Baptism on Behalf of the Dead?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems likely that I'd be taken out and tortured/killed as well. So be it. I'd take that risk.
...
Not everyone operates from the viewpoint of the self.

Your position is all about the viewpoint of the self! You would rather not lie to a murderous crowd
and damn other people to an undeserving death. What makes the example relevant is that other
people suffer unjust consequences by your unwillingness to lie. This is not Christ-centered.
This is not compassionate. The truth condemns innocents to an unjust death. The lie
protects them from unwarranted harm. This is not about terminal illness where death is a
morally neutral sort of affair; this is how the truth enables murder.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's your world. The rest of us just live in it 🙂

If that means I get to make the rulz, that's fine wit me. Unfortunately we all know that people who love Jesus like me get in trouble all the time.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Helping people in such situations and lying about it aren't hopelessly intertwined. One can refuse to answer. One can also be honest about what one is willing or not willing to do.

The truth will make you free.

The harlot Rahab lied to save the spies, and was justified in doing so....
James 2:25
25Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
(NKJ)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You and I operate using different conceptual models, so I doubt we'll come to agreement on this topic.

However, once again I have to take exception with your projecting YOUR conceptual model on MY motivation:
[b]"...it is the matter of preserving your honesty at the expense of someone else."

Once again, not everyone operates from the viewpoint of the self.[/b]

Your response to my characterization of what I saw as your motivation may be fair—however, it is the other that I am concerned with here. “No-self” is not some “airy-fairy” domain that has no consideration for the other. Are you aware of what the bodhisattva is in Buddhism?

I'm not sure you understand what "no-self" is.

If you had realized “no-self”, you would not be so concerned about honesty in the face of the existential circumstance of the other. “No-self” is not something you impose on the other; it is what you embrace. In that “no-self,” the only concern for the other is compassion for their circumstance. If that requires honesty, you give honesty; if it requires something else, you give something else. For you there is no problem either way.

I don't see honesty and compassion as being at odds with each other. I recognize that our society teaches us otherwise.

I’m not concerned with what society teaches us.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Your position is all about the viewpoint of the self! You would rather not lie to a murderous crowd
and damn other people to an undeserving death. What makes the example relevant is that other
people suffer unjust consequences by your unwillingness to lie. This is not Christ-centered.
This is not compassionate. The truth condemns innocen ...[text shortened]... re death is a
morally neutral sort of affair; this is how the truth enables murder.

Nemesio

You have two parties A and B. A asks B to put B's life in danger in order to save A. B agrees to put B's life in danger, but lets A know that B is not willing to everything it takes to protect A because of deeply held beliefs. A is free to make a decision based on a full disclosure.

Is B being "fair" to A?

Is A being "fair" to B?

If you were B, would you kill to protect A? How many would you be willing to kill? Is there anything you wouldn't do to protect A?

FWIW, if I were A, I wouldn't consider putting B's life in danger in an attempt to save my own. Would you? Why?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You have two parties A and B. A asks B to put B's life in danger in order to save A. B agrees to put B's life in danger, but lets A know that B is not willing to everything it takes to protect A because of deeply held beliefs. A is free to make a decision based on a full disclosure.

Is B being "fair" to A?

Is A being "fair" to B?

If you were B, ...[text shortened]... ldn't consider putting B's life in danger in an attempt to save my own. Would you? Why?

What "deeply held beliefs" does no-self cling to?

Originally posted by vistesd
Your response to my characterization of what I saw as your motivation may be fair—however, it is the other that I am concerned with here. “No-self” is not some “airy-fairy” domain that has no consideration for the other. Are you aware of what the bodhisattva is in Buddhism?

I'm not sure you understand w r society teaches us otherwise.

I’m not concerned with what society teaches us.[/b]

Why the assumption of "no consideration for the other"?

What is the essence of the "other"? Ultimately what does the bodhisattva want to achieve? How is this achieved? By any means possible?

EDIT:Are you so certain that you didn't learn that honesty and compassion are not compatible from society? Think of young children. They are remarkably honest until they are taught otherwise.

Originally posted by vistesd
What "deeply held beliefs" does no-self cling to?

No-self is your term. What do you mean by it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why the assumption of "no consideration for the other"?

What is the essence of the "other"? Ultimately what does the bodhisattva want to achieve? How is this achieved? By any means possible?

EDIT:Are you so certain that you didn't learn that honesty and compassion are not compatible from society? Think of young children. They are remarkably honest until they are taught otherwise.

Why the assumption of "no consideration for the other"?

Because of your original statement that: “I cannot think of any situation that justifies lying.”

_______________________________________

Well, here are the Bodhisattva vows, according to the translation that I prefer. “Vow” here is a statement of intention; one does not subject oneself to anguish over failures; one simply renews one’s intention, like a basketball player who misses a shot..

Bodhisattva Vows—


I. Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to awaken with them all.

II. Delusions/sufferings are endless; I vow to heal them all.

III. Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to go through them all.

IV. The Buddha Way is inexhaustible; I vow to embody it all.

__________________________________


ThinkOfOne,

This is, in an existential sense, new ground for me. It is only lately that I have had a deep realization of “no-self.” I do not claim “perfect realization” or “enlightenment” or some such. I only claim to know what no-self is. In the domain of no-self, there is—no self—to be concerned with honesty as a moral rule. If honesty is the best policy in a given circumstance, then you are honest; if it is not, then you are not. It cannot be decided a priori.

There is no more a priori in no-self!

The “essence” of the other is a concern; but only if you are in a position to address that essence. If you are not, you address the other’s existential situation as best you can. You cannot impose your own realization of no-self on the other; you cannot teach calculus to someone who does not have the foundation; you cannot preach dharma to someone in the throes of a toothache! Unless you know, in the given circumstance, that it will help them handle their toothache! If so, by all means!

You and I have been so close in our understanding before—but you seem to take this black & white moral stance. That is incorrect. If you are in no-self, there is no question of justifcation. There is only addressing this situation.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No-self is your term. What do you mean by it?

I apologize. Since you made a statement about not operating from the viewpoint of the self, I thought you had some idea of no-self.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why the assumption of "no consideration for the other"?

What is the essence of the "other"? Ultimately what does the bodhisattva want to achieve? How is this achieved? By any means possible?

EDIT:Are you so certain that you didn't learn that honesty and compassion are not compatible from society? Think of young children. They are remarkably honest until they are taught otherwise.

EDIT:Are you so certain that you didn't learn that honesty and compassion are not compatible from society? Think of young children. They are remarkably honest until they are taught otherwise.

I learned many things from the society in which I grew up, and have lived in. What I meant was that I am no longer concerned with whatever societal conditioning I imbibed.

BTW, I was taught to be unfailingly honest, no matter what the consequences for others.

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is not Christ-centered. This is not compassionate. The truth condemns innocents to an unjust death. The lie protects them from unwarranted harm. This is not about terminal illness where death is a morally neutral sort of affair; this is how the truth enables murder.

Nemesio

If he is a Christian, then death is not really a bad thing at all. He is not committing any sins by his actions. Surely as a Christian, your duty is to avoid sin? I know that murder is a sin but he is not committing murder. As far as I know the Bible does not say "prevent at all costs, anyone from killing another."
As a Christian, should he assign different values to different sins for example if he must lie or commit murder, why should he choose to lie? Is murder worse? Why? As a non-theist I place murder as being far worse than lying but that is based entirely on my belief that there is no afterlife. If I believed I was sending the person to heaven then it might even be a good thing and the only reason not to is the commandment from God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
EDIT:Are you so certain that you didn't learn that honesty and compassion are not compatible from society? Think of young children. They are remarkably honest until they are taught otherwise.

Game theory has shown that mutual honesty works better than total dishonesty but that cheating the system can also work. Evolution has resulted in a fine balance of general honesty with a certain percentage of cheating. Children (and adults) often test the boundaries. They try a little lie and if they get away with it and benefit from it then they try a bigger one.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Why the assumption of "no consideration for the other"?

Because of your original statement that: “I cannot think of any situation that justifies lying.”

_______________________________________

Well, here are the Bodhisattva vows, according to the translation that I prefer. “Vow” here is a statement of intention; one does not subject oneself ...[text shortened]... o-self, there is no question of justifcation. There is only addressing this situation.[/b]

This is interesting.

I don't agree my origininal statement necessarily means that there is "no consideration for the other." For one, my statement doesn't necessarily preclude lying. It was qualified by "I could not thing of any situation that justifies lying" which I think is important. For another, it seems like "consideration" or "compassion" for another can be looked at from views other than what the "other" perceives. For example, a morbidly obese person may feel extreme anguish over having "sweets" excluded from his diet. Would the there be a lack of "compassion" if you didn't alleviate his anguish by giving him a candy bar? It is a simple means that addresses the situation. I know this is a cheap example, but I'm sure you can extrapolate the idea into other situations.

Maybe I'm not understanding, but it seems like even in a mode where there is "only addressing [a given] situation", one still is guided by some sort of "belief system" in determining just what "the BEST policy in a given circumstance" is.

I also have to wonder if any true "awakening" or "healing" can occur if one attempts to awaken/heal using methods that are operationing within the realm of "delusion".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is interesting.

I don't agree my origininal statement necessarily means that there is "no consideration for the other." For one, my statement doesn't necessarily preclude lying. It was qualified by "I could not thing of any situation that justifies lying" which I think is important. For another, it seems like "consideration" or "compassion" for a ing methods that are operationing within the realm of "delusion".

Well, perhaps I should have assumed that you and I were not as far apart as I thought initially—we seldom have been.

I know this is a cheap example, but I'm sure you can extrapolate the idea into other situations.

It’s a good example. Another one would be enabling an alcoholic or addict.

It is your last question here that I think is critical:

I also have to wonder if any true "awakening" or "healing" can occur if one attempts to awaken/heal using methods that are operating within the realm of "delusion".

Since I think we’re talking in the so-called “spiritual” realm here, my answer is no—or at least probably not (certainly some healing can take place using methods of, say, psychotherapy). “Delusion” (or illusion), as I use the term—in the Buddhist sense—occurs in the domain of thinking-mind. This is not to say that some physiological aberration might not be the cause of perceptual delusion, but I am not addressing that at all, one way or the other.

One of the aspects of the thinking-mind is the thought-complex called “I”. All the thoughts, ideas, memories, concepts that make up that complex called “I”. That “I” can also be called the ego-self, or the somebody-self-construct. “Awakening” involves getting behind that thought-complex, which is what I mean by “no-self”.

Well I have made several passes on here at trying to put this into words without too much Buddhist jargon. One shot is in this thread (beginning on page 4), which includes some insightful critical comments by Palynka:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=78099&page=4

Another pass at it is on this page:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=78112&page=10

EDIT: Upon re-reading my post earlier on this page, I wish I had not used the word "deep" in reference to realization; "clear" is perhaps a better, and less presumptuous word.