282 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 31 January 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

Teaching things are ungodly doesn't help anything. It doesn't improve love, tolerance or acceptance. Quite the opposite.

Which is where the prime bone of our contention lies.

[Liquid Gardens]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Change in belief only happens after an organic process of change.  It is impossible for someone (anyone) to simply stand up one day and say "For no apparent reason I'm going to change and believe something else today".

Then I think we're in agreement:  you can stop believing what you believe.

Quote

Is it "hateful" for a Christian to believe this?  Honestly stop and think on that point - there are many adjectives that could be used instead of "hateful".  Is this truly the most accurate one?

I would argue not.

You may be right on that, especially specific to your own beliefs that does not seem to include some of the usual components that I find most objectionable.  But the quote I responded to did not refer to just the binary 'hateful'/'not hateful', it was 'more' or 'less' hateful; it is more 'just' to chop off a thief's fingers as opposed to burning him alive in a vat of acid, even though neither reaches the bar of being a 'just' punishment for the crime IMO. There is no grading of anything afterlife-wise under the atheistic viewpoint, we all die and nothing after that point has anything to do with what we did or did not do in this life.  That is not the case under Christianity, I apparently will be damned and will deserve it, and even if you don't understand why I deserve it, if you believe in a just god it seems you have no choice to agree that this is a just fate for me.

[Paranoid Android]

Beckys_Mom, on 31 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

I never said you did, and that's that .!!

So why bring it up?

Beckys_Mom, on 31 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

No I am not..  The only similar thing in the analogy is both have someone who made them. .  What sticks out like a sore thumb is -  The pot doesn't and cant do to its maker what we humans can to their maker..


The creator will tell its creation not to question him... The potter  cannot do the same with a pot....Yet the bible uses a potter and his pot not being able to question its maker Or doesn't ask its maker..   We know a pot cant ask... we know humans can . useless..

What a pot can or cannot do is irrelevant to the parable.

Beckys_Mom, on 31 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Then that must be in the contradicting part of the bible, for it sure as heck isn't in Romans 9...Romans 9 tells you - Who are you to question god?    If I said to you -  Who are you to question me?  That is arrogance and a way for me to dodge questions I cannot answer

As I said, not all questions have answers, and some answers we do not like.  Yet we are still encouraged to ask questions and seek.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Which is where the prime bone of our contention lies.

How so?

Teaching someone is ungodly benefit that person but it sure does give people an excuse to treat them in various negative ways. Again, I've seen this first, second and third hand.

So the question is: does teaching something is ungodly result in improved love/acceptance/tolerance? Yes or no?

Edited by shadowhive, 31 January 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Liquid Gardens, on 31 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Then I think we're in agreement:  you can stop believing what you believe.

Eventually, given enough organic change, true enough.  But one cannot simply turn around and say "I believe differently".

Liquid Gardens, on 31 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

You may be right on that, especially specific to your own beliefs that does not seem to include some of the usual components that I find most objectionable.  But the quote I responded to did not refer to just the binary 'hateful'/'not hateful', it was 'more' or 'less' hateful; it is more 'just' to chop off a thief's fingers as opposed to burning him alive in a vat of acid, even though neither reaches the bar of being a 'just' punishment for the crime IMO. There is no grading of anything afterlife-wise under the atheistic viewpoint, we all die and nothing after that point has anything to do with what we did or did not do in this life.  That is not the case under Christianity, I apparently will be damned and will deserve it, and even if you don't understand why I deserve it, if you believe in a just god it seems you have no choice to agree that this is a just fate for me.

I still cannot agree that my view is any different to an atheist.  We believe the same thing, except I believe in an alternative of everlasting life.  I don't see how this difference makes one view more hateful than another.  I just can't.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 31 January 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

How so?

Teaching someone is ungodly benefit that person but it sure does give people an excuse to treat them in various negative ways. Again, I've seen this first, second and third hand.

So the question is: does teaching something is ungodly result in improved love/acceptance/tolerance? Yes or no?

Regardless of what we may believe about a person's actions, first and foremost they are human beings deserving of respect and tolerance.  If something they are doing is "ungodly", it does not therefore give any of us the Right to hurt them or disparage them.

To your question - I would say neither.  It neither harms nor improves.  How a person approaches that might shift it one way or another (either towards hatefulness or towards tolerance), but in and of itself, it does neither.

I already know you're going to disagree with that point, so I'll make my objection now and be done with it.

[Frank Merton]

The Shining Path Buddhists don't believe in God but believe in everlasting life.  In fact they think it can't be avoided.  Many Buddhists think everlasting life is very much to be avoided, and do all sorts of things to try to escape it.  None of them believe in God, although even deists are considered good Buddhists.

[Paranoid Android]

Frank Merton, on 31 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

The Shining Path Buddhists don't believe in God but believe in everlasting life.  In fact they think it can't be avoided.  Many Buddhists think everlasting life is very much to be avoided, and do all sorts of things to try to escape it.  None of them believe in God, although even deists are considered good Buddhists.

The entire purpose of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of suffering and rebirth, thus reaching Nirvana (extinguishing of self).  Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Regardless of what we may believe about a person's actions, first and foremost they are human beings deserving of respect and tolerance.  If something they are doing is "ungodly", it does not therefore give any of us the Right to hurt them or disparage them.

To your question - I would say neither.  It neither harms nor improves.  How a person approaches that might shift it one way or another (either towards hatefulness or towards tolerance), but in and of itself, it does neither.

I already know you're going to disagree with that point, so I'll make my objection now and be done with it.

Sometimes the act of treating them as ungodly itself is hurtful and disparaging enough.

You're right in that. I see the shift towards hatefulness (and evil actions done in the name of 'love') is increased by it. Certainly, people seem more likely to do such actions than they would otherwise. I don't see how it can shift things the other way and have certainly never seen it. I have, however, seen people say theyre 'tolerant' on the one hand, while with the other they're not.

I really don't know why you try and make a harmful believe into, at best, something neutral and , at worst, something good.

Edited by shadowhive, 31 January 2013 - 03:27 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

Why bring up what you call hypothetical ?  

I was originally  tackling your post and what you actually believe,  you brought up about how others could argue it was aimed at just two people.. I read this and point out that you are not one of them, as you believe it is still for all

Quote

.What a pot can or cannot do is irrelevant to the parable.

It was the main reason as to why the analogy was made up..To point out a pot wont question its maker, so humans should not question their maker..

Quote

As I said, not all questions have answers, and some answers we do not like.  Yet we are still encouraged to ask questions and seek.

They do, its just those that wrote the bible cannot give them

Quote

  Yet we are still encouraged to ask questions and seek.   

In selected parts only !  Be careful what you do ask, or you will be told to know your place

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 31 January 2013 - 03:30 PM.

[Frank Merton]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

The entire purpose of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of suffering and rebirth, thus reaching Nirvana (extinguishing of self).  Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

There is a good deal of disagreement about the meaning of Nirvana, and to become Bodhisattva rather than escaping Samsara (the rebirth cycle) is the objective of probably the majority.

What you described is generally felt by scholars to be closest to Gautama's original teaching.

[Paranoid Android]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

I already know you're going to disagree with that point,

shadowhive, on 31 January 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

You're right in that.

And thus we really have nothing more to say on this... Best wishes,

~ PA

[Paranoid Android]

Beckys_Mom, on 31 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

I was originally  tackling your post and what you actually believe,  you brought up about how others could argue it was aimed at just two people.. I read this and point out that you are not one of them, as you believe it is still for all

Fair enough.

Beckys_Mom, on 31 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

It was the main reason as to why the analogy was made up..To point out a pot wont question its maker, so humans should not question their maker..

I disagree.  It was saying that a human questioning God is about as fruitful as a pot questioning a potter - ie, useless.

Beckys_Mom, on 31 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

They do, its just those that wrote the bible cannot give them

Not quite, the Bible cannot provide every answer imaginable, but it provides us everything we NEED.

Beckys_Mom, on 31 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

In selected parts only !  Be careful what you do ask, or you will be told to know your place

Sometimes "who are you to talk back to God" is the only answer given.  Most of the time this is not so.

[Paranoid Android]

Frank Merton, on 31 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

There is a good deal of disagreement about the meaning of Nirvana, and to become Bodhisattva rather than escaping Samsara (the rebirth cycle) is the objective of probably the majority.

What you described is generally felt by scholars to be closest to Gautama's original teaching.

I was, of course, referring to the original Buddhism (what is called Theravada Buddhism).  The idea of a Bodhisattva hails from the idea of Mahayana Buddhism (and yes, from what I understand that is a later interpretation of Buddhist thought, not held by the original Buddha).  And from what I understand, a Bodhisattva is simply an Enlightened human who has reached Nirvana, but for the benefit of others has chosen to delay their release and willingly stepped back into the cycle of suffering.  For a Mahayana Buddhist attempting to escape the cycle of suffering, an Enlightened soul willing to forgo their release for the benefit of others must sound a very praiseworthy individual.

[Frank Merton]

Vietnamese Buddhism came from China, so it is mainly Mahayana, and Guanyin is immensely popular, although most of the traditional Chinese deities have been "bodhisattva-ized."  Daily Buddhist practice here is very Taoist, making it much more colorful than Thai practice.

The idea of becoming extinct is I think a Western translation of things the first missionaries didn't really understand, as even the most severe Thai monk will raise his eyebrow at that.  Perhaps Emerson and the Transcendentalists were closer to the idea.  The self never existed in the first place, so saying it becomes extinct or merged into a greater sea is kinda meaningless.  What ends is the cycle of desire and delusion and rebirth.