What is the Difference?

[Brian2]

Sure it is. That's what salvation is - avoiding perdition. The Christian's purpose is to make it into heaven.

Yes that can be said to be a purpose for people to become Christians but it is not God's only reason for sending Jesus.

Then why? The other answers offered aren't any more convincing, such as we suffer so that we'll be grateful when we're not suffering, or that man deserves to suffer for sinning. Have you seen this: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." - Mother Teresa, nun and hospice director.

God did not create evil, just a potential for evil by giving moral beings a free will.
Much suffering is a result of that.
The rest of suffering I don't know.
I have see the Mother Theresa quote and see it taken out of context and twisted to be misunderstood.

 

[sayak83]

Yes I cannot deny that much suffering is a result of sin and Jesus came to do away with the works of Satan, but that is usually classed as death. But it could be said that people become Christians to be saved, but I would say that there are bigger reasons for what Jesus did and it is to unite everything in Jesus, with Him as Lord of all, ruler of everything.
You did not say that the Christian God created suffering for trivial reasons. I was just contrasting the Eastern God/s with the Biblical God.

Saved from what? Death is it not? Death is suffering. What can be a greater suffering than the very destruction of being?
Where in Eastern religions does it say the God created suffering for trivial reasons or some such? Hinduism does not say that certainly, and Buddhism does not work with God.

 

[Alien826]

Saved from what? Death is it not? Death is suffering. What can be a greater suffering than the very destruction of being?

That's an interesting thought. I would say that death is the ultimate end of suffering, as we are no longer conscious of anything. The knowledge of impending death is, to a creature evolved to stay alive by any means possible, very uncomfortable, certainly. But not death itself.

 

[stvdv]

You gave a nice and clear description of it

Now which of them is true? That is for everyone to decide

Well, true for me, nor so true for most Abrahamics (that I can decide for myself)

But the Abrahamic model requires you to believe in external saviors and the reliability of their words and deeds from history and a promised future.

I see no problems there. Will work out

Safe start: As you learn humility with the right "Teacher", so less chance to fall for Spiritual arrogance, unless you believe "my way is the Highway for all" then you are in big trouble

The monistic epistemological model requires you to believe in yourself and your own experiences as you embark (through some guidance) on the journey to transform the way you know the world and yourself.

Works well for those who have strong self confidence.

Pitfall could be: Succumb to Spiritual arrogance

What do you think?

Believe in external Saviors is a good start to focus on, if one lacks belief in oneself, as the external Savior instructs us to purify our body, mind and emotions

As a result of this purification we gain more insight and self confidence.

And if it's true that we all have this Divine Spark in us, then automatically it will work to start seeing it in the outer Savior first

Best for me was to start with external Teacher, to learn humility and to learn not to fall for Spiritual arrogance, which happens easily otherwise

The mono theistic view I really love, as I find no inconsistencies, so it calms my mind and induces Peace. But this I also have experienced with the Bhakti Path

For me it's fine to choose any Path I resonate best with. Most importantly to get up once more than the times you fell down...never give up, and victory will be there

 

[sayak83]

That's an interesting thought. I would say that death is the ultimate end of suffering, as we are no longer conscious of anything. The knowledge of impending death is, to a creature evolved to stay alive by any means possible, very uncomfortable, certainly. But not death itself.

Let us assume that every moment in life can given a quality value from +10 (absolute bliss) to -10 (absolute torturous pain). Nonexistence is 0. However, a finite life has a much lower overall quality than an immortal life full of absolute bliss, as that will be made of an infinite number of +10 life quality moments while a finite life can have only a finite number of them even in the ideal case. Hence a finite life will be significantly poorer compared to an infinite blissful life.

 

[Alien826]

Let us assume that every moment in life can given a quality value from +10 (absolute bliss) to -10 (absolute torturous pain). Nonexistence is 0. However, a finite life has a much lower overall quality than an immortal life full of absolute bliss, as that will be made of an infinite number of +10 life quality moments while a finite life can have only a finite number of them even in the ideal case. Hence a finite life will be significantly poorer compared to an infinite blissful life.

Yes, I considered the possibility that you might be factoring in some kind of afterlife, but I noted that you referred to death as "the very destruction of being", which I took imply finality, so I answered with that assumption.

From what you now say, it still doesn't make death "suffering", but a gateway to less suffering, does it not? Incidentally I've always felt that the logical thing to do for a believer in a blissful afterlife would be to kill oneself as soon as possible. But we don't. I wonder how much that reflects confidence in the supposed afterlife.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, I considered the possibility that you might be factoring in some kind of afterlife, but I noted that you referred to death as "the very destruction of being", which I took imply finality, so I answered with that assumption.

From what you now say, it still doesn't make death "suffering", but a gateway to less suffering, does it not? Incidentally I've always felt that the logical thing to do for a believer in a blissful afterlife would be to kill oneself as soon as possible. But we don't. I wonder how much that reflects confidence in the supposed afterlife.

Of course in most theistic traditions with heaven, you go to hell if you kill yourself...

 

[Brian2]

Saved from what? Death is it not? Death is suffering. What can be a greater suffering than the very destruction of being?
Where in Eastern religions does it say the God created suffering for trivial reasons or some such? Hinduism does not say that certainly, and Buddhism does not work with God.

Jesus did not save Christians from physical death, Jesus saves us from eternal death by offering eternal life.
I hear that the reason the universe exists and us humans and our suffering is not known in Hinduism and it is theorised that God may be bored or dreaming or something and ends up forgetting whom he is, as in us humans don't know that we are God, so God must have forgotten.
So all this suffering is because of God, and if for a trivial reason of God's own doing.

 

[sayak83]

Jesus did not save Christians from physical death, Jesus saves us from eternal death by offering eternal life.
I hear that the reason the universe exists and us humans and our suffering is not known in Hinduism and it is theorised that God may be bored or dreaming or something and ends up forgetting whom he is, as in us humans don't know that we are God, so God must have forgotten.
So all this suffering is because of God, and if for a trivial reason of God's own doing.

I was talking about eternal death only. Eternal death is suffering as through it eternal bliss is being deprived from a being.
You are entirely mistaken in what Hinduism believes on this matter.

 

[Fool]

It is true that many think of Christianity this way, however the dualism you perceive with a world distinct from God is not necessarily the whole story.

In Christianity we have someone in the canon:

[Act 17:28 KJV] 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.​

Yet the meaning of this applies neither directly to duality nor non-duality. It depends upon what you think the writer means. What does it mean by "In him we live and move?"

The dualist goes on looks. They fixate on the illusion and not the behavior.

Ideas can be labeled one thing by one culture and something else by another.

Pantheism is still the idea of something existing within something bigger. The corpuscle within a body is still pantheism. A mansion within my father's house is still pantheism even if the term/word wasn't coined until the 1700s

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes. Within Judaism, Christianity and Islam there are traditions that have a more nuanced interpretation that do move them into more holistic views.

One might think of Jewish mysticism -- with its shards of light -- as an attempt to bridge (?) the distinction. Sadly, I am in no way qualified to chat about such things as Kabbalah. (I have my hands full trying to understand Torah.)

Great opening post. Thanks.

 

[Alien826]

Of course in most theistic traditions with heaven, you go to hell if you kill yourself...

You can't win!

 

[Muffled]

I believe Abrahamic scripture except for Baha'i comes from God and all others come from man.

 

[Muffled]

Escaping suffering is not the main point of Christianity, and the God of the Bible is not a God who creates suffering and evil to relieve boredom or some such trivial reason.

I believe then there is the fact that Jesus made suffering on the cross His mission.

 

[Muffled]

I think we need to listen to the Messengers and what they offer, as they One and All, are One with God, not separate.

They are not the Essence of God, but the perfect reflection of the Attributes.

Regards Tony

I believe that is wishful thinking.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe that is wishful thinking.

I beleive it is true and have chosen to be part of it.

As Christ offered, we must be born again, born from the flesh into submission to God, which requires us to embrace the Messengers, the Holy Spirit given of God.

Regards Tony

 

[Brian2]

I was talking about eternal death only. Eternal death is suffering as through it eternal bliss is being deprived from a being.
You are entirely mistaken in what Hinduism believes on this matter.

What I see as Hindu belief on this matter is that people have different ideas.

 

[sayak83]

What I see as Hindu belief on this matter is that people have different ideas.

You could ask this question on the Hindu DIR and see the answers.

 

[Brian2]

You could ask this question on the Hindu DIR and see the answers.

I could but I dare not.

 

[sayak83]

I could but I dare not.

Why?