Exactly. — 0 thru 9

No, not exactly - you've misunderstood once again what I've said.

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 — 0 thru 9

No the Christian cannot benefit for himself from the study of Buddhism, since Christianity has everything that Buddhism has and much more through the person of Jesus Christ - Christianity also has meditation and prayer through for example the tradition of Hesychasm. However, the Christian can benefit from understanding another religion, seeing what's valuable in it, etc. - this even cements their faith for they see that there are partial revelations of God everywhere. But this is not to say that Buddhism can contribute towards their salvation if they are already Christians.

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. — 0 thru 9

:s

However, the Christian can benefit from understanding another religion, seeing what's valuable in it, etc. — Agustino

No the Christian cannot benefit for himself from the study of Buddhism, — Agustino

Are you disagreeing with yourself now because no one else is sufficient competition? :P Not sure what you mean here. Very many Western believers have benefited from studying and practicing Eastern religions and wisdom. So if that helps them and maybe prevents from ditching their faith entirely, that seems to be a plus.

Christianity also has meditation and prayer through for example the tradition of Hesychasm — Agustino

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. Also, Buddhism had a effect on Greek philosophy, and subsequently the Orthodox tradition, as you are doubtless aware. Wikipedia.

Don't know if you had mentioned that you had given meditation a serious try. Like the saying goes, if the water is allowed to remain unstirred, the mud will settle and there will be clarity. Also, what if you put all thoughts of hell, Calvin, Luther, etc out of your mind for a week? Maybe it might help. Just an idea for some peace.

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 — Agustino

It's as if you think that Russia just poofed into existence in the year 1918, and that all Western efforts to modernize Russian backwardness for the previous several centuries must therefore be evidences of your "liberals are taking over the world" tinfoil hat argument. Just cut the crap, Agustino. I know you're biased toward Orthodoxy and its traditions in Russia, but please refrain from hamfisting your world view into a history that's never going to agree with you.

It's as if you think that Russia just poofed into existence in the year 1918, and that all Western efforts to modernize Russian backwardness for the previous several centuries must therefore be evidences of your "liberals are taking over the world" tinfoil hat argument. — Heister Eggcart

:s

Just cut the crap, Agustino. I know you're biased toward Orthodoxy and its traditions in Russia, but please refrain from hamfisting your world view into a history that's never going to agree with you. — Heister Eggcart

There's no crap, that's the history, read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Why do you think Russia is so much anti-West? For no reason? :s

It's as if you think that Russia just poofed into existence in the year 1918, and that all Western efforts to modernize Russian backwardness for the previous several centuries must therefore be evidences of your "liberals are taking over the world" tinfoil hat argument. — Heister Eggcart

Also I'm very surprised you bring the "liberals" into discussion, there was no question of liberals here, but rather Western political intervention in the affairs of other countries/nations. And funny how you even agree with it - "Western efforts to modernize Russian backwardness" ...

You seem so confused, Agustino. Are you alright? :s :s :s :s :s

Well I certainly am, because I claim that the West has for a long time sought to intervene in the politics and domestic affairs of many Eastern nations (including Russia for that matter), and you say exactly that, while also denying it and bringing up the liberals red herring BS.

You're getting even more confused by the post. Goodness, Agustino. Perhaps you should get back to shoveling shit like the happy serf you are? :-*

You're getting even more confused by the post. Goodness, Agustino. Perhaps you should get back to shoveling shit like the happy serf you are? :-* — Heister Eggcart

:-d What's your point?

That you should get on those white wings of yours and fly to your heavenly homeland, you filthy immigrant.

I Will follow Your advice. Soon haha. I will try meditation and ignore Calvin etc. But first I really want the answer to the question how it is even possible to avoid calvinism as the only pure Christian doctrine if God is What is traditionally ascribed to him: Omniscient and Omnipotent.

That you should get on those white wings of yours and fly to your heavenly homeland, you filthy immigrant. — Heister Eggcart

:-} I am in my homeland already

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

So does he want to determine if a path is better than another without walking it? What did Jesus do, did He say "Let me convince you that I am the Truth and the Way and the Life"? Or did He invite people to see for themselves that He is the Way?

Your foundational assumptions are problematic. You presuppose that it is a priori possible to determine which is the best path without taking it, and that's false - it's also something that can be borne out of a fear of taking the wrong path (although you have to balance that with the fear of not taking any path, which is definitely the wrong path to take — Agustino

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.

You may both be interested to read this. — Agustino

Thanks, I'll see if I can take a look at it.

So what do you think about the following? — Agustino

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.

Yes I forgot, sorry. But why couldnt he turn back afterwards? I mean, 20 years old! If you wonder where I got that example from, it was an expantion of what Schopenhauer said was the consequences of Augustine's dogma : Namely, that for example a 20-year old who sins as I mentioned after having met God, has no chance at redemption but is damned and just has to wait his whole life on eternal hell. If that is true, then Christ really didnt come to save the world as he said it seems to me, but rather to destroy it, as he said he didnt. Have you read Bunyan's Man in the Iron cage? And are you Christian? And last of all, what is your opinion, is this example of the 20-year old a damned man? — Beebert

Sorry, I somehow missed your response here.

I would say there is a difference between sinning and turning away from God. No one is perfect. My point was only that perhaps after genuine repentance turning away from God is impossible; but that does not mean you will be absolutely sinless.

I haven't read the Bunyan book. And I am not a confirmed Christian in the sense of belonging to any particular church or congregation, although I do find Christianity the religion I feel closest to. I don't give much thought to afterlife; I think what is important is how you live this life. And I am convinced that nothing of real value can come out of fear.

I don't think the philosophy forum is the place for proselytizing or defending the One True Faith . My advice to Beebert was 'meta-religious', not apologetic - to consider the meaning of various religions, ideas, doctrines, from a critical but not necessarilyhostile perspective.

Now you're critiquing the concept, but I'm not a Buddhist, so you'd have to ask them. — Thorongil

Sorry I missed this earlier.

You started out by saying that the "permanent unchanging self" either exists or doesn't; isn't your treating it as a propositional claim based on your understanding of the "concept"? If you understand the concept then you can explain and critique it, no? If not then I don't see how you can justifiably treat it is a propositional claim in the first place.

Any attempt to distinguish the true from the false is an epistemic endeavor. — Thorongil

Interpretations are always prior to any such attempts to "distinguish the true from the false".

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.

Yes but how can one trust something that is completely incomprehensible not only in nature but in actions as well? In the old testament we find a God who is completely inconsequent and unpredictable. Who first feels and wants one thing and then suddenly something else. Jahve is certainly human all too human. 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. We see that in many geniuses. 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 in the sense of "How shall I behave?".

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?

You don't understand Nietzsche if you call him immoralist. He just had much deeper understanding of morality than most. You know why he broke his friendship with Wagner?

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

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.

Yes Nietzsche called himself immoralist in the sense of being against morality of the society. Against the kind of moral that tries to surpress the greatness and creativity of some (of those Nietzsche considered the strong, the artist). He believed in the judgements of the great man. Not in some sort of social code of conformity.
Nietzsche broke with Wagner to start with because of Wagner's anti-Semitic statements. Then after that, other things started to strengthen him in his revolt against Wagner, such as Wagner's increasing carreerism. I doubt Wagner was really Christian. That else rather one of his strategies. Being a friend of the catholic church for example helped one in one's career in that time.
Because music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music speaks for itself. It is pure. It doesn't complicate things. It saves lives. You don't have to do more good to humanity, but what purpose did Aquinas then fullfill? How can morality be more important than art if you also say that it is not important to so good for humanity? Political leaders have done more harm than good. I believe you know that too. I am not preaching some sort or utilitarianism here. I am talking about the inner life. Wasn't it Dostoyevsky who said that beauty will save the world? I do though believe that Aquinas was a utilitarist in the long run. At least his theology turned many in to that. Heavenly utilitarianism. Yes in Aquinas case IMO not doing anything would at least have been just as good. But without music, I agree with Nietzsche: life would be a mistake.

And if not from God, then where does evil come from? — Agustino

I would say that God can be and is responsible for evil, since he is responsible for his creation which contains evil. But that's different from saying that he commits evil, which is the word I used in the sentence you originally quoted of me.

As such, God must be beyond logic and illogic - neither logical, nor illogical. — Agustino

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

You started out by saying that the "permanent unchanging self" either exists or doesn't; isn't your treating it as a propositional claim based on your understanding of the "concept"? If you understand the concept then you can explain and critique it, no? If not then I don't see how you can justifiably treat it is a propositional claim in the first place. — John

Right.

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

I should add that the Bible is not the Quran. The Quran is considered to be dictated line by line by God, meaning that Muhammad didn't write a word of it. Muhammad couldn't have anyway, according to his biography, since he was illiterate. He was simply the means of transmitting God's message. Muslims therefore consider the Quran to be eternal, in that God has written it from eternity. The revelation of the Bible, by contrast, is considered progressive, in that the OT is an opaque expression and anticipation of the NT, and is to be found in its patterns, themes, and trajectories. So you can't isolate a couple verses and say, "look here, this is what God revealed." God's revelation in the Bible, especially the OT, consists in whatever overarching pattern or theme those verses are embedded in. The Holy Ghost is said to have inspired the authors of the Bible, but it is still the work of human authors. Islam couldn't exist and is unthinkable without the Quran, but Christianity could and did exist without the Bible (e.g. there was no NT during and immediately after Jesus' life, but there were obviously still Christians).

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

Huh? No. You quoted a couple verses from Isaiah as if we could interpret them solely on their own, apart from any other considerations (like the rest of the book of Isaiah, the rest of the Bible, the Church Fathers, the Magisterium, etc). Here's a connection with the other thread: that's a very Protestant and Islamic thing to do. Eastern Orthodoxy is closest to Catholicism. It's Protestantism that's closest to Islam, given their views on scripture.