• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The love of Jesus Christ

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I could go on and on about proof in various forms that makes me so certain, but the greatest proof has been his immediate and unmistakable responses to me, particularly after praying -- not just once or few times, but on a regular basis. It comes in the form of a sudden awareness or understanding, a sudden sense of peace and security in a time of worry or stress maybe. A knowing that all will be well in regard to a situation worth praying about, and then seeing that it is. Sometimes it's an immediate visible sign. Sometimes it has been inaudible words spoken in my head. But in whatever form they have come, these responses have always, always been reliable, which proves to me that they were not imagined or self-generated.

Would something such as this, or even just a new interior knowledge of God's presence be proof to you, or would you need something more profound; something more external, maybe?

My muslim friend offered me the same exact "proof". Reliable results after prayers to Allah and a sense of peace and tranquillity. Should we mark that as evidence that Allah exists? If not, why not?

By the way, my ipad is also very reliable. I always pray to my ipad that the sun rises tomorrow. Excellent hit score, until now (unless I find myself above the northern polar circle in winter). Less so when I pray against children cancer or for world peace.

Would your God perform better on these issues?

Ciao

- viole
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Don't really know who the fellow was. All we have are stories written by other folks. If we had something actually written by him, maybe a person could make an honest assessment of who he was.

As it is, you just get a lot of opinion. The real Jesus is unknown, just who others thought he was. These others who wrote about him, don't really know their motivations, whether they were trustworthy themselves.

So people make up an idea or concept which they love, hate or disregard. Whoever people think he is, is not a real person, just an idea. The perfect individual in whatever way you need him to be perfect.

I guess I choose not to put my trust into ideas and concepts about a person which can't be validated to my satisfaction.
 
I can appreciate life without believing in Christ. Today, the sun kissed my face as I drove with my windows down. It was warm and made me smile. Thank you sun, I said. Tonight I drew and listened to music/podcasts and was in complete bliss doing something I love. When I got home a friendly welcome from someone I love and care for made me feel good. Earlier today as I walked to my car from a restaurant the wind blew strongly, tickling my fingers with its gentle yet firm touch.

All of these things and more are miracles and take them for what they are. Why do I need to attribute them to Christ, or anything else really, other than their own bountiful beauty for simply happening and existing? The world is full of terror: starvation, famine, war, disease, murder, bigotry, expectations, depression, hate. Right now, there is someone, in this world, without a roof over their head, and I pray to them that they go with ease and gain happiness, but the ultimately reality of the matter is that I am currently sheltered from the elements, typing on a computer at 2:56 AM with a full stomach and clean water, while other people in the world starve, shiver, and die. Yet you're telling us to appreciate the love Jesus has supposedly given humanity? If Jesus loves humanity so much, where is he? Our world is heating up at a rapid pace, our oceans are acidifying, we could break out into nuclear war if we willed it. We need him now more than ever. If he loves us, where is he?

I ask this question with all the respect and patience in the world: but it's a real question, and one you should probably consider.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
The love of so called Jesus Christ to me, takes us away from our true identity, we shove Jesus up on a pedestal and we believe we cannot ever reach him, this is a big lie, we need to bring him down to our level, because he isn't higher than we are, we are all One, including the man Jesus, that is if he ever did existed .
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
You take away societal mores, or simply grow up in a different society and your sense of right & wrong, your sense of what is 'sin', will be radically different. These are things that are taught. The only two truly universal morals are "Don't murder" and "Don't steal".

Those are two rights, but I think there are two more, all of which fall under the umbrella of the Golden Rule, some form of which nearly all religions give lip service to. That Golden Rule (ahem, as I've refined it) is a statement of morality which is achieved by honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. And because we all possess those rights equally, the source of all immorality/evil is a legal/moral double standard. All other rules for behavior are individually determined virtues, which should not be legislated, but are fair game for non-violent public pressure. Jus' sayin'.


But the "truth" is not measured by facts or predictive models of reality. "Truth" is not measured by comparisons or that which is right in front of your face. ""Truth" is measured by a book believed to be the holy inspired word of God.
Thus, if "God said, let there be light'; and there was light", and that light exists without a light source, then that is truth because it says so in the Bible. If the Bible says that he was raised on the 3rd day, then that is truth; in spite of the impossibility of one being reanimated after death. If the Bible says that a buch of guys went around healing the sick through prayer, then that is the truth; in spite of all the facts and knowledge we have of biology and medicine. That is the very definition of "cult" and "indoctrination"; to take the word of a leader or group of leaders without question; fearing rejection or separation from those should you believe differently; accepting a given thing as truth while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

It's one thing to say what "Truth" isn't, so what IS Truth. I say that it is everything that exists, physically and as ideas. It is objective Truth (knowledge), subjective Truth (beauty), and their combination, justice and love.

You are certainly free to base your idea of truth only upon materialistic evidence right in front of your face. I just don't believe this finite evidence is the limit to truth. I sense so much in this world and universe which indicates way more going on than what my eyes can see.and consider the Creator's infinite revelation so much more complete than my small, finite perception. You can accuse me of being indoctrinated, fearful whatever, but it's just not accurate. I have no leader or group of leaders, except Jesus and His perfect love casts out all fear.

Yes there is subjective Truth, and even though it exists only in the mind, and is subject to our emotions, it can be communicated to some degree through the arts and accepted by other individuals. But this by no means makes it objective or universal. One man is just as right to consider that which is held by millions to be beautiful, to be grotesque. Objective Truth, though, is universal and immutable and is the only grist for the mill of knowledge and science.

I appreciate you sharing this, I'm aware of what the RCC teaches, and at this point...I don't really like what the RCC stands for, to be honest. I'm not sure it even knows what it stands for, anymore. I don't follow any religion, now.

That's the problem, and I don't think it (or any revealed religion) ever stood for anything to begin with--except for its survival and the growth of its influence and power. Christianity went through its clash with reality during the Dark Ages with its Inquisition, witch burning etc. Islam is about 700 years behind with its current worldwide Jihad. Judaism dealt with its clash with reality in the Book of Job containing God's haughty rejoinder, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" IOW, the (priestly?) author of Job is telling all those coming at him with their "Why?"s to take a hike, because he knows there IS no answer an interactive God can give. Judaism, however, has never lost its grip on profundity, and is therefore my sentimental favorite among the many unreasoned religions.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Those are two rights, but I think there are two more, all of which fall under the umbrella of the Golden Rule, some form of which nearly all religions give lip service to. That Golden Rule (ahem, as I've refined it) is a statement of morality which is achieved by honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. And because we all possess those rights equally, the source of all immorality/evil is a legal/moral double standard. All other rules for behavior are individually determined virtues, which should not be legislated, but are fair game for non-violent public pressure. Jus' sayin'.
That works for you. But your system is not law, nor is it a system for anyone else.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I can appreciate life without believing in Christ. Today, the sun kissed my face as I drove with my windows down. It was warm and made me smile. Thank you sun, I said. Tonight I drew and listened to music/podcasts and was in complete bliss doing something I love. When I got home a friendly welcome from someone I love and care for made me feel good. Earlier today as I walked to my car from a restaurant the wind blew strongly, tickling my fingers with its gentle yet firm touch.

All of these things and more are miracles and take them for what they are. Why do I need to attribute them to Christ, or anything else really, other than their own bountiful beauty for simply happening and existing? The world is full of terror: starvation, famine, war, disease, murder, bigotry, expectations, depression, hate. Right now, there is someone, in this world, without a roof over their head, and I pray to them that they go with ease and gain happiness, but the ultimately reality of the matter is that I am currently sheltered from the elements, typing on a computer at 2:56 AM with a full stomach and clean water, while other people in the world starve, shiver, and die. Yet you're telling us to appreciate the love Jesus has supposedly given humanity? If Jesus loves humanity so much, where is he? Our world is heating up at a rapid pace, our oceans are acidifying, we could break out into nuclear war if we willed it. We need him now more than ever. If he loves us, where is he?

I ask this question with all the respect and patience in the world: but it's a real question, and one you should probably consider.

A beautiful post, except for the global warming stuff. (Not trying to hijack the discussion, just couldn't let it go by as if it were the universally accepting objective Truth.) As for your bottom line question, "Why?"; atheism and deism are the only possible paths to an answer. Either a sentient super-spirit God doesn't exist, or It does exist but mustn't interfere and negate our free will.

Buddhism, Atheism.....?
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
That works for you. But your system is not law, nor is it a system for anyone else.

It's derived from one assumption, that humans want good order except for the very small proportion of those who are anarchists, or despot wannabes. To deny the authority of that assumption, you have to justify a legal double standard for an oligarchic elite, or explain how we can maintain the power vacuum (utopia) the anarchists want.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
That's the problem, and I don't think it (or any revealed religion) ever stood for anything to begin with--except for its survival and the growth of its influence and power. Christianity went through its clash with reality during the Dark Ages with its Inquisition, witch burning etc. Islam is about 700 years behind with its current worldwide Jihad. Judaism dealt with its clash with reality in the Book of Job containing God's haughty rejoinder, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" IOW, the (priestly?) author of Job is telling all those coming at him with their "Why?"s to take a hike, because he knows there IS no answer an interactive God can give. Judaism, however, has never lost its grip on profundity, and is therefore my sentimental favorite among the many unreasoned religions.

I like your style of writing, Paineful. You make some valid points.

At this point in my 'faith journey,' and maybe we're always on one, I realized that even deism 'pushes' a particular way of viewing a deity. Should a deity exist, and one might, why doesn't anyone dare say...'it/he can't be known?' I mean, can something ...an entity that no one has any objective, verifiable 'evidence' of actually be ...knowable? I don't believe so, and deism while curiously close to atheism in some ways, still has that need to push an 'idea' of a deity onto others. It isn't as pushy as religion per se, but it still 'teaches' that a deity doesn't intervene, and isn't personal, and...so on and so forth. ''If you are a true Deist, then you believe this....'' I finally had to ask myself, ''why are you hanging onto this?''

I'm okay with the idea of imagining a deity, but if one exists, it is not knowable. Not definable. People try to define it, but...why should anyone take someone else's word for it, anyway? The Abrahamic faiths provide an illusion of authenticity in some respects, because there are holy 'texts' that supposedly support them. But, it's all an illusion of truths, perhaps passed down throughout the ages, or just flat out lies designed to herd people together, and control others with it. This isn't to say I don't respect people who follow religion or certain spiritual belief systems, but I don't believe that such people know anymore about who or what a deity MIGHT be, than me.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
A beautiful post, except for the global warming stuff. (Not trying to hijack the discussion, just couldn't let it go by as if it were the universally accepting objective Truth.) As for your bottom line question, "Why?"; atheism and deism are the only possible paths to an answer. Either a sentient super-spirit God doesn't exist, or It does exist but mustn't interfere and negate our free will.

Buddhism, Atheism.....?
Would you care to show us where you've disproved the existence of all the pagan gods? Some of us would be quite interested in seeing where you've confirmed the non-existence of Odin, Zeus and so on.
 
A beautiful post, except for the global warming stuff. (Not trying to hijack the discussion, just couldn't let it go by as if it were the universally accepting objective Truth.) As for your bottom line question, "Why?"; atheism and deism are the only possible paths to an answer. Either a sentient super-spirit God doesn't exist, or It does exist but mustn't interfere and negate our free will.

Buddhism, Atheism.....?

Why the curiosity about Buddhism and atheism?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I can appreciate life without believing in Christ. Today, the sun kissed my face as I drove with my windows down. It was warm and made me smile. Thank you sun, I said. Tonight I drew and listened to music/podcasts and was in complete bliss doing something I love. When I got home a friendly welcome from someone I love and care for made me feel good. Earlier today as I walked to my car from a restaurant the wind blew strongly, tickling my fingers with its gentle yet firm touch.

All of these things and more are miracles and take them for what they are. Why do I need to attribute them to Christ, or anything else really, other than their own bountiful beauty for simply happening and existing? The world is full of terror: starvation, famine, war, disease, murder, bigotry, expectations, depression, hate. Right now, there is someone, in this world, without a roof over their head, and I pray to them that they go with ease and gain happiness, but the ultimately reality of the matter is that I am currently sheltered from the elements, typing on a computer at 2:56 AM with a full stomach and clean water, while other people in the world starve, shiver, and die. Yet you're telling us to appreciate the love Jesus has supposedly given humanity? If Jesus loves humanity so much, where is he? Our world is heating up at a rapid pace, our oceans are acidifying, we could break out into nuclear war if we willed it. We need him now more than ever. If he loves us, where is he?

I ask this question with all the respect and patience in the world: but it's a real question, and one you should probably consider.

I find it admirable that you appreciate the many good things you enjoy in life, as so many easily take things for granted. Yet, my perspective is that all good things come from the Creator, so to stop short of being grateful to Him is to enjoy the gift without acknowledging the giver... Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17)

Your questions are truly important. All the terrible things and situations people deal with are certainly a reality in this sin filled world. Jesus’ love for humanity compelled Him to come to the earth to provide a way of bringing relief and hope over sin and the resulting devastating misery, which you highlighted above. God did not desire for sin to enter this world, yet humans chose and continue to choose sin resulting in such awful consequences. Jesus chose to endure the suffering of this world to offer eternal victory and freedom from sin for all people everywhere. I agree we need Him more than ever and the suffering of this world should be a wake-up call to that need. Have you expressed such a need to Him yourself? I believe He is there for each person who does and each transformed life makes a difference. Along with that, if you know the scriptures concerning the return of Christ He will be here before humans totally destroy the plant and each other, bringing peace and restoration.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
If this god only appears to those who are looking for it, then to me, this god is not doing nearly enough to make itself known to the world. If this god sincerely cared about the well-being of every human being it supposedly created, it should be doing more to make it's existence known to all, whether they're actively looking for the god or not.
My perspective is that God has made Himself unavoidably known to each and every person through creation and conscience whether they are looking for God or not. Once a person chooses acknowledge these and desires to look further beyond these, then God will faithfully lead them to more information and understanding.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I like your style of writing, Paineful. You make some valid points.

At this point in my 'faith journey,' and maybe we're always on one, I realized that even deism 'pushes' a particular way of viewing a deity. Should a deity exist, and one might, why doesn't anyone dare say...'it/he can't be known?' I mean, can something ...an entity that no one has any objective, verifiable 'evidence' of actually be ...knowable? I don't believe so, and deism while curiously close to atheism in some ways, still has that need to push an 'idea' of a deity onto others. It isn't as pushy as religion per se, but it still 'teaches' that a deity doesn't intervene, and isn't personal, and...so on and so forth. ''If you are a true Deist, then you believe this....'' I finally had to ask myself, ''why are you hanging onto this?''

I'm okay with the idea of imagining a deity, but if one exists, it is not knowable. Not definable. People try to define it, but...why should anyone take someone else's word for it, anyway? The Abrahamic faiths provide an illusion of authenticity in some respects, because there are holy 'texts' that supposedly support them. But, it's all an illusion of truths, perhaps passed down throughout the ages, or just flat out lies designed to herd people together, and control others with it. This isn't to say I don't respect people who follow religion or certain spiritual belief systems, but I don't believe that such people know anymore about who or what a deity MIGHT be, than me.

Thank you.

But that's the beauty of deism, it only claims that God created the universe and nothing more. Start as an agnostic, meaning the answers can't be known {for now), with deism and atheism as the only rational models. Make Truth your God, and both those paths parallel each other, for now, and probably forever within this natural universe. Any other path quickly branches off into the limbo of emotional blind faith. The "illusion of authenticity" (well put) is only there because of its age, which conveniently makes it harder to cross examine.

No, a deistic God can't be known, It's only there as one of two possible "explanations" for the universe--and the ONLY possible answer for why we're here. My wife, my parents, by brother and our extended families are all Christian. I love them all dearly, but my respect for them is based on things other than their religious beliefs. To make things worse, I'm in agreement with almost nobody I know, in person or on line, about both religion and politics, even generally, just one or the other. Thank God Sancho doesn't think much. :)

Would you care to show us where you've disproved the existence of all the pagan gods? Some of us would be quite interested in seeing where you've confirmed the non-existence of Odin, Zeus and so on.

Same as with all revealed gods, all their advocates can rely on is hearsay. The burden of proof lies with anyone who claims to have knowledge or even evidence of a particular god, or the lack of any god(s). The issue is the universe and how it came to be. The theists have to show evidence for the divine creation, and the atheists must show how the universe could come to be spontaneously. Both are equally incredible propositions, but they're the only two options.

Why the curiosity about Buddhism and atheism?

I'm familiar with them, especially atheism which is pretty straightforward; but I don't understand the combination. Buddhism has it's revelations as well, just from an unspecified/unknown source, if I understand it correctly.
 
theI'm familiar with them, especially atheism which is pretty straightforward; but I don't understand the combination. Buddhism has it's revelations as well, just from an unspecified/unknown source, if I understand it correctly.

Buddhism is non-theistic. It has no creator God. Buddha was not a God or Deva and claimed all of what he gained was due wholly to human capability and intelligence. Anyone can be a Buddha. In Abrahamic religions, for instance, Christianity, mercy or similar themes are due to the divine; in Buddhism, mercy is attributed to the kindness of human kind. One example is when the Buddha lay starving through ascetism from lack of food, when a girl - a complete stranger - gives the dying Buddha a bowl of rice porridge, which he takes gracefully, and eats. Doing so saves his life. Mercy in Buddhism comes not from the divine or supernatural but human effort for altruism and compassion. Buddha was also a man, and had emotions like one. He never claimed to be a God.

Further, different schools have different thoughts and interpretations.: some schools see Buddha as a super human - but a human none the less, while others see him as a mere man who has reached the pinnacle in wisdom and compassion. I follow the second interpretation.

Many Buddhists are atheists, especially in the west. I highly suggest watching this documentary. It is such a beautiful story.


Unfortunately, many westerners are ignorant of Buddhism and think Buddha is a God. That, or they apply western and Abrahamic religion interpretations to it, which doesn't fly. It isn't the case. It has Devas and Bodhisattvas but I find them less important the overall message of the religion and interpret them as things to emulate (for example Guan Yin, the Bodhisattva of compassion). I think of them like Saints.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Buddhism is non-theistic. It has no creator God. Buddha was not a God or Deva and claimed all of what he gained was due wholly to human capability and intelligence. Anyone can be a Buddha. In Abrahamic religions, for instance, Christianity, mercy or similar themes are due to the divine; in Buddhism, mercy is attributed to the kindness of human kind. One example is when the Buddha lay starving through ascetism from lack of food, when a girl - a complete stranger - gives the dying Buddha a bowl of rice porridge, which he takes gracefully, and eats. Doing so saves his life. Mercy in Buddhism comes not from the divine or supernatural but human effort for altruism and compassion. Buddha was also a man, and had emotions like one. He never claimed to be a God.

Further, different schools have different thoughts and interpretations.: some schools see Buddha as a super human - but a human none the less, while others see him as a mere man who has reached the pinnacle in wisdom and compassion. I follow the second interpretation.

Many Buddhists are atheists, especially in the west. I highly suggest watching this documentary. It is such a beautiful story.


Unfortunately, many westerners are ignorant of Buddhism and think Buddha is a God. That, or they apply western and Abrahamic religion interpretations to it, which doesn't fly. It isn't the case. It has Devas and Bodhisattvas but I find them less important the overall message of the religion and interpret them as things to emulate (for example Guan Yin, the Bodhisattva of compassion). I think of them like Saints.

But aren't those Devas necessary to Buddhism along with all the other what can only be called revelations, such as the 4 noble truths, 8 noble paths, 5 or 6 realms of rebirth all in a highly complex setting--and arrived at not through reason, but an undefined process of spiritual enlightenment. Yes, there is no creator God, so technically it can be described as atheism, but atheism declares that God doesn't exist, which Buddhism doesn't claim either, apparently.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all forms of Buddhism have the principle of rebirth as a/the core tenet, which is what I find to be the most troubling aspect of Buddhism. What is the foundation or source for that belief? It doesn't appear to be reason, though neither is a god claimed as the source. It appears that enlightenment is merely a mystical concept which justifies bypassing reason; and for me, with Truth as (my) God, reason is mandatory for It's pursuit/worship.

BTW, for what it's worth, I came to the idea of God equaling Truth on my own, but then discovered that I wasn't the first. It turns out that Gandhi had come to the same conclusion, which is ironic given his upbringing in a culture with heavy Hindu, Jainism and Buddhist influences. He even belonged to the Theosophical Society which according to sources in Wikipedia, was dedicated to the study of Buddhist and Hindu literature. He gave the religion or philosophy he invented the name, Satyagraha, which means adherence to Truth.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Same as with all revealed gods, all their advocates can rely on is hearsay. The burden of proof lies with anyone who claims to have knowledge or even evidence of a particular god, or the lack of any god(s). The issue is the universe and how it came to be. The theists have to show evidence for the divine creation, and the atheists must show how the universe could come to be spontaneously. Both are equally incredible propositions, but they're the only two options.
That's quite different from what you said earlier;

A beautiful post, except for the global warming stuff. (Not trying to hijack the discussion, just couldn't let it go by as if it were the universally accepting objective Truth.) As for your bottom line question, "Why?"; atheism and deism are the only possible paths to an answer. Either a sentient super-spirit God doesn't exist, or It does exist but mustn't interfere and negate our free will.

Buddhism, Atheism.....?
"Only possible paths".

You have thus said it is impossible for there to be a pantheon of individual gods. I make no claims to proof. I believe because the Gods of the North speak to me on a deeper level. Not in the sense that "Odin appeared to me" or what have you, just, I look upon the Hangtyr(Hanged God) and feel kinship.
 
But aren't those Devas necessary to Buddhism along with all the other what can only be called revelations, such as the 4 noble truths, 8 noble paths, 5 or 6 realms of rebirth all in a highly complex setting--and arrived at not through reason, but an undefined process of spiritual enlightenment. Yes, there is no creator God, so technically it can be described as atheism, but atheism declares that God doesn't exist, which Buddhism doesn't claim either, apparently.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all forms of Buddhism have the principle of rebirth as a/the core tenet, which is what I find to be the most troubling aspect of Buddhism. What is the foundation or source for that belief? It doesn't appear to be reason, though neither is a god claimed as the source. It appears that enlightenment is merely a mystical concept which justifies bypassing reason; and for me, with Truth as (my) God, reason is mandatory for It's pursuit/worship.

BTW, for what it's worth, I came to the idea of God equaling Truth on my own, but then discovered that I wasn't the first. It turns out that Gandhi had come to the same conclusion, which is ironic given his upbringing in a culture with heavy Hindu, Jainism and Buddhist influences. He even belonged to the Theosophical Society which according to sources in Wikipedia, was dedicated to the study of Buddhist and Hindu literature. He gave the religion or philosophy he invented the name, Satyagraha, which means adherence to Truth.

Four noble truths and eightfold path were created through buddha's own life experience. You should watch the video I posted. He experienced the four noble truths himself.

They also aren't revelation. They aren't commandments. They have nuance.

As for devas, they're pretty inconsequential. I'm Buddhist due to the teachings of it. They contain universal truth and ways to navigate around that truth.

Rebirth has multiple interpretations. In zen, for instance, it seen that every moment and every day is rebirth: I.e. You are never the same person you were yesterday or the day before that. You are constantly changing and being reborn. Some interpretations are literate, others not so.

The great thing about Buddhism is that it's very easily adaptable. The teaching is what important, not the belief in gods.

I suggest you read this.

Atheism and Devotion in Buddhism

I must say that the article has some caveats. For example, leaving flowers on an alter is not worship. It is a form of devotion and practice. Flowers die. By leaving flowers you are constantly reminded that not everything lasts forever, which is one of the core things in Buddhist teachings. By leaving flowers, you are practicing and being mindful of that. This is what I mean by westerners assuming worship in eastern religions even when there isn't any. They, like you, are applying a western religious scope over something that doesn't translate to western Abrahamic religion.
 
Last edited:

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
That's quite different from what you said earlier;

How so?

"Only possible paths".

Yeah, I neglected to put the "reasonable" qualifier in there. I don't always follow up the mention of God every time with the "If It exists" qualifier either.

You have thus said it is impossible for there to be a pantheon of individual gods. I make no claims to proof. I believe because the Gods of the North speak to me on a deeper level. Not in the sense that "Odin appeared to me" or what have you, just, I look upon the Hangtyr(Hanged God) and feel kinship.

Yes, I guess I do slip into the habit of thinking of gods as omnipotent, which is what would be required essentially for one to have created the universe. In any case, your hearsay for a pantheon of lesser gods is still hearsay after all, and just as non-transferable through reason as all the other hearsay which requires blind faith. I can't dispute that you hear your gods on some deeper level in your head, but I can and must dismiss it out of hand--for if I didn't I'd have to believe all of what is said about all the gods by everybody. My sanity is wholly tied to reason...for good reason. :rolleyes:



Four noble truths and eightfold path were created through buddha's own life experience. You should watch the video I posted. He experienced the four noble truths himself.

If you'd said he deduced them, I could try to come to grips with that, but experiencing them could mean anything. Paul claimed to have experienced a third heaven. The only person that could have any meaning for is himself, and he could be lying, or mis-perceiving things, or experiencing an hallucination, drug induced or otherwise.

They also aren't revelation. They aren't commandments. They have nuance.

Commandments from where, on what reasonable authority if not deductively evident.

As for devas, they're pretty inconsequential. I'm Buddhist due to the teachings of it. They contain universal truth and ways to navigate around that truth.

Could you give an example of a Buddhistic universal Truth and why you believe it to be so?

Rebirth has multiple interpretations. In zen, for instance, it seen that every moment and every day is rebirth: I.e. You are never the same person you were yesterday or the day before that. You are constantly changing and being reborn. Some interpretations are literate, others not so.

Doesn't Buddhism teach that we are reborn in different realms, only one of which is human, another is animals? Do you no subscribe to that belief?

The great thing about Buddhism is that it's very easily adaptable. The teaching is what important, not the belief in gods.

I suggest you read this.

Atheism and Devotion in Buddhism

That a religion is adaptable is a red flag for me, and makes devotion to Buddhism sound aimless.

I must say that the article has some caveats. For example, leaving flowers on an alter is not worship. It is a form of devotion and practice. Flowers die. By leaving flowers you are constantly reminded that not everything lasts forever, which is one of the core things in Buddhist teachings. By leaving flowers, you are practicing and being mindful of that. This is what I mean by westerners assuming worship in eastern religions even when there isn't any. They, like you, are applying a western religious scope over something that doesn't translate to western Abrahamic religion.

I've spent my entire adult life outside of any religion. Yes I was brought up Christian, but I shed that early, insisting that any philosophy pass a reason test and be compatible with a rational Truth in a rational universe which can be accepted without blind faith, and leaves room for doubt.

In fact, if the only qualification for being Buddhist was being awakened, I could identify and qualify for that. Thanks for the link.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
I just don't understand why so many people aren't grateful or don't appreciate the love Jesus Christ has demonstrated toward humanity which includes each and every person.

You don't understand why some of us might require evidence?
 
Top