If I remove God from these religions, what remains? Nothing! — TheMadFool

"God" is a word. If you remove a word, what remains is the reality underlying that word.

This could be a reason why the Buddha was silent. But...he could've said that. There's more to Buddha's silence than the reasons you profer because in each instance he could've just said so e.g that god is ineffable. He didn't. Why? — TheMadFool

Because if he gave an answer, people would be satisfied, and stop seeking for themselves.

Please read above — TheMadFool

I did. You're wrong.

That is true. Zossima is wonderful. So was Furst Myshkin. Ask Nietzsche if he agreed (he did). — Beebert

Show me proof that he agreed please.

A Force of Nature, or a Force of God, cant help being what he is. I urge you to listen to Beethoven's late Quartets or piano sonatas. — Beebert

:s - I'm not talking about this, but if this "force of nature" of yours injures people around him, then he's immoral. The fact that he has musical gifts, or gifts of another nature, doesn't change the fact that he's a human person bound by the same moral rules as everyone else. As for listening to Beethoven, I have. As I said, I found no moral values there. You might wish to tell me what moral values you found there...

Well dont you let the big man God burn almost everyone? As I Said. You misunderstand what I am talking about — Beebert

No, because God is not a man.

Nietzsche didnt speak about a strong man burning a weak. Rather he said that the weak, the herd, always wanted to burn the strong and thé wicked. — Beebert

And what was Nietzsche's solution? The strong burning the weak in exchange? :P

Christianity has been good enough at condemning and burning People. I dont think that is needed. — Beebert

Catholicism =/ Christianity.

They also just want power in the end. — Beebert

Yes, but that's a false assumption. Not everyone wants power. The character of Father Zossima from Dostoevsky's novel doesn't for example.

He was a natural force. — Beebert

So a natural force is moral? >:O >:O That sounds quite amoral to me actually.

Just listen to Beethoven. One bar of Music there contains more moral and values than the whole of Aquinas oeuvre — Beebert

I did, and I found no moral values as such in it. It was beautiful, but did it teach me how to behave and how to love? :s Nope.

There's nothing moral about writing a great piece of music. Success (and the praise of others) is not the same as morality.

Yes. There are some who should be aloud to focus on his creative vocation above all else. Nietzsche was absolutely right. — Beebert

Ah, and I thought you were a compassionate fellow seeing you cry about people burning in hell, but it seems that there's no problem with that anymore, so long as the "great man" is the one who burns them.

He believed in the judgements of the great man. — Beebert

:s And believing in the judgement of the "great man" certainly sounds like morality right? This great man of yours could trample under his feet everyone else in society, for, well, he was great, and so deserved more than his fellow human beings deserved.

It saves lives. — Beebert

The way a doctor saves lives? I don't think so.

You don't have to do more good to humanity, but what purpose did Aquinas then fullfill? — Beebert

He educated others and himself in the ways of God - that is a life well spent.

If Buddha thought that the better way to seek Nd find God is to be quiet about him and let People find out for themselves — Beebert

No, he didn't think it's better to LET people. He thought it's better to encourage people to do so.

Buddha was 100 percent correct and the Abrahamic religions wrong. — Beebert

That's false, and I don't see how you're going to support this assertion.

On that, history speaks for itself. — Beebert

:s How?

It is amusing and curious btw that Tao, and Baghavad Gita, etc. seems to have been far better at talking about the Christian mysteries than christianity itself has. — Beebert

:-}

No, I'm not interested in talking to you, don't bother addressing me. — Wosret

:s So you're no longer interested to talk when I ask you for a reference to something you stated as fact... interesting fellow you are.

It's in the sutras, his objection is that it doesn't sound right, and probably isn't translated right because Buddha was poisoned (which isn't extractly clear itself...). — Wosret

Ok then, can you please cite me the sutra where it is? And what does Buddha being poisoned have to do with translation of the sutras?

What then of Christianity, Judaism and Islam - their core assertion is ''God exists''. Why didn't they remain silent, as the Buddha did, if God is inexpressible?

Clearly, the discussion is diverting towards other religions but to keep it on track...

If Abrahamic religions didn't see any problems in asserting God's existence, the Buddha too shouldn't have remained silent on the matter. The contraposition of the above isn't a compliment for Abrahamic religions. — TheMadFool

Because they thought conveying that God exists would be a better way to motivate people to seek God. Buddha thought that being silent would be a better way to get people to seek God, as it would pique their curiosity.

And no - "God exists" isn't the core assertion of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These three religions all take God's existence for granted pretty much.

What do you mean? God is undefinable? What use is that for rational analysis? We should discard all rationality, and with it religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam and dive headlong into mysticism. — TheMadFool

Nope, Christianity is not like that. And yes, rational analysis is not very helpful when it comes to God. The oldest version of Christianity - Eastern Orthodoxy - is a mystical religion. You have very superficial knowledge of religion, a large share of it mediated by the popular culture of today, and what other people are saying, rather than your own knowledge based on intimate acquaintance with the religion or your own studying of its theology and/or historical roots.

He was asked what he gained, and he replied "nothing", and explained that he had only lost things. — Wosret

Lies.

Lao-tzu similarly said that those that seek learning gain, those that seek the way lose. — Wosret

Quote the Tao Te Ching please, which is almost the Old Testament of Asia prefiguring Jesus Christ -

Why does everyone like the Tao so much at first?
Isn't it because you find what you seek and are forgiven when you sin?
Therefore this is the greatest treasure of the universe. — Tao Te Ching Chapter 62

Did Buddha find God? No, he didn't find anything at all. — Wosret

How would you know what he found or didn't find?

A) knowledge of God's existence is bad — TheMadFool

No it doesn't. It may be very beneficial, but impossible to communicate through words.

I understand describing God is not easy. However, Buddha simply had to answer a yes/no question: Does God exist?. What's so difficult about that? People, presumably not half as wise as thr Buddha, do it all the time. — TheMadFool

Because it's meaningless to answer questions of existence with regards to an X that people don't understand the meaning of.

Sure, but there was no mention of Islam and/or its proximity to EO in this thread :P

I never said we can interpret verses on their own, I'm not an advocate of Sola Scriptura.

An acceptable answer but why? — TheMadFool

Because the truth of God cannot be adequately conveyed through language.

I think you meant to write this in the other thread? :s :P

The video you posted is humorous, but i am still cannot find the sources of these supposed strict doctrines from the Dalai Lama. But again, this is somewhat of a side issue, imho. — 0 thru 9

It gives you all the sources in the video. They are written out for you with the respective dates! The assertion I referred to is from here.

It's like TheMadFool said - he could have anticipated the formation of extremism. — CasKev

Out of nowhere? :s With absolutely no indication that such extremism was even possible he thought about a way to prevent it... I don't buy that.

Then why did the Buddha remain silent on the matter? — TheMadFool

Because he wanted people to see for themselves.

With no God to justify atrocious acts in the name of religion — CasKev

God wasn't used to justify any atrocity in the name of religion back in Buddha's day, so how do you suppose that he would have come to believe that?

With this I would agree, with the additional side comment that it is taught that Nirvana and Samsara are ultimately not separated. — 0 thru 9

Who told you that? That's what some sects of Mahayana Buddhism (especially those Western ones) believe, but the oldest version of Buddhism, the Theravada absolutely don't believe that, and it would most likely count as wrong-belief. Why? Because Samsara is dukkha & annica - Nirvana is not. Hence this difference prevents them from being the same.

The mind-blowing kicker here is that the goal is to move beyond the whole realm of karma entirely, avoiding earthly re-birth. — 0 thru 9

One second ago you were telling me that Samsara and Nirvana are not ultimately separate, so how is it possible to avoid re-birth? And what is it that avoids re-birth? The salvation from maya is achieved via asceticism and morality, certainly not by immoral practices, regardless of how much you meditate. That's part of the 8-Fold Path.

Not disagreeing, just had not heard this before. Do you have a source for it? Even if so, it would seem to be in the realm of Tibetan Buddhism belief only. — 0 thru 9

Many sources. Buddhism isn't what people in the West generally think it is. It's very very conservative in Asia. They adopted liberal stands in the West just to gain followers ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism

In his innermost essence, sure. But he reveals himself as a God of love. — Thorongil

Agreed.

But that's different from saying that he commits evil, which is the word I used in the sentence you originally quoted of me. — Thorongil

Okay, also agreed :P

He probably thought that people needed some form of moral guidance, and that Karma and rebirth were more believable than an all-powerful being that never communicates with us. — CasKev

You do realise this is clearly false - so in a society where everyone believed in God/gods you're saying that the Buddha thought that other things would be more believable? Like usual, you're taking the Buddha out of his context and bringing him in a modern context.

1. He found God but didn't want to reveal it — TheMadFool

Dharma - Buddha-nature - Nirvana -> they are not impermanent (annica). Dharma is often translated as the Tao in Chinese, and the Tao is translated as Logos in Europe, meaning the Word. I think Buddha did reveal - or at least he invited people to see for themselves.

Karma is virtually identical with sin in Christianity. There is no sin that will go unpunished in Buddhism (whether in this life or in the next), that's what Karma means. Even having sex with your own wife during the day - for example - is a sin according to the Dalai Lama, which will be punished. The fact that pink-flying pony Buddhists in the West believe otherwise doesn't change the roots of the religion.

You don't understand Nietzsche if you call him immoralist. He just had much deeper understanding of morality than most. — Beebert

I don't call him so, he called himself that way ;)

You know why he broke his friendship with Wagner? — Beebert

Does it have to do with the fact that Wagner was a Christian and Nietzsche thought of Christianity as a weakness? :P

Yes. A great artist is IMO better. Beethoven versus Aquinas? No contest as to who has done more good for humanity. — Beebert

Why is writing beautiful music superior to living, effectively, the life of a monk and contemplation? Why do you have to "do more good for humanity"? If that was the only criteria, then certainly some political leaders would deserve the highest merits. Sometimes not doing anything - quite often most of the time - is better than doing something.

What Kierkegaard really means (correctly) is that a man who wants and is about to realize his own existence can not be bounded by morals and ethics — Beebert

False, this is absolutely what Kierkegaard would not say. K. is not an immoralist like Nietzsche. Quite the contrary, the highest man achieves a morality that is higher than mere social morality, and that morality is achieved through direct communion, submission and relationship with the Living God.

Beethoven wouldn't have been the great artist we know him to be today if he had obsessed too much and spent his energy being occupied with ethics and morals. — Beebert

So is it better to be a great artist, than to be a moral man?

The problem is that one can't walk all the paths at once. It's impossible. So there must be some way to whittle down one's live options to those that would be the most worthy of testing. I don't see how to do that except by reason. — Thorongil

Yes, but not through reason alone. Experience, and trying the path is also a valid way of doing that - as is listening to your intuition, which does not function by taking calculated steps as reason does.

I think you're using a somewhat inaccurate translation. "Evil" is translated as "calamity" and "woe" in other translations. I take it to refer to God's judgment that appears in a poetic portion of the book of Isaiah. — Thorongil

I don't think it's a wrong translation, that word is translated as "evil" about 400 times through the Old Testament, more than any other translation. And the verse reads I form light, and create darkness (which are two opposites), before stating I form peace (harmony) and create evil (conflict).

Notice that "form" goes with peace and light, while "create" goes with darkness and evil. Why the difference? Maybe things that are formed are ontologically prior to things that are created after those are formed. In a certain sense this must be true. Remember the original Jewish conception of God wasn't anthropocentric - God wasn't a large teddy bear who hugs you. God was fearsome & incomprehensible. Remember also in Genesis that God created the light, and then separated the darkness from the light. So he formed the light, and THEN created darkness by separating the light from the dark.

And if not from God, then where does evil come from? Afterall it is God Who created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is God Who created the possibility of good being perverted into evil, even if evil has no existence of its own. So God must be, ultimately, beyond good and evil - incomprehensible and unknowable - impossible to bound by language and logic - and the source of both, even if one has ontological primacy over the other. As such, God must be beyond logic and illogic - neither logical, nor illogical.

Have you ever considered the possibility that our finite minds cannot capture in thought the essence of "good"? What if our systems of morals are much as mathematics is - always and necessarily incomplete - and that a complete morality is one that is inconsistent and contradictory, much as Gödel showed mathematics to be? But yet, if a logical system cannot capture reality, that is not the fault of reality, but the limitation of human logic. I think syllogisms are problematic to begin with, so even denying the PNC isn't such a big deal then, because syllogistically proving anything doesn't mean much anymore - so the fact anything becomes provable syllogistically if we deny the PNC isn't very significant for someone who doesn't put much weight on logic to begin with - such as for example Sextus Empiricus. Once we deny that the PNC is absolute, then the principle of explosion (the consequence of denying the absoluteness of the PNC) itself becomes trivial and irrelevant.

Kierkegaard intimates to some of these ideas with his teleological suspension of the ethical - a God that is beyond good and evil.

Are you disagreeing with yourself now because no one else is sufficient competition? :P — 0 thru 9

>:O There is a reason why I underlined "for himself" in that quote, which you don't seem to have put in your quote of me. Christians do not need Buddhism for their own personal salvation - however they may need Buddhism to better understand other religions, guide others towards the faith, fight against secularism, etc.

Very many Western believers have benefited from studying and practicing Eastern religions and wisdom. — 0 thru 9

Not that many actually, they're definitely NOT the majority of believers.

So if that helps them and maybe prevents from ditching their faith entirely, that seems to be a plus. — 0 thru 9

I was thinking more along the lines of helping them see the benefits of Buddhism as partial revelations of God, which enables them to guide Buddhists (and other religions) towards the Truth, and appreciate the limited wisdom they already hold.

In my personal Roman Catholic experience at least, meditation and the other aspects of mind training were not in the forefront of the message or practice. The Eastern Orthodox tradition seems different, and that is good for the spiritual development of its followers. — 0 thru 9

Yes.

@Thorongil

In the story, it's Satan who brings about Job's misfortunes, not God. — Thorongil

God cannot commit evil. — Thorongil

So what do you think about the following?

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:5-7

Isn't this a paradox? Two similar situations are handled contradictorily. — TheMadFool

Since Thanatos and Terrapin are impossible to have a conversation with - or at least so it seems to me - I will address your point directly rather than indirectly as I initially was looking to do. There is no paradox, since the two situations are different - they are not at all similar. Our behaviour with regards to God isn't the same as our behaviour with regards to potentially dangerous dogs in the world. That's because God is totally different from a creature - any creature - including dogs.

In theism there is a gap between created things, and the Uncreated - or God. As such, to apply the categories one applies to creatures in discussing and judging about God is a category error. Now someone who does not believe in God, and who denies God in their hearts, also denies themselves, for their own existence is predicated on the existence of God. I think atheism is by no means the starting position of human beings, but quite the contrary it is something that is only achieved by effort.

As to what you "said about" me, I get irony; you clearly do not. The rest of your post was an unhinged rant to which nobody could rationally respond. So, be well, Agustino; I won't be responding to any more of your troubled posts. — Thanatos Sand

Why are you cowering from answering this question:

So do you think I fucking meant that a stomach ache is NOT a perception, since it's not awareness/consciousness of thought or the five senses?! — Agustino

You said we weren't talking about present definitions. I showed we clearly were. So, your complement clearly fits...;) — Thanatos Sand

This is useless..... You clearly are committed to reading everything I say uncharitably. That's not a nice thing what I just said about you, by the way. It's very closely tied with intellectual dishonesty. Here:

Perception represents the awareness/consciousness of the mind of something - and that can be via thought or via the five senses. — Agustino

So do you think I fucking meant that a stomach ache is NOT a perception, since it's not awareness/consciousness of thought or the five senses?! Clearly "five senses" and "thought" include much more than the basic understandings of the words. For example "thought" includes "emotions" in this context, CLEARLY.

But again, you don't read charitably, and both you and Terrapin should be ashamed of yourselves for hiding behind semantics and definitions, and shying away from discussing the substantive underlying matters.

Either way, back on topic. I've had enough of this bullshit. Back to philosophy of religion.

I don't think the argument as presented in the OP can be rescued from its problems. Its basic deficiency is that it treats our behaviour with regards to the Uncreated God similarly to our behaviour towards other fellow creatures in the world. Namely it tries to reason by analogy from the latter to the former and that doesn't quite work.

That's one of the reasons why I wanted to discuss what God means and how God is different from other things in the world (and hence there is no "paradox" as the OP claims), but it seems the point is lost on Terrapin as well - or rather he doesn't even want to be aware of it.

I say the five senses are outdated as a way of speaking of the entire sensory apparatus of man, and you quote me a definition of the sense of touch - way to go, you must have a big brain.

We weren't talking about ancient man. We were talking about present definitions. So, you sure haven't been clear in what you've been thinking. Goodbye. — Thanatos Sand

No we weren't, because the five senses are outdated and definitely not "present definitions".

However things are quite clear that the sense of touch was the ancient man's approximation for the entire functionality of the nervous system (he was probably unaware of other more specific and not so obvious functions of the nervous system). So when I speak about the senses, I'm quite clear in what I'm saying.

Yes, but the stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. — Thanatos Sand

The nervous system is one entire thing with multiple functions - so yes, it's not part of that part because you've just classified it into two parts because that's what you want to do, so of course it's not :s

"thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can." — Terrapin Station

Do you also agree with this? :-}

Right - did you have a look at the Wiki article I posted? What is popularly known as the "sense of touch" is part of the nervous system of the body. — Agustino

Yes, but a stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. — Thanatos Sand

The sense of touch is part of the nervous system.

So Terrapin, do you finally agree with:

both the senses and thought can be directed towards both internal and external "objects". — me

Seriously it takes 2 pages to get you to agree to a simple truth.... That's why this discussion is moving so slowly.

But for the purposes of the conversation, what's important to realise is that both the senses and thought can be directed towards both internal and external "objects". — me

Terrapin disagrees with this. Do you agree, or disagree with this statement, and why? — me

I would agree that thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can. — Thanatos Sand

the five senses do not include all our senses — Thanatos Sand

Are you stupid Terrapin? You're again pretending you don't understand the point. You were wrong that senses cannot be directed towards internal objects, they can. Just like thought can be.

But the five senses do not include all our senses, since they don't include inner feeling. — Thanatos Sand

Sure - but you have to agree that the five senses are an old distinction which doesn't actually have much practical value today, since we have a lot more senses than just those. That's why I take the expression "five senses" to be a reference to all our senses, because in the past they were certainly thought to be all of our senses (although I agree this was wrong).

I would agree that thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can. — Thanatos Sand

Right, that's good. It may awaken Terrapin from the games he likes to play with himself...

Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: They'd never be able to change it, no matter how many you have, because they'd pretend that they can't figure out what a bulb is, what light is, etc. — Terrapin Station

You might have finally said something true ;) But funnily enough you yourself pretend you can't understand what I'm trying to say, and hiding behind little distinctions.

Yes, but a stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. — Thanatos Sand

No dispute here. However, traditionally the five senses are all our senses - so when I speak of the five senses, I speak with this connotation.

But for the purposes of the conversation, what's important to realise is that both the senses and thought can be directed towards both internal and external "objects". — Agustino

Terrapin disagrees with this. Do you agree, or disagree with this statement, and why?