Open debate with any non-Christian

Originally posted by eagles54
And I thank you too, ivanhoe.

You're welcome !

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You can write books about what a "manifest being" really means, in particular to the existence and status of satan.

I agree, but the priest certainly seemed unambiguous in his meaning.

Originally posted by eagles54
Interesting. When my daughter was being prepared for her first communion, the priest asked if my wife believed in Satan as a manifest being. He was looking for an affirmative answer.

Of course Christian teaching does not state that "evil"is created by the human mind. We choose to do evil.

Originally posted by eagles54
I agree, but the priest certainly seemed unambiguous in his meaning.

Yes I can see what you mean.

Let's say you ask a member of satan's church whether he believes in satan or not. I guess his answer would be yes.

If you ask a Christian the same question it becomes a bit problematic don't you think ?

In this case "Do you believe in satan" is meant to mean "Do you believe in the existence of a being refered to in the Bible as satan ? A Christian should answer this question saying "yes".

I would answer the question saying: Yes, I believe he exists, but I renounce him.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Even back then they were a little hesitant to apply the word "consecrate " to the act of slaughtering women and children.
Because no translator has disputed the act,,, and neither did a God that could order it and much more of it in Jerhico , Ai and the rest of Canaan.

I the original post frogstomp said "the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

The point I was trying to make is the Bible is not a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God. Rather it supports His mercy and grace throughout the ages. It is the misrepresentation and errors in translation and religious traditions which pollute and obscure His nature.

If one studies the language and words used by the authors of the various books which is the original Greek or Hebrew, then we find the Holy Spirit whom inspired the text very present. He is the same today, yestereday and yes forevermore.

Una

Originally posted by Una
I the original post frogstomp said "the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

The point I was trying to make is the Bible is not a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God. Rather it supports His mercy and grace throughout the ages. It is the misrepresentation and errors in translation and ...[text shortened]... inspired the text very present. He is the same today, yestereday and yes forevermore.

Una

Read Joshua

if you must read the Hebrew and Greek text

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm

you will find them there

Mayharm, thanks for the acknowledgment.

Concerning the writings by Paine, his trenchant criticisms are essentially concerned with fundamentalism, that is, the potential pitfalls in accepting the given doctrinal creed of a faith as *literally* true in *all* its forms. But fundamentalism is not limited to the Western traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). You also find strident fundamentalism in the Eastern faiths, namely, Sikhism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism. One has only to consider the violent conflict between Muslim and Hindu factions throughout India during the partitionings of West and East Pakistan after Gandhi wrested independence away from the Brits in the late 1940s, and what still goes on between these two faiths in Kashmir.

Fundamentalism (in any religion) at its core seems to be very ironic, because it is an attempt to fully embrace a faith that supposedly stands for some sort of universal brotherhood (as most religions claim to do), and yet in doing so, the attachment becomes one of promoting *that version* of universality above other versions. This is a humorous contradiction in a sense, as "universality" implies singularity, not one version competing with others.

The strength of the Buddhist tradition lies probably in its emphasis on rationality above emotionality. The Western faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) involve a *personal relationship* with their respective versions of the Divine. Buddhism however does not really concern itself with ideas of a personal relationship with any divine Source because the central tenet of Buddhist teaching is that *all* separation is ultimately a creation of the conceptual mind, and thus is ultimately an illusion.

Having said that, there *is* a tradition in the East that addresses the potentially transformative effect of cultivating a personal relationship with the sacred. It's called "bhakti yoga" and has been depicted famously in the stories of Krishna surrounded by hundreds of adoring "gopis" (female disciples). This is often interpreted crudely as some sort of subservience toward the "guru" but there is a deeper,
metaphorical element to it. It has to do with utilizing a personal relationship with the sacred or divine in such a fashion as to increase one's wisdom, as opposed to simply becoming emotionally attached to
one's version of the divine, whether that be Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Guru Nanak, Mohammad, etc.

"Increasing wisdom" involves, in this sense, the importance of recognizing that the image of the Divine Source of life (in whatever form conceived of) is ultimately a reflection of our highest potential, not some eternally external force or agency that we are to be forever distinct from.

Having said all that I'd add this -- sooner or later one drawn to consideration of religious debate becomes curious about what in Buddhism is called "entering the stream" (as opposed to spending one's life on the banks wondering what water is like, or aguing about water with someone on the other shore). To "enter the stream" does not necessarily mean becoming a Buddhist, or a Taoist, or a Jew, or a Muslim or a Christian. It is not about becoming part of an organization (although it may indeed involve some sense of loose knit community). It is more akin to seeking out the "perennial philosophy", so to speak, that great tradition of spiritual awakening that seeks for the underlying universal truths at the basis of all religious ways, when they are divested of their fundamentalism and rigid adherence to doctrine in the ways Paine was referring to.

Frogstomp -- your handle was reminding me of the famous Zen Buddhist haiku poem by Matsuo Basho...

"Ancient pond
Frog jumps in
Splash!"

It's a meditation on present time reality, free of conceptual overlay or distortion. We see a frog in an ancient pond, the frog jumps in the water, and there is a splash. There is no interpretation of what has
just happened, no unnecessary concepts projected onto the bare experience of the here and now. That is the heart of Zen. In Buddhism the term to describe the bare, simple reality of this moment, unclouded by unnecessary thinking, is "tathagata", which means "suchness". *Such* is this moment, and that's it. The
typical posture of the Buddha seated in silent repose is a reflection of this quality of "tathagata", the serenity that derives from ceasing to struggle with reality.

Ivanhoe --

By the way, does Buddhism teach people can "save"
themselves and have eternal life in a state of
happiness?

No. Buddhism teaches a way out of suffering, that is all.

There are subtle levels to Buddhist metaphysics that address the ultimate unreality of personal will, owing to the ultimate unreality of the separate ego. But there is no emphasis on being "saved", either by others or by oneself, and nor is "eternal life" an expression you hear in Buddhist teaching. Buddhism is too concerned with the pragmatic simplicity of the here and now to be concerned with such eschatology (although if you look hard enough you can probably find some reference to it in some of the more elaborate cosmologies in some of the Tibetan forms of Buddhism).

You may have heard the Zen expression, "chop wood, carry water from the well", which captures this simple practicality.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Read Joshua

if you must read the Hebrew and Greek text

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm

you will find them there

Thanks, verying interesting site 🙂

Lucifershammer --

One question though - how does Buddhism appeal to the materialist? After all, materialists do not believe in the existence of anything outside our sensory perceptions and reasoning capabilities. Even Buddhism must postulate the existence of some kind of atma or soul.

Actually, Buddhism is unique amongst major religions in that it asserts the reality of *anatman*, which means (loosely), "no self". In that sense, Buddhism can be potentially attractive to "materialists" as you call it, because it is utterly unconcerned with the theological hair splitting that can arise over debates concerning the nature and form of the soul.

The famous Heart Sutra of Mahayana Buddhism proclaims, "Form is Emptiness, and Emptiness is Form."

What this points to is the idea that the deepest core of Reality is pure formless consciousness. Because Buddhism holds that all things in phenomenological reality have been *caused* to exist (interdependence) it therefore asserts that nothing in the universe of manifest form is actually reliable in any real fashion.

We can see that played out in our lives around us -- nothing truly lasts in the world of form. Everything we hold as "precious" (in objective form) is eventually taken away from us, through the ravages of time. Even our sciences show us how stars do not function forever, and how the universe is expanding uniformely in all directions, toward an inevitable entropic heat death.

Buddhism calls all this "impermanence" and says it is the single most important thing for one considering a spiritual path to meditate on. If nothing in the world of form is truly reliable (in an ultimate sense), then it is logical to begin to turn our direction toward the one "thing" that appears to not be defined by form -- and that is the subjective consciousness of the one who is experiencing reality. The "I".

When we examine deeply the nature of this "I", we are left with a clear understanding that it is not consistent at all, and moreover, has no fundamental solidity to it. The "I" is simply a collection of thoughts, memories, beliefs, and conditioned identifications, all of which together comprised the sum of who we think we are.

Once we see directly into the insubstantial nature of this "I" (the self), we begin to become aware of something much vaster and deeper that is seen to be the context in which the "I" is arising. This context is consciousness itself. It is not the same thing as thought. Thought arises within consciousness, as the wave arises within the ocean. But the wave has no existence separate from the ocean, truly. When the "I" truly believes itself to be separate from the ocean, then suffering follows, and this is the basic condition of life. Buddha called this the First Noble Truth -- life is suffering.

Second - what is the difference between what you've said about Buddhism and Advaita philosophy? IIRC, Buddha's Enlightenment was that desire/attachment was the root of human suffering and cycle of rebirth. Many of the things you've written (One Nature, Illusion etc.) are IIRC part of core Advaita.

I've studied this matter for a long time and concluded that the core of Advaita and the core of Buddhism are identical, though using different terms. Both are concerned completely with non-dualism. Advaita refers to the realization of nondualism as "Brahman (God) is Atman (the soul)", that is, the enlightenment is in the essential recognition of our already existing Oneness with God. Buddhism does not use such terms but it's end goal is the realization of "no-self" or "no-ego", resulting in the direct awareness of what is left over -- clarity, wisdom, peace, harmony, etc. Buddha however refused to lable this state with any sort of reference to the Divine, because it was his contention that the human mind tends to project false ideas onto this "Divine" which usually end up interfering with our awakening process. He thought it was better and more practical to simply point to what is unreal ("no-self"😉 and leave Reality to reveal itself naturally when the mind is disciplined and deluded thinking is cleared away.

Third - where does Maya (Illusion) come from?

From the mind. Thinking itself creates the illusion of separation -- of a "me" that is separate from a "you" or a "this".

Fourth - If there is no inherent existence of the ego and all things are One and connected, how is it that all things do not attain Nirvana simultaneously?

Two levels there -- on the one hand, all is already One, it only appears to be separate and divided owing to the illusory projections of the mind. But on the other hand, all selves experiencing themselves as separate have to come to this understanding on their own, by their own desire to wake up and realize their deepest nature.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
Hi Alcra --

1. If we define "supernatural" as something "beyond the laws of Nature" (dictionary definition), then in the strictest sense, no, Buddhism would not embrace the supernatural. This is because Buddhism addresses the idea that our Enlightened condition is actually our *natural state*. Meaning, when we clear away all mental delusions and ...[text shortened]...

"Are you a devil?"

"No".

"Then what are you?"

Buddha replied, "I am awake."

In view of the " awake mind" , are not books like the bible bedtime stories?

Certainly, plenty of what is presented in religious scriptures around the world is likely simply mythology or fairy tales.

But as Joseph Campbell spent his life pointing out, there can be much wisdom in "mere" myth. We just have to know how to mine that wisdom.

Originally posted by frogstomp
In view of the " awake mind" , are not books like the bible bedtime stories?

The question comes down to this:

Does something have to be historically true in order have 'Truth?'

To the 'awake mind,' the historicity of the Bible would have no significance, because
what is historically true or not is illusory and, ultimately, meaningless.

However, the 'awake mind' would find great 'wisdom' in, for example, the parable
of the Prodigal Son. It is an image (or reflection) of the Divine and, as such, is
useful in drawing us closer to it. We do not pine because the 'prodigal son' or
'forgiving father' or 'stubborn brother' do not exist (it is, after all, a parable an
never asserted as historically true); why would we pine if it turns out that Adam
and Eve as historic figures never existed?

The fact is: we shouldn't. The 'Wisdom' in those stories are not in their historical
veracity, but in the fact that they are reflections of the nature of humankind, ones
from which we should learn (fallibility, arrogant willfulness, weakness, vanity).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
Certainly, plenty of what is presented in religious scriptures around the world is likely simply mythology or fairy tales.

But as Joseph Campbell spent his life pointing out, there can be much wisdom in "mere" myth. We just have to know how to mine that wisdom.

Was there not wisdom is the original myths the Enuma Elish and Xiusudra's Flood among others?
How does and awake mind reconcile the god of Joshua ordering him to do the same to Ai, as was done to Jehrico with the god the father of Jesus.
And a god whose very name is something His followers deny.
His name was EL.
I do very much agree with Campbell's points about wisdom in myths
with a proviso that we have some idea on who the people were that created them or in the bible's case edited them to suit.

Seeking Truth is very much akin to seeking Wisdom is it not?
Sometime the Truth hurts but Wisdom without truth isn't wisdom at all.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Sometime the Truth hurts but Wisdom without truth isn't wisdom at all.

So you would state that the 'Prodigal Son' has no Wisdom because
it is 'untrue?' Or, for a non-Biblical example, Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
So you would state that the 'Prodigal Son' has no Wisdom because
it is 'untrue?' Or, for a non-Biblical example, Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Nemesio

If you go to the "What Happens to the Dead" thread and read Blindfaith101's last post, you'll see that when he read the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Hell he actually takes the parable literally and believes all the elements are true. Thus the people in Hell can actually see the people in heaven in BF's view! I think the point is people get confused when there is no clear distinction between what is metaphor and parable and what is supposed to be true as in Genesis where it is not stated the story is metaphor. We all know Grimm's Fairy Tales are just that; but the Biblical metaphors and parables are not so clearly labelled.