Which is, of course, an incoherent view, but it is what it is.PeterB wrote: And that creation is a constantly occurring and objective event intiated by God and perceptible to human beings who are endowed with permanent attas.
Further, that human beings are free to accept or reject that view.
Which, of course, does not have to be logical.PeterB wrote:Its coherent to itself Tilt.
But that coherence depends on accepting or rejecting the fact that it is Revealed truth.
Christian never intepret Buddhism by the yardstick of their notion of salvation?What I suggest is problematic is simply interpreting Christian Theology while wearing Buddhist spectacles.
Which is not to say that one cannot remark about the other.Which is what is posited by the OP. It might be fun. It might meet an inner need for resolution for some former Christians.
But in the end the result is neither fish nor fowl.
Zakattack wrote:binocular wrote:But there are other forms of theism, such as some Hindu forms of theism, that are more sophisticated than that, and which Buddhist anti-theist arguments don't tackle.
I think Buddha simply focused on what is real & observable. The terms Buddha generally used were literal expressions of observable reality, such as "nibbana" or "nirvana", which literally mean something like "extinguishing heat"; cool & peaceful. Buddha also used the word "gods", to refer to various kinds of worldly power, such as a king that has power is a "god" (deity). Often words need to be examined for their root meanings because often words, possibly such as the Hindu 'Brahman', may have a natural (rather than personal) root. From a purely natural (& Buddhist) perspective, the problem with theist words is they have a tendency to reify & anthropomorphize. From natural, scientific & Buddhist perspectives, if it: (i) cannot be observed; & (ii) is poorly defined, then it is generally invalid. For example, the creative & destructive forces of nature, Buddhism calls 'cause & effect', 'arising & cessation', 'creation & destruction'. These are valid definitions for a mind free from delusion & hallucinatory imaginativeness. Buddha generally called a spade 'a spade'. Buddha did not call a spade "God". Imagine if I spoke to people, calling dogs 'cats', pigs 'sheep', red 'blue' & green 'pink'. People would think I have gone completely bonkers.
Sambojjhanga wrote:So what do you all think? I realize my subject post is did Christianity borrow from Buddhism? I think it did. I
binocular wrote:The story goes that God incarnates Himself as the Buddha in times when theists become unruly and untrustworthy.
I think you'll have a hard time trying to refute that kind of conception.
PeterB wrote: I think it would be a form of dishonesty to allow misinformation to go unremarked on.
Christian Theology does not hold that colours are mind-made in that sense.
It holds that colours are a quality inherent in an objectively exisisting and created world.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.
And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception. Khajjaniya Sutta
Zakattack wrote:Definitely not. Easy as pie to refute.
But I have much better things to do with my time. Like Ground, best you learn Buddhism before asserting & refuting this & that.
PeterB wrote:Zakattack, I am not a Buddhist, and I do not think that a Buddhist forum is a suitable venue to discuss Christian Theology...
PeterB wrote:My only reason for joining the conversation was to demur from the view that Christianity borrowed from Buddhism.
Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelled Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the Indian sub-continent, especially in modern Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-western border regions of modern India. It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for some centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans. Greco-Buddhism influenced the artistic, and perhaps the spiritual development of Buddhism, particularly Mahayana Buddhism, which represents one of the two main branches of Buddhism. The Buddhist religious system was then adopted in Central and Northeastern Asia, from the 1st century CE, ultimately spreading to China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam.
binocular wrote:ground wrote:Same source, same essence, same basis. In addition: same effect of practice (focus and exclusion, resulting in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness). However the ideas qua self-expressions by means of words are different. So it is similar to colors. All colors are the same in terms of source, essence, basis and visual effect qua effect ... however individuals actually do prefer different colors. That does however not render one color superior to the other when the sphere of preference, i.e. mere like and dislike, is left behind.
In that case, you seem to be arguing for an "anything goes, anything is good enough" stance.
binocular wrote:Even shooting heroin up one's veins results in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness -- for some time.
Users browsing this forum: angryrika, Google [Bot] and 2 guests