19 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI sorta see Dr S's problem, but I think he's seeing trees and not forest.
[b]Unless you're going to redefine "set" like you did "literal" and "body," those sets are the same.
I redefined "body"?? You're the guy who claims amputees switch bodies, not lose limbs.
You can't even attach the indefinite article to the latter without admitting that it fully characterizes the set in question.
...[text shortened]... an attach it to the latter just as you might attach it to the word "body" after an amputation.[/b]
I mean, a literal resurrection of the body is equally problematic for all
long-dead people -- cremated, buried, mummified, whatever. So, I
always understood such claims to mean that God would revitalize the
bodies, or their remnants or, in the case of lacking a body, would simply
reconstitute it.
I mean, the parts of your body are very likely once part of something or
someone elses body at one time or another (on an atomic level). So, it
would seem that the claim that the literal resurrection is a mysterious claim
because it would be impossible to rationalize it clearly (as in delineate
precisely what will happen).
I've never understood why a literal resurrection of the body was theologically
important; that is, I don't know why the Creed-writers felt it was a necessary
article of faith, and which heresy they were seeking to contrast themselves
against. Then again, I haven't endeavored to look too hard.
Nemesio
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess Express1. I mean that Heaven is not somewhere up in the skies where we escape material reality. Rather, Heaven is a state of soul. But the resurrection is soul and body. The body will exist in this material reality - but reality as it was before Original Sin (or better).
1 and 2. For the Christian, this world and life is not just about suffering. It is essentially a perfect world made imperfect through human action and Original Sin. Nevertheless, both the world and life are to be treasured. While there is a better life to come, it is not a life separated from this world - Christians believe in the literal resurrect ...[text shortened]... s in each one of us. This is similar to what Buddhists do when they meditate as I understand it.
2. Christians are asked to offer up their sufferings to God, but in all things the Christian response is "Your will be done, not mine". Christians believe that God can alleviate their suffering, but if He chooses not to, we believe there is a very good reason - and we submit to it.
3. Jesus is the Christ. This "Christ is in each one of us" is a radical reinterpretation of your own. Maybe you're trying to Buddhism-ise Christianity (you wouldn't be the first)?
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioNot everything in the Creed is necessarily set off against heresies. The "resurrection of the flesh/body" clause is present in the earliest versions of the Apostles' Creed going back to the 2nd cent. AD. I think it was simply a restatement of established belief in the Pharisaic school - remember the conversations with the Sadduccees?
I've never understood why a literal resurrection of the body was theologically important; that is, I don't know why the Creed-writers felt it was a necessary article of faith, and which heresy they were seeking to contrast themselves against. Then again, I haven't endeavored to look too hard.
19 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerKarma--cause and effect. Rebirth--becoming a new person (reborn Christians?). Break free of the patterns that bind you, lose your ego & unfold.
What common sense explanations do you see for karma and rebirth? And how do they relate to Buddha's teachings?
19 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWith Buddhism, all events in our life (joyful or sorrowful) are the result of our past karma. How does your redefined view of karma explain losses due to natural disasters, for instance?
Karma--cause and effect. Rebirth--becoming a new person (reborn Christians?). Break free of the patterns that bind you, lose your ego & unfold.
EDIT: How does your redefined view of rebirth differ from Enlightenment?
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerCause and effect!
With Buddhism, all events in our life (joyful or sorrowful) are the result of our past karma. How does your redefined view of karma explain losses due to natural disasters, for instance?
EDIT: How does your redefined view of rebirth differ from Enlightenment?
I don't require Buddhism to explain all natural phenomena. Science can do that for me.
As for enlightenment--what is it again?
19 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageKarma is more than just cause and effect. The Sanskrit word karma means volition, actions, deeds committed by a being capable of committing them (we would call that free will). Buddha's view of karma was that the events that cause suffering in our lives was the result of our own past actions (in this life or previous ones). This is why the idea of rebirth/reincarnation was also important.
Cause and effect!
I don't require Buddhism to explain all natural phenomena. Science can do that for me.
As for enlightenment--what is it again?
Redefining karma to a material principle still has a limited validity. If I make money off my investments, that is the consequence of my choosing wisely (in most cases). But it does not explain events that are not of our own, or others', choosing.
Enlightenment/Nirvana is the realisation of the Four Truths and the change it causes in the being of the person that leads him to live the Eightfold Path. In that sense it is parallel to the Christian idea of "rebirth in the Spirit" etc. But it is not the same as rebirth/reincarnation in the Buddhist context.
19 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou have a very narrow understanding of buddhism. You must understand that there are a lot of different kinds of buddhism (zen, theravada, mahajana, tibetan, chinese)
Karma is more than just cause and effect. The Sanskrit word karma means volition, actions, deeds committed by a being capable of committing them (we would call that free will). Buddha's view of karma was that the events that cause suffering in our lives was the result of our own past actions (in this life or previous ones). This is why the idea of re ...[text shortened]... th in the Spirit" etc. But it is not the same as rebirth/reincarnation in the Buddhist context.
Rebirth for example can be explained in a supernatural way but also in a scientific way, A lot of buddhists see rebirth as the constant changing of themselves and the world. Or as the recycling of their atoms after their dead.
If you view rebirth as my first definition of it then karma will work exactly like action/reaction because the "reaction" of your deeds will always stay on earth after you're dead but since there is no you anymore when you have lost your ego the reaction will always hit the new "you" in the face. (the new you being everything and everyone)
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesChristianity if taken seriously is a fairly strict religion and is not compatible with Buddhism. However religious people in general tend to only take cirtain parts of a given religion seriously and thus are able to somehow reconcile seemingly conflicting views. For example there are statements in the Bible which clearly ban the making of statues and apparent worship of anyone other than the One True God. However Roman Catholics appear to do this with Mary. Somehow it is explained.
Is there anything about either of these that precludes one from practicing and believing the tenets of both? Can a good Chrisitan also practice Buddhism? Can a Buddhist believe in the triune God of the Bible?
Another question you should ask is whether Christianity and Judaism are compatible. They have very conflicting views on many issues.
19 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo cause and effect at work here I see.
Buddha's view of karma was that [b]the events that cause suffering in our lives was the result of our own past actions (in this life or previous ones). This is why the idea of rebirth/reincarnation was also important.[/b]
originally posted by Lord Of The Chessboard
"Rebirth for example can be explained in a supernatural way but also in a scientific way, A lot of buddhists see rebirth as the constant changing of themselves and the world. Or as the recycling of their atoms after their dead."
That is what I was trying to get at.
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardWhat I've written above is common to all these forms of Buddhism.
You have a very narrow understanding of buddhism. You must understand that there are a lot of different kinds of buddhism (zen, theravada, mahajana, tibetan, chinese)
Rebirth for example can be explained in a supernatural way but also in a scientific way, A lot of buddhists see rebirth as the constant changing of themselves and the world. Or as ...[text shortened]... eaction will always hit the new "you" in the face. (the new you being everything and everyone)
It isn't clear to me how your revised view of rebirth squares up to the idea of karma as a principle of cause and effect related to human action. I mean, if I do good deeds now, how does it translate to happiness for the "new" me? And it still does not explain natural disasters.
The only way I can see it working is if the idea of morality itself is taken out of the equation. So, I could be a seriously sadistic serial killer and my atoms could cause a bumper rainfall and crops to poor farmers in Africa. Or I could be a greatly generous man and my atoms may cause a flood and destruction in India. What's the point in being good?
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI didn't say there was no cause and effect involved. I said it wasn't synonymous with cause and effect. Karma deals specifically with [human or moral] action, and the consequences of that on oneself. LOTC's view does not reflect that - human actions are not the essence in his view of karma (try saying that in Sanskrit and you'll realise exactly how absurd it sounds).
No cause and effect at work here I see.