why did God kill the first born of the Eqyptians?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
he is not sharing, he is condemning. he even ask a psedo ex buddhist and ridicule in front of his congregation. he very lucky, he got off very lightly, not even a fine.
He was lucky mah. This world many lucky people. U might as well said murderers get away scott free.For me, I spent quite a long time on exploring buddhism then find it unsuitable for me just nice some ppl asked me to go church.
Then I be christian. No offense to buddhist, only sharing.
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
Lmao, abit saddening when people are trying to explain things, trolls come....
Again you a liar. not qualified to comment here.
-
we all know agogoboy is a troll lar
and he got a helper called stardusty
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The difference is... I'm not here to criticize Christianity unlike some others.
I doubt my posts fall under the category of 'ranting'
rant (r
nt)
v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rantsv.intr.To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.v.tr.To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.n.1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: "The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy" (Daniel Okrent).3. Chiefly British Wild or uproarious merriment.It's the wrong answer, Isn't it?
I said you couldn't walk the talk. The creitns don't listen to you!
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
It's the wrong answer, Isn't it?
I said you couldn't walk the talk. The creitns don't listen to you!
You didn't get it?
I said time is better spent elsewhere than ranting here.
I did not rant, hence I walked the talk.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
You didn't get it?
I said time is better spent elsewhere than ranting here.
I did not rant, hence I walked the talk.
y u feeding the troll???
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
You didn't get it?
I said time is better spent elsewhere than ranting here.
I did not rant, hence I walked the talk.
+1 -
Originally posted by ~PEPPER~:
All eternal now can post liberation and enlightenment here on eternal hope we go buddhist forum promote christianality how would he feel?
Dun post liberation and buddhism stuff on this forum. U like ppl go buddhism forum to promote Jesus christ?
Must self respect each other religions ma. For me I din go AEN forum promote christianality.
I don't think anyone else here sees me as trying to promote Buddhism here.
However, when there are misunderstandings of Buddhism being promoted here, I do feel compelled to correct them.
In the same way that I welcome Christians to correct any misconception of Christianity at my Buddhist forum (which they have been doing the past few days).
I dun chose a religion I cannot do. One should chose a religion that he can follow not chose a super hard religion.I cannot be unattached when doing charity work like wad diamond sutra says. I do charity work I felt a sense of wonderful achievement and I will keep on thinking abt the wonderful work i have done.
Therefore I am not interested in buddhism anymore.
I dont care how many ppl attain liberation. I am not interested. Same for meditation I have no interest.
Because if you are at primary school level, then you look at University textbook, of course it is hard.
If you slowly practice from primary school level, then gradually sec sch, jc/poly, then uni, then things becomes much easier.
Nobody in Buddhism should expect you to become non attached immediately. If you can be completely not attached, you are already near Buddha.
Nobody jumps immediately to Buddha level, we only ask beginners to practice step by step. Practice at the level they are capable of - just like if you are primary school level, read primary school textbook and not a university textbook.
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
He was lucky mah. This world many lucky people. U might as well said murderers get away scott free.For me, I spent quite a long time on exploring buddhism then find it unsuitable for me just nice some ppl asked me to go church.
Then I be christian. No offense to buddhist, only sharing.
I agree that you should simply follow what you are inclined to, and feel more suitable to you.
Hence I have no reason and compulsion to try to promote Buddhism to you.
However, when there are misunderstandings, it has to be corrected so that these misunderstandings do not spread.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
actually buddhism points me towards christianality.
Because when i was a buddhist I everyday break precepts many times. I lied and gossiped and other offense. Then when ppl invited me to church and introduced the sinful nature of human, I agreed instantly because I break precepts everyday.
Christian called it commandments.
if you are not striving to change your sinful way and thinking that you can go to heaven with your sinful acts, then i really cannot imagine the heaven that you going to. the heaven you are going to is full of people who think it is ok to be sinful because it is our nature. heaven full of sinful people who refuse to change, you call that HEAVEN ???
that kind of heaven is worse than earth here, at least there are people here who believe in karma and think that we should change of sinful nature.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I don't think anyone else here sees me as trying to promote Buddhism here.
However, when there are misunderstandings of Buddhism being promoted here, I do feel compelled to correct them.
In the same way that I welcome Christians to correct any misconception of Christianity at my Buddhist forum (which they have been doing the past few days).
Because if you are at primary school level, then you look at University textbook, of course it is hard.
If you slowly practice from primary school level, then gradually sec sch, jc/poly, then uni, then things becomes much easier.
Nobody in Buddhism should expect you to become non attached immediately. If you can be completely not attached, you are already near Buddha.
Nobody jumps immediately to Buddha level, we only ask beginners to practice step by step. Practice at the level they are capable of - just like if you are primary school level, read primary school textbook and not a university textbook.
I agree that you should simply follow what you are inclined to, and feel more suitable to you.
Hence I have no reason and compulsion to try to promote Buddhism to you.
However, when there are misunderstandings, it has to be corrected so that these misunderstandings do not spread.
I am not a buddhist dun need clarify the misunderstanding.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I don't think anyone else here sees me as trying to promote Buddhism here.
However, when there are misunderstandings of Buddhism being promoted here, I do feel compelled to correct them.
In the same way that I welcome Christians to correct any misconception of Christianity at my Buddhist forum (which they have been doing the past few days).
Because if you are at primary school level, then you look at University textbook, of course it is hard.
If you slowly practice from primary school level, then gradually sec sch, jc/poly, then uni, then things becomes much easier.
Nobody in Buddhism should expect you to become non attached immediately. If you can be completely not attached, you are already near Buddha.
Nobody jumps immediately to Buddha level, we only ask beginners to practice step by step. Practice at the level they are capable of - just like if you are primary school level, read primary school textbook and not a university textbook.
I agree that you should simply follow what you are inclined to, and feel more suitable to you.
Hence I have no reason and compulsion to try to promote Buddhism to you.
However, when there are misunderstandings, it has to be corrected so that these misunderstandings do not spread.
But I am nt a buddhist anymore no need clarify my misunderstanding.
I already have a clean break with buddhism.
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
if you are not striving to change your sinful way and thinking that you can go to heaven with your sinful acts, then i really cannot imagine the heaven that you going to. the heaven you are going to is full of people who think it is ok to be sinful because it is our nature. heaven full of sinful people who refuse to change, you call that HEAVEN ???
that kind of heaven is worse than earth here, at least there are people here who believe in karma and think that we should change of sinful nature.
Erm thats y i prayed to God to change my ways. This is easier. It really transform my lives. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I don't think anyone else here sees me as trying to promote Buddhism here.
However, when there are misunderstandings of Buddhism being promoted here, I do feel compelled to correct them.
In the same way that I welcome Christians to correct any misconception of Christianity at my Buddhist forum (which they have been doing the past few days).
Because if you are at primary school level, then you look at University textbook, of course it is hard.
If you slowly practice from primary school level, then gradually sec sch, jc/poly, then uni, then things becomes much easier.
Nobody in Buddhism should expect you to become non attached immediately. If you can be completely not attached, you are already near Buddha.
Nobody jumps immediately to Buddha level, we only ask beginners to practice step by step. Practice at the level they are capable of - just like if you are primary school level, read primary school textbook and not a university textbook.
I agree that you should simply follow what you are inclined to, and feel more suitable to you.
Hence I have no reason and compulsion to try to promote Buddhism to you.
However, when there are misunderstandings, it has to be corrected so that these misunderstandings do not spread.
U want clarify noone can stop u.
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
if you are not striving to change your sinful way and thinking that you can go to heaven with your sinful acts, then i really cannot imagine the heaven that you going to. the heaven you are going to is full of people who think it is ok to be sinful because it is our nature. heaven full of sinful people who refuse to change, you call that HEAVEN ???
that kind of heaven is worse than earth here, at least there are people here who believe in karma and think that we should change of sinful nature.
Heaven is salvation by faith not salvation by works or by laws.But Christians must still obey 10 commandments but not use it as a way to gain eternal life.
I prayed for God to help me live by my commandments.
-
AEN is trying to clarify any misconceptions about buddhism. Note clarify and promoting is different..... oh gad....
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Oh yes, I am aware that the bible also said that God is 'loving, righteous and just'. However it does not contradict that God is also angry, jealous, takes vengeance (for the purpose of seeking justice or whatever reasons), etc.
It just means that God as depicted in OT is a personal God that has the full range (or much) of emotions that we do. We love others, but we sometimes also feel angry about others (for whatever reasons, maybe someone was really evil, etc), we also feel jealous sometimes, etc. Nobody including God (as depicted in OT) is angry or jealous all the time, those emotions arise out of a certain context.
I see, in that case I agree.
You see, if someone is already open to an alternative then he would be actively searching for the answers himself. It does not need someone to come to a forum to criticize their own faith. He will want to find out the truth of the matter regardless of whether anyone is criticizing him.
For example I mentioned about my Buddhist master turning into Christian based on his reading up of Buddhism. He used to criticize Buddhism a lot due to his utter lack of understanding of what Buddhism is about (he used to think of Buddhism as simply superstitions and a demonic religion). However he was informed that his approach is of little use and has in fact 'pissed off' people more than they actually change people or convert people. He was also challenged by his Uni professor to start writing a critique on Buddhism through his own studies and the professor will give him full support to do so, as that will be a more approachable way than insulting and denigrating the other religion without understanding.
But after finding out what Buddhism is about, he converted, but he did not do so because Buddhists are criticizing his Christian faith. He did so because he was open, he was willing to find out what the others are teaching, he was willing to question and examine.
If someone is already stuck to his own belief and unwilling to find out about other religion, then no amount of criticism will actually move a person.
That is why I say, helping 'potential people' is better than criticizing people who have already chosen their paths.
As I said, I am not saying that Christians are illogical or shun the use of logic.
I am saying that logic cannot possibly explain the entire workings of God, just like logic cannot explain the entire workings of the universe (what we understand is like only an infinitesimal speck of the vastness of the universe).
You haven't answer me, can you perfectly logically understand how God works? Yet you do have faith in Him right?
Let me quote something from my other moderator Thusness from a few years ago:
Faith is necessary because there is no certainty in knowledge. Even in exact science, no certainty is to be found. Of course certainty versus probable knowledge is a topic relating to Epistemology (the theory on Knowledge) but still, it is pivotal towards understanding why the need for faith at all. How science has led to the common misunderstanding that faith is not necessary is amazing but it is mostly due to the predictive nature of these scientific theories derived from thorough experimentation. This is, however, mainly due to the fact that the pool of data made available for the derivation of these theories does not go beyond our man-size world. As we know, Newtonian physics or classical science works well for a man-size world but not quite well in the macro and micro universe. Our ordinary experiences do not permit us to experience something having the mass of a star or traveling at half-speed of light, we presume that the entire universe must obey the laws of the man-size world. But when we are exposed to things not so ordinary, like traveling at a speed much faster then our ordinary experience of ‘speed’, we are lost because phenomena just don’t behave the way we expected it to be. The idea that time travel slower when they are approaching the speed of light and halt at speed of light is mind boggling. Similarly when scientists begin to deal with the universe of the outer space – the macro universe, they are dealing with much more massive objects than the man-size world, a billion times more. The idea that space curves and time halt at the speed of light came as a shocked to the classical scientists. This applies true when we deal with the micro universe of the quantum world. The world of the electrons does not comply with Newtonian nor Einstein theory. This includes the spooky non-local behavior of particles that AEN brought up in another thread. When Heisenberg introduced the ‘uncertainty’ principle, it is so weird that even Einstein rejected it and thus, Einstein famous remark -- “God does not play dice”. But “God does not play dice” is a belief system! I can’t remember where I read it but I could clearly recalled that even Stephen Hawking used phrases like “official dogma”, “deep emotional attachment to determinism” to describe scientists like Einstein. Stephen Hawking even went further to say that Einstein was doubly wrong when he said “God does not play dice”.
I will not dwell too deeply into it but the purpose is simply to illustrate that our knowledge is nothing certain nor absolute. Science is itself a belief system for us to better understand the phenomenon existence. It is its certainty in predictability within a prescribed environment that convinces us that faith is not necessary. It creates the impression of certainty and made a probable knowledge appears absolute but in actual case, science itself is a belief system and a great deal of faith (maybe good and rational faith in this case) is vested in science unknowingly............
...faith plays a vital role in our life and we are always investing faith in people, theories, concepts and belief systems unknowingly. Human is not just a rational being; to understand ourselves, we must also examine our emotional, mythical and psychological makeup.
To touch on what is ‘true’ and ‘right’ free of our belief systems is a philosophical question that I do not wish to get into. Coming into contact with Buddhism is more of coincidental. My deepening of faith in Buddha’s words came only as a result of practice. It is experiential and subjective. It is sort of ‘I know because I experience it.’
..............
'Right' implies complying with a pre-determined set of criteria. I think we must be aware of the distinction between "right faith" and "right attitude towards faith". If a certain belief system has a criterion "that one should have full trust in God", then 'testing God' is not 'right faith'. A half-hearted devotion will deny the relationship as well as the experience with God. To a rationalist this approach may not be appealing, but to some sages, their wisdom have penetrated deep enough to understand the entirety of our psychological and spiritual makeup. I do not see it as wrong. It is a practice that will similarly yield religious experiences. One should not be afraid to be blind in total devotion. Nevertheless if such practices are understood wrongly or fall under the hands of unscrupulous religious leaders, it can be devastating.
On the other hand, I think "right attitude towards faith" do require us to question and check the basis of our belief systems. For the latter, it is the process of authentication that deepens the faith; however this can be quite challenging psychologically and dangerous too. It can lead one to a state of total confusion.
Both approaches are different in nature. In Buddhism there are different paths to suit different people, it is not a one and for all cases. It ‘staged’ one according to their suitability and developed the necessary conditions for us to progress further. Spirituality is not an easy journey, we will learn along the road.Hmm... don't think you get what I mean yet. What I am talking is the Truth that precedes belief system, and the Faith the precedes separate belief systems. Belief systems are many and they all contradict each other, even within a single religion the different denominations contradict each other as well. But what I am talking about goes deeper than that.
I think this video is good and explains what I mean especially the first 7:37 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04gdsFt_zDY
When you said that Christ is the only way to God, I will not refute that, but then the question is what exactly is the nature and substance of Christ. Most people are believing in their own image of what Christ is without any further experiential understanding. When you use your own conceptual understanding of what you perceive Christ to be to attempt to comprehend what Christ is, it will fail. No conceptual thought can capture Christ absolutely, it is only a limited pointer to the thing-in-itself. To know Christ, the egoic mind or the separate-self sense has to dissolve, and surrender to the direct experience of the Higher Power which you call Christ. It is not using thought to understand him, as my friend Thusness have said many years ago,
(partial excerpt from http://simpo.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=insight&action=display&thread=193)
...It is the current mode of thinking and understanding God that is at fault.
As long as Reality is concerned, it is the wrong tool to use.
Analysis is the way of comparison and measurement, it is dual.
The Luminous Light 'knows' not through analysis.
'Knowing' to the Mystic is not to make an object in mind and study it.
It is "knowing" through oneness, it is "knowing" through Beingness.
It is losing yourself and finding itself in otherness.
It is an entirely different art -- Merely reflecting and simply IS.
If we are resistant to the idea of dropping the 'How' and 'What',
then the path of faith and total submission towards God is preferred.
If we love God, do not analyse him, we are slaying him.
The mysterious gate is ever open in the HERE and NOW.
To experience in full, let go completely and leave not a trace of ourselves...This reminds me of a medieval Christian book 'The Cloud of Unknowing',
The book counsels a young student not to seek God through knowledge but through what the author speaks of as a "naked intent" and a "blind love." This is brought about by putting all thoughts except the love of God, under a "cloud of forgetting" and thereby piercing God's cloud of unknowing, with a "dart of longing love" from the heart.
Furthermore it is said in the bible:
20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
Anyway I understand that no amount of talking about this will convince you since you are deeply rooted into the belief system. But if you do have such a mystical experience or union, your perspective will change, as you begin to see that this truth and experiential insight is universal, since it is prior to all belief systems, all concepts, can be touched only directly through a direct means such as total submission to a higher power and dissolving the false ego or the separate self sense.. it is the direct experience of that One God (THAT from which everyone and everything arise and subsides from), not divided by our conceptual/egoic mind into 'my God' vs 'your God'.
As Father Thomas Keating said, Faith precedes belief systems, which means that Faith means the consent or surrender to the divine reality or to the Ultimate Reality or whatever name is in the different religion, before it is broken down into different belief systems which are bound to be influenced by the cultural conditioning of the person or the reformers who worked on that religion. So when Faith becomes contemplative, it begins to precede the Oneness behind all religions, before the experience of God is broken down into various belief sytems. You have to have some belief systems because we are human, as a starting point as I was trying to say, the faculties have to be organized around the faith, (inaudible), as a stepping stone or a conveyer belt to take us to a further level of relating to this mystery which is more direct, which doesn't reject our former religious practices, but has a certain freedom towards them so that they are not abolutized, so the only Absolute becomes The Absolute.
And on the other end of the spectrum which is an equally important is the separate sense, which is the 'I am' which Ken Wilber was speaking about, which begins to emerge in very early childhood, then becomes fully reflective and self-conscious in adolescence and so on. And this is the basic source of every human problem. It is the source of certainly every sin in the sense of 'missing the mark', because it is the separate self sense that opposes reality, and the Truth, and which creates our own 'self' and ultimately our own 'hell', if the 'self' we are developing goes to the extremes of selfishness as our experience and those of many others realize it's quite possible. So on one hand you have the basic oneness of everything that is in its Source, and the basic issue of separating ourselves from that Oneness which then means that we're separating ourselves from our True Self and everybody else and from the cosmos in varying degrees in which we sin, meaning to miss the mark, which is to fail to recognize the truth of the situation. So the separate self-sense is what all the religions is trying to cure as far as I can see, and all the consequences of that development which psychologically speaking have been researched in our times, and such things as the private or psychological unconscious, the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious... this whole world of motivation that we're not aware of is the fruit of the development of the separate self sense into energiy centers like the first three chakras of the Hindu scheme of things, which are trying to find happiness in the wrong place. We have designed happiness so that you cannot choose anything else. Even to choose evil is in the hope of finding happiness somehow there, or even to kill yourself is in hope of getting away from pain that is intolerable. So happiness is confused with the gratification of the instincts of child - security, power control, self-esteem and approval, and these grow into the false self and the ego, and so when you come to adult with this baggage of possessive attitudes towards yourself and the world and other people that can't possibly work in the adult life, but unfortunately you have to live with six billion other people who have the same problems. So it is no wonder there are social problems, because unless this radical problem is addressed, societies which are made up of a bunch of false selves is not going to do too well.
And hence to take the determination not to contribute to the messiness of the world by adding our own false selves projects to it is one of the greatest gifts you could give to humanity. And if enough people do this, then society will be transformed, and without it I don't think it can be. That's why religion, whatever it's forms are (and they are innumerous) is crucial because it is the only path, at least foreseeable path that leads most people to the experience of God. Now, other things can, like nature, or wonderful service of others, (inaudible), arts to some degree, but the holistic and concentrated ways that religion addresses the human problem are unmatched. But they also have to be gradually transceded, not by rejection, but by taking the steps in which we relate to God more and more maturely as we grow as human beings into adulthood. And love is certainly very crucial and motivating as to do so. And I suppose that's why the first commandment in the Judeo-Christian scheme of things is to Love the Lord your God with your WHOLE Mind, with your WHOLE Heart, with your WHOLE Soul, and with all your strength... it's impossible to do without contemplative prayer and the insights that that brings.
It is actually not the case. Mystics actually attempt to describe their experience in a very matter-of-fact way and many of them have profound understanding of the bible or their scriptures.
Secondly, faith that has support of logic is better than blind faith, but such faith is still based on a belief system, a belief, and beliefs still have room for doubts, because it is still on the realm of thought and there is no inner conviction.
True conviction arise when we submit totally to the higher power such that we feel we are being 'lived'. There will be no more doubts and conviction when it is born of direct experience. There is a direct certainty of that Being, or God, that is undeniable and undoubtable - even without thoughts. 'You' have dissolved into That.
There is completely no room for blind faith anymore at that time - because you so completely see the Truth of it.
Yes, I do not deny that. In fact that is what I am saying - that Buddhism differs from all other religions due to its lack of talking about an 'ultimate substance'. Almost all religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc... all talk about an 'ultimate substance'.
But it is not that we do not experience the Ground, the Substance, it is that we also understand its empty (not nothingness, but interdependent origination - will not go too deeply into that) nature. I do not think I will go into this deeply here.
Yes I noticed this too. lol
Oh yes, I am aware that the bible also said that God is 'loving, righteous and just'. However it does not contradict that God is also angry, jealous, takes vengeance (for the purpose of seeking justice or whatever reasons), etc.
It just means that God as depicted in OT is a personal God that has the full range (or much) of emotions that we do. We love others, but we sometimes also feel angry about others (for whatever reasons, maybe someone was really evil, etc), we also feel jealous sometimes, etc. Nobody including God (as depicted in OT) is angry or jealous all the time, those emotions arise out of a certain context.
Because the reasons God displays those traits are vastly different from contemporary understanding, it serves non believers well to understand these words in their original language. Therefore, the next time they come across these words in scriptures again, they should have no problem squaring it with the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ (and not, as quipped, “split personality”).
As I said, I am not saying that Christians are illogical or shun the use of logic.
I am saying that logic cannot possibly explain the entire workings of God, just like logic cannot explain the entire workings of the universe (what we understand is like only an infinitesimal speck of the vastness of the universe).
You haven't answer me, can you perfectly logically understand how God works? Yet you do have faith in Him right?
Logic by itself cannot explain the entire workings of God, in the area of physical creation, that’s where science comes in as seen in the works of believers like Tycho Brahe, Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, John Dalton, Christian Huygens, Robert Hooke, Michael Faraday, Joseph Henry, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, etc. There is no conflict between proper empirical science and Christianity. In the area of salvation, one then requires special revelation and thus, the person of Jesus Christ and scriptures. In all of these, faith and logic go hand in hand. My faith is in God and His words.
I think I see what you mean. There might be some equivocation in our understanding of the word “faith”. I don’t perfectly understand God’s works because it is clear in His word that His ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55), God’s rebuke of Job, and Deuteronomy 29:29, “the secret things belong to the LORD our God”. To be able to do so perfectly would be blasphemous, because it means I’m God but I’m not. To that extent, the faith that exists is a persuasion that God will keep His promises to return in judgment, His character, etc. Which is why when one hears believers claim “don’t question, just believe”, question all the way(!!) because the Christian needs to understand in whom and in what he has the faith. See the “understanding” here presupposes the use of reason and logic.
Thus, for the Christian, faith and reason go hand in hand. Faith cannot be divorced of reason, especially faith understood in the sense of “leaping into the unknown” - the Christian faith is NOT like that.
Hope that answers your question.
The article (from your friend) is pretty consistent with my view on how the practice of empirical science requires faith. The thing is, the non theist doesn’t seem to know what it is he has faith in. St Augustine once said that he believed in order that he may understand.
The rest of it, “It is experiential and subjective. It is sort of ‘I know because I experience it” Certain Christians lead toward an experiential side of the faith that seems particularly very popular especially in a postmodern culture, but it’s not one that I favour. The root of the problem is epistemological, but that’s fodder for another topic.
When you use your own conceptual understanding of what you perceive Christ to be to attempt to comprehend what Christ is, it will fail.
Christians don’t rely on our own understanding. We rely primarily on the revelation of God in Scriptures. Proofs are person-relative, but truth is absolute, what the experiential Christians (new age and mystics) have is “proof” that they have “experienced” Christ. They think they have but it’s not concrete and operational. Its like arguing from personal experience for the existence of God, “I can sense God’s presence therefore He exists.” Arguably, it might be valid but it’s certainly not cogent. Because God is truth, proof of His existence does not have to be steeped in (what I think are) filmsy arguments.
To know Christ, the egoic mind or the separate-self sense has to dissolve, and surrender to the direct experience of the Higher Power which you call Christ.
This is absolutely different from Christianity. By that I mean those mystic / new agey / ultra charismatic Christians. God is transcendent (apart from and independent of the material universe) (Gen 1:1), we are uniquely created to exert dominion over the earth and to have our identities. We are not meant to “share” in God’s substance and personhood. A strong Creator-creation distinction can be found in Christianity.
'Knowing' to the Mystic is not to make an object in mind and study it.
It is "knowing" through oneness, it is "knowing" through Beingness.
It is losing yourself and finding itself in otherness.
It is an entirely different art -- Merely reflecting and simply IS.
So how does the Mystic “know” this? Through personal experience? But my personal experience tells me otherwise, so who’s right? If it boils down to epistemology, who’s the final arbiter of truth? Myself? Him? Why is his current mode of understanding and thinking God not wrong, but others are? So he is affirming the existence of right and wrong, but those are objective values, totally in contrast to his subjectivity. [ps: don’t mind the barrage of questions, it’s just the way I write. No offense intended].
If we love God, do not analyse him, we are slaying him
God welcomes the use of reasoning (Isaiah 1:18).
To experience in full, let go completely and leave not a trace of ourselves
Sounds like pantheism.
Anyway I understand that no amount of talking about this will convince you since you are deeply rooted into the belief system. But if you do have such a mystical experience or union, your perspective will change, as you begin to see that this truth and experiential insight is universal, since it is prior to all belief systems, all concepts, can be touched only directly through a direct means such as total submission to a higher power and dissolving the false ego or the separate self sense.. it is the direct experience of that One God (THAT from which everyone and everything arise and subsides from), not divided by our conceptual/egoic mind into 'my God' vs 'your God'.
Acknowledged. I do believe that knowing God involves having a relationship with Him but not an experiential understanding that blurs the Creator-creature distinction. Christians are meant to preserve their unique ontological identities.
Faith means the consent or surrender to the divine reality or to the Ultimate Reality or whatever name is in the different religion,
Just so you know, I don’t agree with him about this definition, as stated earlier. =)
Mystics actually attempt to describe their experience in a very matter-of-fact way and many of them have profound understanding of the bible or their scriptures.
I hesitate to agree with you. I’ve found them to be rather shallow in their understanding, or haven’t weighed other parts of scriptures equally.
Secondly, faith that has support of logic is better than blind faith, but such faith is still based on a belief system, a belief, and beliefs still have room for doubts, because it is still on the realm of thought and there is no inner conviction.
Our understanding of faith is different. As discussed earlier.
Yes, I do not deny that. In fact that is what I am saying - that Buddhism differs from all other religions due to its lack of talking about an 'ultimate substance'. Almost all religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc... all talk about an 'ultimate substance'.
But it is not that we do not experience the Ground, the Substance, it is that we also understand its empty (not nothingness, but interdependent origination - will not go too deeply into that) nature. I do not think I will go into this deeply here
I'm not sure about this. So what is the Substance then? Is it truth? Christianity talks about truth. Buddhism seldom talks about truth and perceives truth as empty in its nature? Is there another ultimate substance besides truth? maybe a link would be helpful.
A parting thought. Truth exists. We cannot deny the existence of truth without first affirming it. Because God is truth, when we know something that is true, we are knowing something about God. As you illustrated with the pointer analogy, e.g. the finger that is pointing to the moon is not the moon, we need to be mindful that we should not confuse our experience with being an “experience” of God himself.
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
if you are not striving to change your sinful way and thinking that you can go to heaven with your sinful acts, then i really cannot imagine the heaven that you going to. the heaven you are going to is full of people who think it is ok to be sinful because it is our nature. heaven full of sinful people who refuse to change, you call that HEAVEN ???
that kind of heaven is worse than earth here, at least there are people here who believe in karma and think that we should change of sinful nature.
you're right. that is not heaven.
there are no good or evil people in heaven. there are only people who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. these people understand themselves to be completely unable to claim their way to heaven because of the works they have performed, that's why they recognize the need for God to help themselves (Matt 5:3).
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
What do you think about mypost about logic in the other thread ? But someone said
You cannot argue against religion with logic. Religion is always about faith.
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
If logic can determine what is true or false in the bible, the religion would haved died a very long time ago.
what do you think of this ?
faith and reason / logic go hand in hand. discussed a bit more about this with AEN in this thread. join us if u like.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
But I am nt a buddhist anymore no need clarify my misunderstanding.
I already have a clean break with buddhism.
i see there is a need to clarify your misunderstandings because you will mislead your chritian brothers and sisters or whoever your misconceptions.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
Heaven is salvation by faith not salvation by works or by laws.But Christians must still obey 10 commandments but not use it as a way to gain eternal life.
I prayed for God to help me live by my commandments.
that is why i say the heaven you are going is full of people who are still trying to obey the 10 commandments. successful or not does not matter.you have to put in effort to change your sinful way, if god can change human's behaviour, he would have done to adam and eve long ago.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
we all know agogoboy is a troll lar
and he got a helper called stardusty
-StarDust- migrated from sgclub -
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
Heaven is salvation by faith not salvation by works or by laws.But Christians must still obey 10 commandments but not use it as a way to gain eternal life.
I prayed for God to help me live by my commandments.
Yes, it is salvation and not by good deeds that gets christians to heaven, it is no wonder there are so many christians take it for granted and many go on to do evil to harm others because no need do good deeds. cnn! -
Originally posted by 24/7:
you're right. that is not heaven.
there are no good or evil people in heaven. there are only people who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. these people understand themselves to be completely unable to claim their way to heaven because of the works they have performed, that's why they recognize the need for God to help themselves (Matt 5:3).
why must wait till go to heaven. god has the power to do it on earth, afterall earth is his creation. he must have power over earth and heaven and not just heaven, isn't it ?
-
Originally posted by 24/7:
<!--StartFragment-->
Because the reasons God displays those traits are vastly different from contemporary understanding, it serves non believers well to understand these words in their original language. Therefore, the next time they come across these words in scriptures again, they should have no problem squaring it with the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ (and not, as quipped, “split personality”).
Logic by itself cannot explain the entire workings of God, in the area of physical creation, that’s where science comes in as seen in the works of believers like Tycho Brahe, Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, John Dalton, Christian Huygens, Robert Hooke, Michael Faraday, Joseph Henry, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, etc. There is no conflict between proper empirical science and Christianity. In the area of salvation, one then requires special revelation and thus, the person of Jesus Christ and scriptures. In all of these, faith and logic go hand in hand. My faith is in God and His words.
I think I see what you mean. There might be some equivocation in our understanding of the word “faith”. I don’t perfectly understand God’s works because it is clear in His word that His ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55), God’s rebuke of Job, and Deuteronomy 29:29, “the secret things belong to the LORD our God”. To be able to do so perfectly would be blasphemous, because it means I’m God but I’m not. To that extent, the faith that exists is a persuasion that God will keep His promises to return in judgment, His character, etc. Which is why when one hears believers claim “don’t question, just believe”, question all the way(!!) because the Christian needs to understand in whom and in what he has the faith. See the “understanding” here presupposes the use of reason and logic.
Thus, for the Christian, faith and reason go hand in hand. Faith cannot be divorced of reason, especially faith understood in the sense of “leaping into the unknown” - the Christian faith is NOT like that.
By all means use logic, but in the act of surrendering to God, you aren't analysing God, because if you are then the submission cannot be total because in total submission you are also submitting your own opinions, and not only that but your entire being, to Him. Not saying that there is no time and place for logic. There is a time and place for everything, including using logic, reading bible, reasoning, debating, etc. But logic can never totally grasp God, as you have said you don't and can't perfectly understand God's work. One can never hope to understand God through our limited human minds no matter how many times you read bible or how skilled you are in seeing logic - just like it is impossible to encapsulate the vastness of the universe into a single sentence - not saying that there is no merits in reading bible as it can serve as a 'pointer' to God.
This is absolutely different from Christianity. By that I mean those mystic / new agey / ultra charismatic Christians. God is transcendent (apart from and independent of the material universe) (Gen 1:1), we are uniquely created to exert dominion over the earth and to have our identities. We are not meant to “share” in God’s substance and personhood. A strong Creator-creation distinction can be found in Christianity.
Of course, you as a person are not God. Your clinging to this separate self identity is the so called barrier with God. As you rightly said, We are not meant to “share” in God’s substance and personhood. The 'person' can never 'share' or 'know' God's substance. To 'experience' God, there is no room for your 'personhood'. That is why you have to 'surrender' your personhood to Christ until you feel that you no longer live, but Christ lives.
"I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20)
This has nothing to do with New Age. Anyway, Christian Mysticism existed since the early days and is nothing close to being a modern invention. In fact the tradition of Christian Mysticism is as old as Christianity itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism
and
http://frimmin.com/faith/mysticismintro.php
So how does the Mystic “know” this? Through personal experience? But my personal experience tells me otherwise, so who’s right? If it boils down to epistemology, who’s the final arbiter of truth? Myself? Him? Why is his current mode of understanding and thinking God not wrong, but others are? So he is affirming the existence of right and wrong, but those are objective values, totally in contrast to his subjectivity. [ps: don’t mind the barrage of questions, it’s just the way I write. No offense intended].
The Mystic "know" this when 'personal' experience has ceased.
God lives and knows and takes over your life.
All other mode of understanding is the understanding through your own egoic self, the personal, mental, conceptual perspective of God. It is not true understanding. Personal understandings are many and often contradictory (but none can ever grasp God), but God is One.
None of those concepts can grasp God. In the realm of concepts there is always room for doubts, misunderstandings, self-contradictions, contradictions with others, etc etc. It is not true knowing, but more like personal 'belief'.
True experience arise only when you simply surrender your entire being to God, be lived by God. In this union there is no room for doubts at all, only utter conviction.
True knowing arise when you no longer feel like a person separate from God. Because there is no more 'a person'. It is not a personal knowing and seeing, as Thomas Merton says,
In the Christian tradition, then, we find this personal transcendence referred to as "having the mind of Christ" or knowing and seeing "in the Spirit of Christ." Spirit here being strictly personal, not just a vague reference to a certain inner emotional climate. This Spirit, who "fathoms everything even the abyss of God" and "understands the thoughts of God" as man understands his own heart, is "given us" in Christ as a transcendent superconsciousness of God and of "the Father" (see 1 Cor. 2, Romans 8, etc.)
More specifically, all transcendent experience is for the Christian participation in "the mind of Christ" - "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . who emptied himself . . . obedient onto death . . Therefore God raised him and conferred upon him a name above all names." (Phil. 2:5-10) This dynamic of emptying and of transcendence accurately defines the transformation of the Christian consciousness in Christ. It is a kenotic transformation, an emptying of all the contents of the ego-consciousness to become a void in which the light of God or the glory of God, the full radiation of the infinite reality of His Being and Love are manifested.
Eckhart says in perfectly orthodox and traditional Christian terms, "In giving us His love God has given us His Holy Ghost so that we can love Him with the love wherewith He loves Himself. We love God with His own love; awareness of it deifies us." D.T. Suzuki quotes this with approval, comparing it with the Prajna wisdom of Zen. (Suzuki, Mysticism; East and West. p. 40)
Furthermore, medieval Christian mystic Meister Eckhart wrote:
The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love.
I'm not sure about this. So what is the Substance then? Is it truth? Christianity talks about truth. Buddhism seldom talks about truth and perceives truth as empty in its nature? Is there another ultimate substance besides truth? maybe a link would be helpful.
In Buddhism, which differs from all other religions in the aspect that we do not posit an ontological substance. There is an Ultimate Truth, but this Truth does not refer to an inherently existing/independent essence but to a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity. In other words that Truth is present and cannot be denied, but it is not reified through understanding the interconnectivity and non-substantiality of everything.
On first sight this seems to contradict the other religions including the mystics and contemplatives from other religions that I mentioned above. But it is simply a refining of views, it is still refering to the same experience. The luminous presence (which is given many names like God, etc) that is the source of all existence is not denied, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of the luminous essence. To understand more about what I'm saying you have to read about what 'Emptiness' means in Buddhist context. I hope I am not adding more confusion and complication, as this is not easy to understand and is one of the deeper and most profound teachings of Buddhism. However this is the difference between Buddhism and other religions or contemplative traditions.
-
Faith My Friends Faith..
Still. Wayne Rooney is a Christian