowledge in the sense of what one can really and truly know then that's different. This sort of knowledge can lead to wisdom, since it is certain.

This is why experience is so important to knowledge, since experience is the only route to certain knowledge. (I'll expand if you want, but it's the standard conclusion of philsophers, east and west).

I suspect that it is said that wisdom is liberty because wisdom is understanding the truth, and when you know the truth you know that you cannot be imprisoned. That's about as far as I'd want to go with that one.

Completely agree.

Cheers
Canute

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CANUTE:

quote THAT YOU INCLUDED:

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne

“So! Are we coming to the end, -or is it really just a beginning? Regardless of one’s perception, we are all looking toward what is virtually an unknown as we think about that which is ahead of us. Even those of us who believe we do NOT truly die, do, after all face a new experience, -and wonder?
..........................................................

YOU ANSWERED: Perhaps. But some claim to know what is coming.

I SAY; THE KEY WORD HERE IS “claim.”

“A couple of my friends believes in reincarnation, a very interesting theory, but one that I am unable to accept, for many reasons. One of those reasons being, -I suppose that I have never experienced anything impressive enough to give me the slightest hint that I was here before. Yet, does this mean that no one was…………?? Yet, I believe I was, before I was born, and my fascination with Chinese Monks and England always interested me, but with the latter, I now attribute so much reading of old English lit and such to my occasional English spelling of words and some preferred pronunciations.

Another possibility of either could be inherited memory, be there such a thing. Regardless, I do not feel at all that I have been in this world before. Where was I? I do not know, nor do I feel compelled to have a theory about it.
.......................................................................................
////////////////////////// I had to go back and pull your statement and my statement ..... so that I might understand your next statement.

OKAY, THIS WAS YOUR STATEMENT: “Yeah. It's what lies at the heart of Christian teaching that concurs with Buddhism. Certainly not the practices of the later Church, and definitely not the objectification of good, evil and God. “

TO WHICH I RESPONDED THUSLY:
"I ASSUME, IF I MAY BE SO RISKY, THAT I AGREE WITH YOU, THOUGH I CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE HOW FAR YOU ARE TAKING each element of that TRIO (of good, evil and God).

/////////////////………….and then you said the following:

“It's what lies at the heart of Christian teaching that concurs with Buddhism. Certainly not the practices of the later Church, and definitely not the objectification of good, evil and God. “

SO, WHY THIS? ………YOU SAY: “I suspect you don't agree, because you see God as an objective and external entity, and good and evil as arising from Him. This is not the Buddhist view.”

//////////// Are you saying that because I do not accept the “Buddhist view that I cannot believe this statement (from you)? Surely not. I believe what lies in the heart of Christian teaching is similar to why lies in the heart of Buddhism. I believe that the practices of the later concepts of Christianity probably do not, ........AND I believe that Christianity in general most likely do not accept the Buddhist concept of good, evil and God, depending upon where you were taking it.

THEREFORE, I tend to agree with you! It was never my intention to imply that I agree with concepts on either side, only that I agree with you as to the differences, ......except possibly for the comparison of Good, Evil and God.

HAVING SAID THAT, for the second time, IT WOULD STAND TO REASON that you must clarify the GOOD, EVIL, AND GOD –thing, BEFORE either of us will know whether or not I think it differs from Christianity, (which was the subject, and not whether I agreed with BUDDHISM, or with CHRISTIANITY).

(And, be careful stating what I believe.) No where ever have I stated that “evil arises from God,” Canute, my stars, I do not believe that, rather I should think that evil would seem to be the absence thereof. Make sense?

“I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. Think of the colour 'red'. Could you understand it in the absence of an experience of it?”

Of course not, could you?
YOU WROTE:
“All I've said is that an understanding of Buddhism (or rather, a Buddhist understanding of reality), doesn't come out of a book.”

Canute, what religion did come from a book? This is what I have been trying to get across to you all along. You seem to have me in a box. You do not really know how I believe, because you do not hear. No, I am not a Buddhist, though I am friendly with much of what it represents to me.

You said in another posting that Buddhist’s have their students study on their own, then if they have a question, the question is answered. By whom, Canute, by a Buddhist?

OF COURSE, BY A BUDDHIST, what else? It would be ridiculous to do otherwise, unless it mattered not how that person progressed.

Tell me how that is different from other religions, or doctrines within a religion even. Except for Catholicism, (and they may have changed), converts and anyone who does not know, are expected to study on their own, and to ask questions when necessary. This is precisely what I used to do. And, who do you suppose answered my questions. Right~, the very ones who were attempting to nurture me. I am sure that it was all well-intentioned, and it was -during the time I was in Bible School, appropriate.

The trouble was, on going, this seemed a bit like welfare. Every time I was hungry, I had to go to someone else, because I had so little food of my own. Yet, all the food I was gathering was grown by someone else.

I think the reason I like reading religious material from Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Mohammadism, Atheism, Agnosticism and so forth, is because of their similarities. Their differences are obvious, but the similarities are not always so obvious.

They have similarities, because they are promoted by, upheld by, and protected by people, and people being similar and yet so different persuades me that religions have similarities as well, and of course, they do.

As far as whether Buddhism is a religion, is immaterial to me. The Bible School I attended claimed not to be a religion, and TO BE independent. So what? People want not to be considered religious so they make claims, like, "I am spiritual, or I am an agnostic.” Yahoo, now I have a title. I am no longer just someone who is not sure whether there be a God, but I have a respectable title. Keeping this is mind: Why does someone need to say, I am a Christian, I am a Buddhist, or I am an Atheist? Get this, if you will: If the difference is lost without the title, then of what of what consequence is the title? If the difference is evident without the title, then why the title?
................................................................
YOU WROTE: However if you mean knowledge in the sense of what one can really and truly know then that's different. This sort of knowledge can lead to wisdom, since it is certain.”

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

”This is why experience is so important to knowledge, since experience is the only route to certain knowledge. (I'll expand if you want, but it's the standard conclusion of philsophers, east and west).”

Expand, if you like. This has been one of my favorite studies over the past six years or so. I agree with you, and am happy to hear that you have so much backing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have been reading so much. However, last night when I opened the door to let the dog out, all over the place was this fascinating white stuff we call snow. Gosh, it was so pretty, and soon it was snowing again.

We live up on a hill, so I lifted the blinds, turned the outside light on, the inside lights off, and we watched it snow. Big beautiful flakes thickened the sky for at least two hours. The music was ever so low, and I sat right in front of one of the speakers.

I am not sure that I was thinking about anything during that time. The trees across the front have lost all their leaves, allowing us to see the evergreens across the way. Finally, it stopped, and I went to bed, but kept getting up to see what it was doing outside, and most of the snow had melted by early morning, at least where we live. Therefore, my eyes are now getting tired.

OOPS!…. YOU SAID: (and I was going to go back and look this up)…..“What mumbo jumbo was that? I've been entirely consistent in what I have said (I hope). My comment here simply supports the previous one."

My friend, you waited so long to answer that particular posting that I could not recall to which statement of yours I was referring, but it does not sound lmuch as though I was very thoughtful, if I gave no quote.

If you can tell me more about it, I will surely try; or, you can just forgive me, and jump on me the next time I call your word mumbo jumbo.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Later……
Have a great new year, and fun in getting there. PMT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps I should have said that some claim that it is possible for YOU to know.

Is it not a creator God that lies at the heart of Christianity? There's no such thing in Buddhism, so I can't really see how they can be synthesised.

Defintions are certainly important. But however God, good and evil are defined the Buddhist and Christian view differ. (I'm not arguing for which is more true).

I thought that everything arose from God in Christianity. If not from God then from whence?

But I didn't say anything about other religions.

I don't think I said that. Have you not noticed in Buddhism how often novices who ask questions are hit with a stick rather than given an answer? Of course other people can sometimes help in answering some questions, but in general what is given is not answers, but advice and hints on how to find out for yourself. Buddhists are taught not to accept answers from other people in the case of important questions. (Again, I'm not arguing right and wrong here, just clarifying the facts).

Most religions have a mystical foundation and a mystical tradition, in which personal experience is considered epistemilogically superior to book learning or theological expertise. However in most religions these are minority sports, reserved for the occasional Meister Eckhart or St. John of the Cross etc. In Buddhism there is only personal experience, and those things that help one achieve it.

I agree. But 'Buddhism' is a convenient bit of shorthand for a way of understanding reality. Just as 'Christianity' is shorthand for a belief in God, good and evil and Christ etc. These words save a lot of time in conversation.

As Chuang Tzu said "The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him? “
The Conception of Language And The Use of Paradox In Buddhism And Taoism, Edward T. Ch'ine Journal of Chinese Philosophy Vol. 11 1984 P.375-399

Well, I'm no academic expert, but for instance - from Aristotle and Popper.

(On the problem of explaining the cosmos) – “Every proof must proceed from premisses; the proof as such, that is to say the derivation from the premisses, can therefore never finally prove the truth of any conclusion, but only show that the conclusion must be true provided the premisses are true. If we were to demand that the premisses should be proved in their turn, the question of truth would only be shifted back by another step to a new set of premisses, and so on to infinity.”

Karl Popper – The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974) from http://www.dieoff.org/page126.htm

Aristotle got around this by saying that there are premisses which are indubitably true, and which do not need any proof; and these he called these ‘basic premisses’.

Aristotle writes (De Amima) that our knowledge of the basic premisses cannot be demonstrative, since this would lead to an infinite regress, and that the basic premisses must be at least as true and as certain as the conclusions based upon them”

Popper ibid.

Therefore Aristotle and Popper concludes that:

“Actual knowledge is identical with its object”

Thus they assert that knowledge gained from experience may be certain whereas deduction and inferrence (based on axioms) cannot be.

Happy New Year
Canute

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Chanute wrote: “Perhaps I should have said that some claim that it is possible for YOU to know.”

I was but pointing out specifically why I was in full agreement with you.
……………………………
CANUTE: “Is it not a creator God that lies at the heart of Christianity? There's no such thing in Buddhism, so I can't really see how they can be synthesised.”

Oh, okay. Guess I misunderstood your previous comment. (I cannot debate Buddhism, as you surely know more than I do. I was of the impression that you said something to the effect that Christianity in its earlier stages had more in common with Buddhism, that “modern Christianity.”

We both agree that Christianity has gone through some gradual transformation since it’s beginning, so I will leave it there. Although I get your point about the creator, I have always thought of that as lying at the heart of Judaism, and as having been adopted by Christians, which really amounts to about the same. So, I am cool with that.
……………………………….

CANUTE: “Definitions are certainly important. But however God, good and evil are defined the Buddhist and Christian view differ. (I'm not arguing for which is more true).”

Gottcha. Now, you have said how you define God, (as non-existent!), so how do YOU perceive good and evil?

Any definition you give will simply be an FYI to me, because I too am not prepared to argue about it. To be practical and real, I cannot tell someone else what is evil to him.

I did attempt, on another thread, to explain my take on evil. It is a difficult subject. In person, I would have done much better, because it absolutely has to be based upon an agreed premise.
…………………………………………….

CANNUTE:
(I) "I thought that everything arose from God in Christianity.

(I) All GOOD things come from God, Canute, all GOOD things. Ahh, I am not really into defending Christianity as such. I have my own problems with them. I am also not much for defending beliefs, but I am really big on defending people, especially if I think they are being misquoted or misunderstood! This includes me, and you too, fella. Yep! If I thought someone was misquoting you, I would defend you without a blink.
... ... ...
(II) “If not from God then from whence?”

(II) “God is light, and in Him is no darkness.” Then from whence comes the darkness?
……………………….

CANUTE: But I didn't say anything about other religions.

Correct, you did not. Apparently, I missed the point.
………………………………………………
CANUTE: “I don't think I said that. Have you not noticed in Buddhism how often novices who ask questions are hit with a stick rather than given an answer?”

No, but I like the concept.

You know what? I did go back to search for your remarks—before I made that statement—but the entry, as well as the other entries were not there. Perhaps I was on the wrong thread, but I thought I had seen it on Eastern Religion, (in reply to someone asking about Buddhism). Therefore, I cannot back it up, or even swear that I got it right in the first place. I was hoping that you would remember.
……………………………..
CANUTE: “Of course other people can sometimes help in answering some questions, but in general what is given is not answers, but advice and hints on how to find out for yourself. Buddhists are taught not to accept answers from other people in the case of important questions. (Again, I'm not arguing right and wrong here, just clarifying the facts).”

Okay, but that is not quite the impression I had from that which I cannot locate, so guess we will just have to say bye bye to my statement.
.................................
CANUTE: “In Buddhism there is only personal experience, and those things that help one achieve it.”

I very much agree with that. Clergy over the laity has never impressed me much either. As for being saints, Apostle Paul repeatedly calls believers saints of God; in John's first epistle, it reads, "Beloved now are we the sons of God......" another verse says that we are heirs with God and joint heirs with Christ. Therefore, all this cannonizing, to me, is simply another example of Christians claiming to buy one horse, and then riding off on another. But, I have to think that they must have some basis for the tradition of building their sainthood. Regardless, however, I find no scriptural basis for it, but it is okay with me, if they go through that formality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.............................................
CANUTE: I agree. But 'Buddhism' is a convenient bit of shorthand for a way of understanding reality. Just as 'Christianity' is shorthand for a belief in God, good and evil and Christ etc. These words save a lot of time in conversation.

Perhaps you just hit on the problem!

Let me tell you what I think Christianity is (using your word) “shorthand” for: Catholicism at its worst; Born again Bible thumpers at their worst; Religious Right in the worst possible light; plus a few other choice words or phrases. In other words, someone we do not like very much. Am I wrong?

Labels are deceiving. We must get rid of them.

To say, “I am a follower of Christ,” (the original definition of the word "Christian"), bears responsibility. There is nothing vague about that. Nevertheless, many choose to say, “I am a born again Christian,” even though by their own admission one must be born again to be a Christian. Thus this statement, by their own interpretation, is redundant.

(Incidentally, the word, Christian, is seen only three times in the King James Version of the Bible. (In the gospel of Luke, where it is mentioned that believers were first called Christians in Antioch; in the book of Acts, (also written by Luke) Agrippa is quoted as having said: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian;… and in Second Peter, where Peter says that believers should not be ashamed to be called “Christians.” ...I cannot help but wonder what the apostle, Peter, would have to say about that now.)
...........................................
CANUTE: “Thus they assert that knowledge gained from experience may be certain whereas deduction and inferrence (based on axioms) cannot be.”

All the quotes are neat, and other philosophers agree also with this last statement of yours, (above).

It is interesting to read the different styles that give us the same basic conclusions.

And ….a very Happy New Year to you as well. Until next time. PMT

 

Just a quick thought for the Bible believers....(I'm not knocking the Bible, I just don't believe all of whats there and wonder why so many books where left out)...In the beginning what was there? God. Anything else? No. God created. Correct me if I am wrong here. What did God create everything out of? Himself, right? So, who is Lucifer or Satan? Part of God, right? How would you describe God? Love, charity, joy, compassion and all the rest of the "Good" things? Impossible because God is everything. God, in my opinion, does not judge the way we do. God is beyond the duality of what is good and what is bad. God just is. When we as humans go beyond our limited minds and realize our own God-hood, we two will realize (self-realization) that all that matters is being who and what we are right now. Which is God.

 

Awake

Impeccable logic imho.

Vishnu to Vishnu
Message ends

 

----------
M*W: Amen!

 

This is the thread CANUTE, AND MY "LOST MESSAGE" IS UP THERE JUST ABOVE THE LAST FEW COMMENTS. NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO ANSWER IT, BUT AT LEAST I NOW WHERE IT WAS ALL THIS TIME. pmt

 

Yes. Awake re-awakened it.

 

Non Bible beleivers - In the beginning what was there?

There was 'the face of the deep' that the spirit of God hovered over. In other words, there is that which IS NOT God in the biblical account.

Wrong by the biblical paradigm.

Beings created by God who are separate from God by the biblical paradigm

I agree that it is impossible, but only because of the limitations of the meatware encased in my skull, not because of your statement that God is everything.

Agreed

God is beyond duality because duality is a human artifice. "God just is" is meaningless to me.

If the self-realized mind is God and each individual mind is capable of self-realization, do you have 5.5 billion Gods or one god looking through 11 billion eyeballs? Or both? Or something else entirely? Of course, your fallback position is that I am not self-realized, which I demonstrate simply by asking the question!

The logic isn't impeccable, it's self-referential (it has to be!). It is, however, a clear statement of your beliefs and I respect those beliefs. I just don't hold them now, as I once did.

Being who and what we are at the moment is important (I AM). But so is what we are becoming, which you must also believe since you posit that there are 2 states of being, non-self-realization and self-realization. There must be a transition from one state to the other - a transformation, a journey perhaps). At the root of the Judeo/Christian mode of understanding is the idea that God created something that was separate from God, in order to create something that was like God (with independant free will and creativity). God desires to be part of that creation (an absurd idea to you, since he already is) while still conserving the free will of that which was created. So God is available to help to the created beings become like God if they are willing to go beyond their limited minds (In Christian parlance: Crucify - die to self, ego, maya - be willing to be transformed). The big difference between the two beliefs is that I now believe I have help 'self-realizing', whereas you are on your own.

My thanks to all the non-theists in the group for not smirking and giggling

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here is a theory that resonates with my heart, in the beginning was God. That is all there is. There is nothing outside of God. God in his infinite wisdom, wanting to actually experience something other than Godhood, decided he would create something "other than" himself. Since God is all there is, he had to divide himself. So God divided himself into all that now is. Now, there is still not something other than God, there are just many pieces of God. For God to experience "other than" himself, he had to make parts of himself ignorant of the fact that they too are God. Hence, God created humanity. From that point on God has been able to experience what it would be like to not be God. What humanity has been trying to do and what I think is the purpose of living is to remember who we really are. Which is God.

There is but only one God but he is able to experience the views of the 11 billion eyeballs. In some ways I agree it is a journey. One of introspection and self-realization.

You said, "God desires to be part of that creation (an absurd idea to you, since he already is) while still conserving the free will of that which was created. So God is available to help to the created beings become like God if they are willing to go beyond their limited minds"

Wait a second....I was just going to say that "God desires" doesn't make sense because God and self realization is beyond wants and desires. But I realized that in my theory I said that God wanted to experience "other than". I need to re-think.

Thank you.

 

Awake

You don't need to rethink much. If 'God' (the ultimate absolute) is non-dual as was suggested above then He (not-He) has no attributes or aspects (or equivalently has only contradictory aspects). This is 'emptiness' rather than God, but it is very close to Spinoza's logically deduced God of no Will, emotion or purpose, but which just 'is'. Hence the term 'is-ness' as a common description.

 

Canute- I'm not sure it follows that non-dual means no attributes. I'd want some ground under my feet before I'd make that leap. As for Spinoza - he was brilliant and he was wrong. Even if I grant that all explanations are deductive in nature (which I don't), the proposition that everything humans are capable of knowing can be shown to follow from basic, general axioms has been proven false. So Spinoza's God is an incomplete God, a God residing only in those parts of existence accessible by deductive thought, bounded by the limits of human ideas, language and experience. I would prefer Awake's shattered, forgetful God to a God that can be explained rationally. For my part, God has to transcend me and then be willing to help me transcend myself. Otherwise, to hell with him.

Rational thinkers are justified in being fearful of theists who haven't mastered the principles of rational thinking. But theists are also justified in being fearful of rationalists who falsely purport that EVERYTHING can be explained rationally. I don't know what frightens me more, a christian fundamentalist at a constitutional convention, or a paid expert on the witness stand.

 

Thank you, Canute. I appreciate your comment. The problem sometimes is when you are thinking about something, you don't always realize all of what your thinking until you see it in writing. The best way for me to describe it would be, to try to describe a feeling using words. It is possible, but not totally satisfactory. (This is just an analogy. I am not saying what I know are just feelings.) On the spiritual path, one must continually re-think ones stand on many topics, until atleast one quits thinking and just is. In my opinion, that is what it is all about. Beyond, "I AM".

 

I'll attempt to prove it if you want me to. It's the reason why non-dual adherents assert that no true assertions may be made about the ultimate entity/non-entity. (Which isn't quite as self-contradictory as it sounds).

I see your point but it does not prove anything about whether Spinoza was right or wrong. It just limits his ability to reach a complete proof.

Of course, and I agree that this is his weakness. I don't think Spinoza got it right, just that he got it more right than any other logically systematic attempt. In the end his God is not non-dual.

 

I don't know quite where you're coming from on this. I assumed you were taking a Buddhist (non-dual) stance. However you talk of spiritual paths. I agree that stopping thinking in favour of being is the key to understanding, but not that there is any spiritual path. I suppose it depends what you mean by 'spiritual'.

 

You are right about the Buddhist stance. People are on thier own paths of discovery. We stay on these paths until we realize we have always been where we were trying to go.

 

Is that all Buddhist do?

 

No. Well maybe yes. Then again... It all depends how you look at it.

 

very interesting philosophy,but,
if we are god,
why do we have to worship god ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!