|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why must we believe *before* we die? | |||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The "self" that we "lose" in the Christian life is the fallen nature, the selfish self
The self is selfish by its very nature. To be a distinct individual automatically includes the quality of self-ishness. The only way to lose one's selfishness is to be blended into a soul-stew of many, wherein the integrity of the self is lost. Well, that's not how the Christian life goes. It's the fallen nature that is selfish, but not being selfish is not losing your identity, it's simply loving, loving God, loving others, loving truth, and you need your identity in order to do that.
God cannot commit the first but permits it in his sentient creatures.
Here's the conundrum. There is no need for any distinction between "permitting" and "doing." What God permits must be good; if not, He is not good. Yes, it is good that He permits His creatures to choose for or against Him, and I believe that this will ultimately amount to an even greater good that we can't even imagine yet.
from OUR point of view we are free to choose
One point of view has to be the real point of view. That would be God's, presumably, not ours. No doubt, but we don't have the capacity to think things through from God's point of view but are stuck with our own, and the effort to understand God's only confuses the idea of predestination. I think it was Luther who said that predestination shouldn't be taught to unbelievers and new believers as it only generates conflict and confusion, and is only really of use to those who have believed for some time, and then it can become a source of reassurance of belonging to God.
God IS all the laws of goodness
No, no, we can't be making these comments about God that make it seem as if He's not a being in an attempt to smooth over the logical problem. God is a being not a law. Oh come on. This is not saying He's not a Being. It's said in the same spirit as the Bible says "the Gentiles are a law unto themselves" [Romans 2:14]. The point is that God didn't just invent the laws that run the universe, they are part of His moral nature.
So a moral law is either right because God says so, or God is adhering to some moral system that he did not invent. If the moral law is right because God says so, then it is subjective on God's part. And what if the moral law simply expresses His very nature?
He might very well have decided on the opposite law--say, "Thou shalt murder." But if he is proclaiming what is right because it is right by its very nature, irregardless of what God thinks, then God is adhering to a system that is above Him. Again, what if the moral law is intrinsic to His very nature and what He is proclaiming is nothing but His own moral nature?
Why should we be able to understand the Being who made everything including ourselves
If we cannot understand this Being, then we have no way of affirming what he wants or doesn't want. But He has revealed to us all we need as far as knowing His will for us goes. We don't have to understand Him beyond that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Reading everything is not the same thing as following the argument.
If there is a cultural discontinuity such that it makes it hard for a Westerner to understand the mindset of an Easterner, and vice versa, how is it that you feel so eminently qualified to pass judgment on such things? It is possible that the idea of annihilation as the end goal of Buddhist practice is simply a misunderstanding, due to the ambiguity of language. Any attempt to answer your question about soul and identity from the position you have set up here would only dig us deeper into such ambiguities, especially considering the degree of hostility you evince. This message has been edited by Faith, 09-30-2005 02:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What is MEANT by "annihilation" is what the conversation is about. If it means being absorbed in what you are doing, that is very much what I said it means in Christianity to lose the fallen "self" in loving. And therefore this is merely a semantic quibble.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: It is possible that the idea of annihilation as the end goal of Buddhist practice is simply a misunderstanding, due to the ambiguity of language.
Omnivorous writes: That is one possibility. The Buddha largely refused to address the question of an after-life, preferring to address questions of right-living. Dissolution of the self is union with the ground of Being. Well, let's review this conversation. Robinrohan said in Message 39 something to the effect that the idea of ending up as a drop in the ocean did not appeal to him, as dissolving the self seems to him no better than being dead or something along those lines. I agreed in Message 40 that annihilation of the self in that sense is not appealing and don't understand how anyone can DESIRE such an outcome to one's life. IF annihilation means the death of personal identity, how does one desire it? This MAY be a semantic problem, but I was following RR's meaning. "Dissolution of the self" carries the same apparent meaning and I do not see how it can be desired. Same with "union with the ground of Being." Ben said this really means that one becomes focused on one's activity or on an object, and the self is "dissolved" in THAT sense. That is the sense that fits with the Christian sense I had just outlined. But you seem to be saying that no, this is a cultural difference, which implies that in fact Buddhists DO desire an annihilation of self in the sense that RR and I were originally discussing it. Am I understanding you or not?
Faith writes: Any attempt to answer your question about soul and identity from the position you have set up here would only dig us deeper into such ambiguities, especially considering the degree of hostility you evince. Frankly, that sounds like a cop-out in the face of a difficult question. Will you be the Faith of 33 Orchard St. in Heaven? Will you miss your cat? Your earlier reply sounded as though the experience of Heaven would be like dissolving in a sea of love where such identity is largely irrelevant. If that is what "dissolution of the self" in Buddhist terms means then it is a similar idea, but I do believe that I will retain my memory of my earthly life and identity, yes, and may even remember my cat, although I also expect that much of it will appear uninteresting by contrast with my new experiences. I expect to remain I/me, but a better version of I/me. Elijah and Moses appeared from Heaven with Jesus during His lifetime on the "mount of tranfiguration" and there was no doubt who they were, the very Elijah and Moses of the Old Testament. That will be the case with all of us. As for dissolving in a sea of love, when one is focused on an object, loving an object, one is for that period unconscious of self, but the self doesn't stop existing. You are still who you are. {Edit: Besides, there is reciprocity or mutuality involved here. God responds. God loves back. God interacts with us. He guides us and corrects us and loves us, and all that affirms us as individual selves}
I am attempting to learn how to converse with you, Faith: some of your posts have sparked a level of anger that I have not felt since under hostile fire more than 30 years ago. It is hard, and I am attempting not to turn away from the difficult. I am frankly surprised that you have any desire to learn how to converse with me at all considering the way you usually deal with me. I have no idea what "under hostile fire" could possibly refer to, but what sense does it make to hold me responsible for something that happened to you thirty years ago (if that is what you are saying)?
Your beliefs are anathema to me, and I am swimming against the tide of my own inclinations in order to increase my understanding. Perhaps you are doing the same. But perhaps not: if you prefer not to interact with me on this forum, I will respect your wishes. I can always ignore you and vice versa, but since in this post you are being unexpectedly accommodating I'm intrigued enough to continue the exchange if there is anywhere for it to go. This message has been edited by Faith, 09-30-2005 07:37 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 02:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: What though the field be lost? All is not lost; the unconquerable Will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield: And what is else not to be overcome? That Glory never shall his wrath or might Extort from me. To bow and sue for grace With suppliant knee, and deifie his power Who from the terrour of this Arm so late Doubted his Empire, that were low indeed, That were an ignominy and shame beneath This downfall; since by Fate the strength of Gods And this Empyreal substance cannot fail, Since through experience of this great event In Arms not worse, in foresight much advanc't, We may with more successful hope resolve To wage by force or guile eternal Warr Irreconcileable, to our grand Foe, Who now triumphs, and in th' excess of joy Sole reigning holds the Tyranny of Heav'n. From John Milton, Paradise Lost This message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Vietnam was very hard on our guys in many ways. Sorry to hear my beliefs provoke similar feelings. Anyway, at least you've stopped shooting at me.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 09:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not sure we have got to the bottom of this yet.
What about the example of being completely engrossed in something, which Ben brought up to describe the Buddhist idea of dissolution of the self, or being in adoring love with someone, such as God (a state of worship) (or even with someTHING I suppose) which for the duration takes your consciousness off the self? Are these states that are to be included IN being selfish, or are they states of being removed from self as we are talking about them? What about such terms asself-involved, self-absorbed self-promoting self-worshiping self-aggrandizing self-sufficient self-motivated self-actualizing Will add others if they occur to me. Anyway, where do they fit into this definitional scheme here? BTW, I don't think "selfish" is often used in the purely logical sense, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How so? Just because there is a happy ending doesn't prevent plenty of evil happening on the way there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
- repent, accept Jesus and you'll get to heaven (Paul's version) - do good, love God and your neighbour and you'll get to heaven (Jesus's version) Paul???? John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 04:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, John echoes Paul's theology, but it was written much later so it's still Paul's theology. It's the theology of both of them and of Jesus Christ. {Edit: And the idea that the strikingly original John "echoed" anybody is preposterous. This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 09:11 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 09:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is curious that the author of Acts, Luke, who records Pauls missionary journies and accompanied him too didn't mention that Paul was coming up with a completely different Gospel to the one he wrote about in his own Gospel? Is he not in a better position to know than anyone else? Why does he record Pauls heresy without a murmur. Why does he put himself in danger (because Acts records frequent trouble whenever the gospel was preached) spreading a Gospel he knew to be false. Hey GOOD POINT.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024