The pharisees were just in their sentences, because they followed the law, but they were heartless and cruel. — Beebert

They followed the letter of the law, but not its spirit, thus they were not just.

Justice can also be cold-hearted and mean. — Beebert

But justice can also be a cause of joy then? In fact, why wouldn't justice ALWAYS be a cause of joy if justice is something good?

Your type of reasoning, if you follow the line of Aquinas and the like, is what Nietzsche correctly and rightly criticized.

Nietzsche correctly and rightly criticized. — Beebert

Nietzsche did not understand Aquinas and Christianity very well - his understanding was always tainted by Luther. Nietzsche's morality was actually the opposite of just.

He didn't understand all of christianity, I agree. But no, he understood some things well. More than most christians dare to admit. I am not calling him just. But exposing falseness is just sometimes, and Nietzsche did that. Dostoevsky wouldn't agree with Aquinas either.

I would argue that Aquinas didn't use the spirit enough either. If you say Silouan knew God better, then let's listen to Silouan.

Justice is a cause of joy. But true justice isn't sadism. True justice is never without love. However much Aquinas wants to say otherwise, but his justice is cold. He is affected by the spirit of the roman empire with all its political judgements etc.

Justice is a cause of joy. — Beebert

Okay good, so then Aquinas isn't wrong to say that the wicked going to hell is a cause of joy so long as their going to hell is just and not sadistic, right?

No.

No. — Beebert

Why not? You're not contradicting yourself. You just said justice is a cause of joy, and now you're saying it's not :s

Love and forgiveness is a much greater source of joy. You see how easy it is to be sadistic in christianity. "Hell is a source of joy for the blessed, because it is just", is just something man has thought out and imagined himself that it is. But what is the really underlying source for saying such a thing?

Now, I would love it if you could answer my earlier question; Does God foreknow my destiny? Did he foreknow it before he created the world? Or was he forced to create the world and first then afterwards received knowledge?

And a typical christian delivers to non-christians the following message: Jesus knocks on the door to my heart and says "Let me in", and I ask him: "Why?". To which he answers; "Because of what I will do to you if you don't let me in". I am not saying this is true, but that is the message one often hears. Because, Jesus claims he loves us all, and he commands us to love each other. Yet, if I don't love Jesus back, if I am not satisfied with being alive, if I prefer to not live and wish I was never born, then Jesus will let me me tormented forever, despite the fact that he created me without my consent, just because of the fact that I was born. It is absurd. So if I don't want to live forever, which I think I have the right to say to God, since I didn't even ask for being born, then I will instead be tormented forever and ever. Hmm... Have you christians understood the term "FOREVER"?

I discovered Rajneesh before the whole Osho thing, and wasn't taken in by him. Clever fellow, but not, in the vernacular, fair dinkum. — Wayfarer

Sure, according to you (and me) not "fair dinkum", But that is the problem with the whole 'guru' thing; it's presented as objective fact as to whether these fellows are "enlightened' but really there is no objective fact of the matter; it's all subjective.

I think that's a bit fundamentalist itself. Sure, we can't proscribe the absolute but again, it doesn't mean there is none. I know you have recommended some great books on 'the sacred in nature', but we also need to relate the sacred to everyday life, which is one of the functions of religion and spirituality. — Wayfarer

The problem is that the absolute is conceived differently in the different traditions. What I mean to say is that there cannot be thought to be one cross-cultural universal absolute unless you are thinking fundamentalistically. I think the closest you could come to thinking such a thing without becoming fundamentalist would be to think that, although all religions are expressions of the truth, some are more all-encompassing and closer to the most truly 'human' than others. And this is pretty much what I do think about Christianity. I acknowledge that my thinking that is subjective. But I also think that such thoughts are like Kant's conception of aesthetic judgements of beauty, which, although they are subjective, inherently involve the thought that all subjects should, according to Kant, if only they could see aright, hold the same judgement.

This question of the intersubjective validity (which is the objectivity) of aesthetic, ethical and spiritual judgements is a very tricky path to traverse.

Dogma =/ fundamentalism. — Agustino

It depends on how it is interpreted. If it is interpreted "dogmatically" (in a fundamentalist way) then it is fundamentalism, obviously.

It's presented as objective fact as to whether these fellows are "enlightened' but really there is no objective fact of the matter; it's all subjective. — John

No, I don't think so. I think Ramana Maharishi was an authentic guru (not that I am a 'follower'.) And there are volumes of documentation about the abilities, sayings, stories, demonstrations, concerning spiritual teachers in diverse traditions, across culture and history. I understand the suspicion of gurus and authority figures generally but that can and does become another dogma. The western dogma is 'nihil ultra ego' - nothing beyond ego - buttressed by science. It all too easily ends up like that.

And, yes, the absolute is conceived differently in different traditions. But I think that the conclusion, therefore, they're all subjective or socially-conditioned or contradictory is not a sound conclusion. Yes, it's tricky,and there are many uncertainties. but there are reputable and sound spiritual teachers, just as there are phoneys and fakes. But there would be no fool's gold, if there were no gold.

//ps// actually I once got a book out of Fisher which was like a compendium/anthology of new religious movements and spiritual teachers. I'll look for it again later, it's a bit dated now but it was fascinating, and suitably critical.//

Jesus knocks on the door to my heart and says "Let me in", and I ask him: "Why?". To which he answers; "Because of what I will do to you if you don't let me in" — Beebert

That last sentence is the interpolation of preachers who adopt religious guise to impose their will on others.

Of course - Dostoevsky was an intellectual and as is usual for the East, there is a very strong tendency to "Westernise" and "Americanise" which usually means taking what is worse from the West rather than what is better — Agustino

The western dogma is 'nihil ultra ego' - nothing beyond my individual judgement, buttressed by science. It all too easily ends up like that. — Wayfarer

Yes, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if someone misjudges the quality of a painting, for example, it's no big deal; but if they misjudge the quality of a guru it can have a devastating effect on their lives. In any case I don't personally believe in spiritual transmission from person to person, all people are too fallible for that; the personal relation with God is the most reliable way in my opinion. This is not to say that spiritual guidance cannot be received; but it should always be in a rational form; where one understands exactly why one is following a particular discipline, and exactly what is the personal relevance to them; a path should never be blindly followed.

And, yes, the absolute is conceived differently in different traditions. But I think that the conclusion, therefore, they're all subjective or socially-conditioned or contradictory is not a sound conclusion. Yes, it's tricky,and there are many uncertainties. but there are reputable and sound spiritual teachers, just as there are phoneys and fakes. But there would be no fool's gold, if there were no gold. — Wayfarer

I haven't drawn that conclusion at all, though. There may or may not be reputable and sound teachers; but how do know whether they are one or the other; how do you know they are not themselves deluded, if you are not yourself enlightened (and even then?)? The analogy with gold doesn't work because gold can be tested to demonstrate that it is, in fact gold, and not fool's gold. Also it is possible, to continue the analogy, that there once was gold, but that now there is nothing but fool's gold in this "dharma-ending" age.

a path should never be blindly followed. — John

So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them. — Buddha

Kalama Sutta

I can agree with that; it tells me to live intuitively, skillfully, ethically, intelligently. In one or another, depending on cultural differences, of course, that is one universal truth expressed by all religions and sensible 'ways'.

(Y)

And a typical christian delivers to non-christians the following message: Jesus knocks on the door to my heart and says "Let me in", and I ask him: "Why?". To which he answers; "Because of what I will do to you if you don't let me in". I am not saying this is true, but that is the message one often hears. — Beebert

I do think this is a blatant distortion of the Christian message.

Also consider the following. Some Christians are locked into their inherited understanding - they've long since lost any ability to stand back from them and think about what they really mean. That's what I meant before about mistaking the symbolic for the literal.

Consider the idea that when Jesus said 'I am the truth the light and the way' it doesn't literally refer only to Christians. 'The way and the truth' is not a Christian invention or possession; it is 'truth as distinct from falsehood' that is the subject. To paraphrase: no-one can realize the 'source of being' (i.e. 'Father') other than by facing the truth ('me'). But this is now clothed in the costume of religious dogma. As always, to mix metaphors, the vessel then becomes the focus of attention, not what is being carried by it. That is how we get caught up in the story-book mythology that you're trying to escape from.

None of that negates the essential truths of Christianity, but it does negate a lot of wrong-headed and misunderstood Christianity, which is plainly abundant.

I will also repeat the other point - that one way of understanding 'hell' is 'the deprivation of truth'. It is 'eternal' insofar as that it is up to us to find and follow the liberating truth of whichever spiritual tradition we're associated with. So the 'punishment' is wasting that opportunity. It's not a vindictive act by a jealous God, which is anthropomorphism.

http://wp.me/p1BgTd-9W

Hmm. Do you really believe that when Christ used all those horrifying and vivid images to describe hell, that all he meant was "'hell' is 'the deprivation of truth' It is 'eternal' insofar as that it is up to us to find and follow the liberating truth of whichever spiritual tradition we're associated with. So the 'punishment' is wasting that opportunity"? I liked your description, but when I read revelation of John for example, I cant get this view from reading it. The thing with christianity, which is both to its advantage and disadvantage, is that it is a revealed religion, based on history, rather than a philosophical religion like buddhism and to some extent hinduism. It makes christianity a religion one would be stupid to completely ignore. One must take side. Either for or against, not in between. Or so it seems to me. I know christianity has had some of the most profound expressions of the human spirit, if not the most profound; it is enough to listen to Bach, gregorian chant or to just to observe all its other great works of art. The problem with christianity is all the - sorry for harsh words - incredibly stupid people that also claim to follow it. I just cant stand all those american fundamentalists who constantly attack science and believe that fossils were placed om earth by satan, that dinosaurs existed only 3000 years ago and that the Earth is 6000 years old. I cant stand it. Nor can I stand Calvin, the crusades, the inquisition, the forced conversions etc. If you take your quote in one of the posts above by Buddha, it seems to me like that attitude expressed by Buddha has been quite absent in Christian history. Instead, had Buddha lived in Europe during the middle ages, he probably would have been called a heretic and then killed on the stake.

Evil as the privation of the good is not my invention, it originates with Augustine. The point is that evil has no reality of its own, it is comparable to the absence of health or the absence of light; there's a summary here. As I mentioned previously, medieval Buddhism has plenty of ghastly hells, described in horrifying detail; however in the Buddhist view, beings are not 'sent' there, they are experiencing the consequences of their evil actions. Again I think the 'punitive father' image of God has been vastly overdone in Western thinking. It is so obviously a projection of a patriarchal disciplinarian social structure.

And another really good book, written by an ecumenical Christian, is Evil and the God of Love, by John Hick.

The problem with christianity is all the - sorry for harsh words - incredibly stupid people that also claim to follow it. I — Beebert

Did you notice the quote from Augustine that I posted earlier, on the 'literal meaning of Genesis'?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

When did Augustine write, again? Besides, none of the Anglican, Orthodox, or Catholic denominations subscribe to intelligent design, or deny evolutionary theory. (Darwin never made it onto the Prohibited Books List, not that it's much of a compliment.)

One must take side. Either for or against, not in between. — Beebert

You're obviously intelligent and thoughtful, do more reading. Understand that the kind of harsh fundamentalist Christianity you're reacting against is for some reason mainly characteristic of American conservative, or even reactionary, evangelicals (not that they're all bad, I rather like A W Tozer). But there are many other forms. I greatly enjoyed David Bentley Hart's most recent book, The Experience of God. He won't have a bar of any kind of ID. There are many others; on my kindle I have an interesting book called Without Buddha I could not be Christian by a Christian professor of theology, Paul F Knitter. There is in fact an entire sub-cultural genre of Buddhist Christianity nowadays.

All that said, I don't want to be an apologist for religion. But, if you're not materialist, then what are you? Serious question. Scientific materialism, the philosophy of the secular intelligentsia, is a baseless and groundless historical illusion. So keep an open mind by all means but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thank you for a very instructive and thoughtful reply. I have heard of Bentley Hart and very much appreciated what I have heard from him. I will look up Paul Knitter. I read your quote from Augustine. I like him, but I am ambivalent. He seems also to have some dangerous thoughts that can be damaging. The whole Lutheran-Calvinistic idea of total depravity has its source in the writings of Augustine. But så you say, I do realize the stupidity of American fundamentalism, but it is still hard to free yourself from it. I would certainly say that I consider atheism and materialism to be better than religious fundamentalism, and I believe it is in a way often a reaction against it (Think Christopher Hitchens, who must have been smart enough one thinks to understand that there was more to religion than what he criticized. Unfortunately, he often only debated with idiots).

I am not a materialist, I do realize it is a shallow and stupid worldview. But I wouldnt yet call myself spiritual either I think. At this moment, I trust art. I trust Classical Music by Beethoven, Schubert, Bach and the likes. I trust literature written by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Cervantes etc. And if one understands art, it is impossible to be a materialist. The Only "godless" world I would be able to say has some intellectual value is that of Schopenhauer, Leopardi and Nietzsche. But I am quite sure that they were wrong too. I just have a problem with religious dogmaticism. And I am too selfish and weak to give up everything to follow Christ. I am for example not ready to give up music. Well, well. At least scientific materialism is out of the question. That is for sure. But superstition must also be out of the question.

Buddhist Christianity — Wayfarer

There is no Buddhist Christianity, that's a very profound error right there. Christianity may have some similarities with Buddhism, however, because of the person of Jesus Christ, Christianity is ultimately entirely different.

That's a true fact - you book a flight around here and check it out for yourself. And it was as much true today as it was 100+ years ago. The West has sought to influence and control the East for a long time.


You may both be interested to read this.

There is no Buddhist Christianity, that's a very profound error right there. Christianity may have some similarities with Buddhism, however, because of the person of Jesus Christ, Christianity is ultimately entirely different. — Agustino

Why couldn't a Christian be influenced and inspired by Buddhism, in a way similar to being influenced by Taoism or the many teachings and forms of yoga, for example? Is there nothing to be gained, or is it simply impossible or heretical? If so, why?

Why couldn't a Christian be influenced and inspired by Buddhism, in a way similar to being influenced by Taoism or the many teachings and forms of yoga, for example? Is there nothing to be gained, or is it simply impossible or heretical? If so, why? — 0 thru 9

Buddhism is good - as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. I said Christianity is the most complete religion, not that there is no truth in other religions. All religions fundamentally try to relate with the divine.

Exactly. So if for example a Jewish or Christian believer can benefit from the study and/or practice of Buddhism and meditation, then it's a good thing. They haven't abandoned their faith, just deepened their spiritual practice, or at least they might say. The fact that Buddhism is not primarily a Theistic belief system actually make easier to pair with other religions. The only hindrance is in the mind, but that may be the biggest obstacle.

That's a true fact - you book a flight around here and check it out for yourself. And it was as much true today as it was 100+ years ago. The West has sought to influence and control the East for a long time. — Agustino

No, not really.

No, not really. — Heister Eggcart

Yes really - you just don't know what you're talking about - there's a difference there.
https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X