18 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeySo mortal men could have prevented the completion of God's plan?? And the only way God could avoid this was by ordering children slaughtered??
OK, so lets say that God spares the children and/or the "innocent" ones in the land of Canaan. Who sees what the future holds for such "innocent" people? Is it not God and God alone? What if these people, if allowed to live, would have prevented the formation or continuation of the nation of Israel? Crazy you say? Just ask the people of Palastine how the completly derailed his plan for salvation for all of mankind through Christ altogether?
Some "all-powerful, all-loving God"!
This type of "thinking" is grotesque. Zeus is certainly preferable and morally superior to the Monster God you grovel before.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhat? Whodey, Stalin not only played a pivitol leadership role in the defeat of the Nazis during WWII (yes, he was on our side), but, he forged a floundering, badly dmaged nation into a world power with little more than spit and ruthless determination. The f'ing Nazi's had slaughtered 20 million Russians and left Russia in total economic and social chaos. Stalin's win at all costs crash programs of industrialization and political repression killed additional millions. Without his brutal policies, Russia would have forever been a minor player on the world stage. The man was a sociopath, but, without him you'd likely be speaking German right now... unless of course you're Jewish and you'd have been stuffed in an oven by Hitler's victorious SS Death Squads.
Yes and no. For example, Stalin was a victor. Although it is true that at first he was seen by many to be a godlike figure because of his success, he was later seen for what he was. i think you will find that truth has a way of finding you out in the end.
Truth is a matter of perspective.
18 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Hand of HecateJoe was a pussycat compared to OT Monster God. If OTMG was fighting against the Nazis in WWII, he would have had his troops put every single German man, women and child to death (well they might have been allowed to keep the virgin girls for their own "use"😉. That would be the only way to prevent them from committing evil in the future according to the logic Whodey espoused on the previous page.
What? Whodey, Stalin not only played a pivitol leadership role in the defeat of the Nazis during WWII (yes, he was on our side), but, he forged a floundering, badly dmaged nation into a world power with little more than spit and ruthless determination. The f'ing Nazi's had slaughtered 20 million Russians and left Russia in total economic and social c d in an oven by Hitler's victorious SS Death Squads.
Truth is a matter of perspective.
Whodey: So the question must be asked, if God had spared the "innocent" ones and only killed the "wicked" ones, would it have in the long run created greater death and violence via future generations?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree. Through action or inaction, the US is hardly without a hand in the slaughter of millions. Christianity has played a role in the premature deaths of millions throughout history.
Joe was a pussycat compared to OT Monster God. If OTMG was fighting against the Nazis in WWII, he would have had his troops put every single German man, women and child to death (well they might have been allowed to keep the virgin girls for their own "use"😉. That would be the only way to prevent them from committing evil in the future according to the l ...[text shortened]... , would it have in the long run created greater death and violence via future generations?
I've really enjoyed the Histroy channel Spanish Inquisition Specials. Nothing like Chruch and State working together to 'purify' a country to really get some things done... in the name of Love of course.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAm I God's lawyer? No. I am merely trying to show the complexity of the situation that you do not seem to appreciate. This complexity stems from having free will and free will stems from God being a God of love. For example, when you enter a loving relationship, you voluntarily open yourself up to possible emotional pain. Why? It is because you have no control over the other party in terms of loving you back. If one decides to walk in love one will inevitably get hurt, so to speak. What I hear continually is that God should not allow pain and suffering. Well then, where does that leave us in relation to love?
So mortal men could have prevented the completion of God's plan?? And the only way God could avoid this was by ordering children slaughtered??
Some "all-powerful, all-loving God"!
This type of "thinking" is grotesque. Zeus is certainly preferable and morally superior to the Monster God you grovel before.
Having said that, put yourself in God's position. You see wickedness abound and, as a result, pain and suffering abound with it. So at what point does one intervene directly in order to put an end to such pain and suffering among the "innocent"? If we are struck dead the first time we sin we would all be dead. On the other hand, if there was no divine intervention ever then the whole world would deteriorate into madness. It must be a tight rope act to say the least. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that "innocent" people suffer in a world of sin. Sin is no respector of persons in this regard. One can only attempt to limit such suffering as much as possible and I believe God's actions in the past were in such an attempt.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateWow! I never thought I would hear someone defeding Stalin. LOL. I defend Christ and you defend the acts of Stalin. I think I will stick with Christ and you can have good old Uncle Joe.
What? Whodey, Stalin not only played a pivitol leadership role in the defeat of the Nazis during WWII (yes, he was on our side), but, he forged a floundering, badly dmaged nation into a world power with little more than spit and ruthless determination. The f'ing Nazi's had slaughtered 20 million Russians and left Russia in total economic and social c ...[text shortened]... d in an oven by Hitler's victorious SS Death Squads.
Truth is a matter of perspective.
BTW: Do you realize that it is estimated that he had millions upon millions more people murdered than Hilter? Also, if Stalin had not been so paranoid he would not have killed off his generals before the conflict with Hitler thus the USSR probably would not have suffered to the extent they did had he not done so.
As far as perspective goes in relation to truth, this is where you and I agree 100%. Perspective is a wonderous thing.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyYes, and he killed of thousands of intellectuals. Hardly a saint, but, we still made him an ally against Hitler. Everything has spin, even the villianization of Stalin. What I was attempting to illustrate was that if it had served our purposes, he would have been portrayed as a hard fought warrior for equality and peace. His sacrifices and those of his people would have been portrayed as legendary.
Wow! I never thought I would hear someone defeding Stalin. LOL. I defend Christ and you defend the acts of Stalin. I think I will stick with Christ and you can have good old Uncle Joe.
BTW: Do you realize that it is estimated that he had millions upon millions more people murdered than Hilter? Also, if Stalin had not been so paranoid he would not h ...[text shortened]... oes in relation to truth, this is where you and I agree 100%. Perspective is a wonderous thing.
In reality, we would have been far better off invading Russia and killing Stalin while we still had allied forces in Europe capable of doing the job. Being able to pull off the job was simply too uncertain and the war too bitterly fought to make a go of it. Plus, how do you hold a territory like Russia once you have it?
History is written by the victors and the people writing the books. Stalin was/is not immune to this either.
18 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyAre men capable of inflicting "emotional pain" on your AlMighty, SuperDuper God??? Your premise is absurd; a 3 O God is infinitely further away from us than we are to an amoeba. Do you sit around and worry about whether the germs in your mouth that cause bad breath "love" you? Why would such a Super Being care about what we think? And if he deigned to worry about such a thing, why not also worry about whether my dog Harvel accepts Jesus as his personal Savior? Or in his infinite wisdom, he could have granted the germs that cause bad breath free will to embrace him, too. Why not do so if he is a God of Infinite Love?
Am I God's lawyer? No. I am merely trying to show the complexity of the situation that you do not seem to appreciate. This complexity stems from having free will and free will stems from God being a God of love. For example, when you enter a loving relationship, you voluntarily open yourself up to possible emotional pain. Why? It is because you have no ring as much as possible and I believe God's actions in the past were in such an attempt.
Your type of Christianity is illogical and nuts. It anthromorphizes a Supreme Being to the level of a love sick junior high school girl. And to justify mass murder as an "attempt to limit such suffering as much as possible" is the language of a psychotic.
The God you present needs a shrink, not a lawyer.
EDIT: One last point; God didn't merely "allow pain and suffering" in the OT; he actively CAUSED it. And I suggest you put yourself in the place of the young girls who got to see their parents and brothers murdered by the men who got to own them and then tell me what a swell God of Love they would have perceived.
18 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou think: “I.”
Perhaps I should not assume such things. You apparently think little of Christ or his message.
Gautama may have been a "good" man as was Christ but what solutions did he offer for what ailes man? How is being more self aware beneficial? For examlpe, is a better self awareness the medicine we need in and of itself or is it the awareness that we need a ...[text shortened]... a problem with sin and that we need the help of Christ to overcome death, hell, and the grave?
You have a thought: “I.”
And in that thought are likely enfolded a whole complex of thoughts about that “I”: memories, who you have decided you are, who other people have decided you are, names, beliefs...
You might call that “I” “me”, or “myself”—or simply “I”. You might think all kinds of theories about that “I”.
But—
What is thinking that “I-complex”? Who is making that whole somebody-self?
Who is the I thinking that “I”? Is that I another thought? A thought thinking a thought? If you think so, then who is thinking that I?
Don’t think! Don’t start to make more thoughts about it: “I think it’s X” or “It must be Y” or “Buddhism says it’s Z”. Don’t theorize about it—
—find it... if you can.
A metaphorical hint: Looking for it is like using a flashlight to look for the flashlight.
Of course, “it” isn’t really an it. That’s just a way of talking. It is the being-of-you that is itself no content at all. Not thing, nor concept, but process.
I could give it a name—but any name I give it, any of this talk talking about it, is just hints and allusions, no more. If I call it being-self-aware, that is likely to raise all sorts of talk about what is “self” (and “soul”, and the like): and the mind runs off chasing itself. That can all be great fun, of course—as long as you don’t get caught... 😉 It’s so habitual and seductive, even the “masters” catch themselves getting caught, time and again.
____________________________________
Another hint and allusion (no more): Being-aware of being-aware—and being-aware that that is your original “self” from the beginning, which reflects on all content (including content of its own making), all thought and experience and mental representations—but is itself no content at all.
I see the cat dozing in the sun. My brain makes a mental representation in the visual cortex from the sensory stimuli. I smell the fragrance of the ginger-lilies; the same. I have a feeling of contentment; the same. I think a thought: “How wonderful!”; the same. I stub my toe: “Ouch!”; the same. I feel hunger; the same. I think another thought: “I”; the same. All natural content-making. No problem.
Underneath all that content, you are no content at all—not even the content you call “I”.
_______________________________________
When people come across the Upanishadic saying tat tvam asi, they tend, I think, to look out from themselves to see what that tat is. And that is not incorrect (No.1 can speak of that better than I; and he has).
But my own stumble-bum path led me to (finally!) look inwardly. And that is not incorrect either. But—
What you’re searching for
is what you’re searching with,
looking both ways through
the needle’s eye of your own mind,
and that’s why you’ll never “find” it anywhere—
Then all of a sudden, it hits you—Tat tvam asi!
Look inside, look outside: all the same. Then make up whatever you want, and we can play at arguing about it. 🙂
_________________________________
“So,” you ask, “how can all that be beneficial, heal what ‘ails’ me?”
One might just say, “Well, how can being confused help? How can not knowing ‘who’ you are help?”
The ailment the Buddha addressed was just dukkha; if you have a physical disease, go to the doctor. The key to your question is: “Whence that dukkha?” You’ll find that in the Buddha’s 2nd noble truth. Everything I have written above is only hints and allusions reflecting on that. (I’m not much of an Eightfold Path guy—too many folds to remember! 😉 )
If you could see behind the rhetoric, you would see that No.1 is treating you with what the Zennists call “grandmotherly kindness.” Such kindness! Hard knuckles rapping on your head, trying to wake you up from your thought-tangles... Huang-po throwing Lin-chi in the mud... Ma-tsu twisting Pai-chang’s nose...
“Twenty years ago, when I was at Huang-po’s place, I asked three times what was clearly and obviously the real point of Buddhism, and three times he was good enough to hit me with his stick... Thinking of it now, I wish I could get hit once more like that! Is there anyone who can give me such a blow?” (Lin-chi)
Different folks for different strokes.
Of course, it is not his responsibility whether you wake up or not, nor anyone’s but yours. I trust that he has a proper fudoshin there... As now do I.
18 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdIf this is kindness I would hate to see what would happen if he acted hateful towards me. 😛
If you could see behind the rhetoric, you would see that No.1 is treating you with what the Zennists call “grandmotherly kindness.” Such kindness! Hard knuckles rapping on your head, trying to wake you up from your thought-tangles... Huang-po throwing Lin-chi in the mud... Ma-tsu twisting Pai-chang’s nose...
Anyhew, perhaps I am trying to do the same for him? Albeit in a kinder way. Perhaps I am trying to awake him from his slumber/blindness? Perspective is a wonderous thing!!
What we can agree on, however, is that there be illusions all around us. The question becomes, which ones if any?
Just as a side note, what makes someone who has "awakened" a better/worse person than he that "slumbers"? Is it the added benefit of thinking you know the true realities around you? If so, what benefit does this bring to ones life? Judging from your posts I would gather that you would not use the word benefit, rather, you would use the word enrichment. Am I correct?
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyJust as a side note, what makes someone who has "awakened" a better/worse person than he that "slumbers"?
If this is kindness I would hate to see what would happen if he acted hateful towards me. 😛
Anyhew, perhaps I am trying to do the same for him? Albeit in a kinder way. Perhaps I am trying to awake him from his slumber/blindness? Perspective is a wonderous thing!!
What we can agree on, however, is that there be illusions all around us. The questi ou would not use the word benefit, rather, you would use the word enrichment. Am I correct?
Nothing.
Is it the added benefit of thinking you know the true realities around you?
It is the added “benefit” of knowing who is you and what is thinking. The thinking itself may not be any wiser than it was before. The word “awakened” I like better than “enlightened,” partly for that reason. I like the word “aware” better. A friend of mine uses the phrase “coming to consciousness”. Awareness always has content. As a concession to our noun-freighted language, I might say: you are that awareness that is conscious of being just that. You are just that, whether you are conscious of it or not.
One should perhaps also not think of it as an event—“Ah! Now, I’m...” There is a Zen parable about a man walking in a heavy mist: all of a sudden he realizes he is soaking wet. He likely had inklings that he was getting wet (little satoris), but forgot about it in the midst of thinking about how he was going to make his metaphysical argument on RHP. 😉 And still, he is getting even wetter... That realization is the beginning, not the end, of the journey...
Think of it as coming to oneself: or what Zen calls, paradoxically, no-self—the you that is not any of the content that your mind makes and acquires. Although Buddhists sometimes use the phrase “empty mind”, that is not strictly correct. Nakagawa Soen roshi said: “There is really no such thing as empty mind, only present mind.” That being-actively-aware and present just is who you are. You are just that being-actively-aware—thinking, reflecting, doing, making; you are not the content of any of that. You’re a verb.
Judging from your posts I would gather that you would not use the word benefit, rather, you would use the word enrichment. Am I correct?
You’re probably right about the word “benefit—it sounds like something added, when the point is to clear things away. Clarity of awareness. Realizing that there is nothing to cling to, one stops clinging—that can be a long process, unbending those fingers...
Understand that dukkha is not suffering in the sense of physical pain. It is the mental suffering—anxiety, anger, psychological turmoil of all kinds—that we add.
18 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdIn a way you might say Christ was a Zen Christian in many respects. After all, he taught us to follow a road of self denial. He also practiced what he preached all the way to the cross. I often wonder if the psychological turmoil for him was worse than the actual pain of the cross like when he sweated great drops of blood before going to the cross. As his followers, we are then commanded to take up the cross and follow after him as well. This state of mind is that not my will be done but thy will be done. Also, it is very liberating in freeing oneself from this present world. Material posessions and such do not have the hold as before because what you treasure has changed. You begin to favor that which is eternal rather than temperal thus your current life, in terms of living physically, is less of a concern for you. In effect, you are then in a state of mind that has the potential to render you at peace with yourself when face to face with death itself and/or great physical discomfort.
...
Understand that dukkha is not suffering in the sense of physical pain. It is the mental suffering—anxiety, anger, psychological turmoil of all kinds—that we add.[/b]