Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

First not to "worship" That is the hurdle you face and demand others do as you do. The very act of "worshiping" places your stale presumptions about the divine before the fresh experience of the divine, and cuts you off from knowing others and yourself.

"If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him"

....Warns us of the dangers of concentrating too much on the sign posts not paying enough attention to the road.

Your presumptions are full of half-baked overly intellectual projections of good versus evil without compassion or a proper understanding of the thousand shades of gray needed to perceive the human condition.

Buddhism avoids projecting our limited human framework of thoughts and beliefs out onto the rest of the universe. Human intellectual ideas of justice, righteousness, and conflicts of good and evil, are just that, human. Compassion and empathy, although also human, are the high points of our spirit directly bypassing this overly intellectual framework, doing so without placing a major emphasis on deities. God is besides the point.

Zen uses your famous law of non-contradiction to pull the rug out from under the students feet The Zen koan is designed to "trick" the mind to go beyond simple dualism. Contemplating "what is the sound of one hand clapping" employing the normal intellectual process does not produce reasonable answers. However this koan may force one to hold opposing thoughts in mind, in order to search for the underlying truths that can produce an answer. There are many.

In other words...the Big Bud is a Big Empty Suit, having little or nothing to say about righteousness, justice, holiness, love, etc.

By the way...the "high point of our spirit" is Love. You like appealing to "empathy" and "compassion" because that gets you off the hook for obeying Christ's two greatest commandments -- the commandments upon which all the Law of Moses hangs.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I should say I am heavily Influenced by Zen Buddhism. So my answers above do not reflect all of mainstream Buddhism.

Zen Buddhism heavily emphasizes meditation and mindfulness.
Although meditation is important to all forms of Buddhism, to Zen Buddhism, it is especially important. Zen Buddhism de-emphasizes the importance of sutras (Sutra is a type of religious literature present in many Asian tradition) and mere theoretical religious knowledge, and emphasizes the importance of insight that can only be gained through meditation or awareness.

This type of insight cannot be easily expressed in words, cannot be written down in long sermons, or be carved in stone. Instead, it can only be obtained through “Zen” direct mind techniques, often with the help of an accomplished teacher to guide the way.

Much of your "justice", righteousness", and other Christian keywords seem to be understood using circular reasoning. You use one to define the next and that to define the first, and so on and so on and so on.

What is your direct experience of God? or the divine, if any?

Without using those keywords?

So...the world, too, must use "circular reasoning" when trying to administer and execute justice? I suppose you think that Justice is not something that any human being should desire or seek?

Did you think the Nuremberg trials were a huge waste of time in seeking Justice for what Germans crimes against humanity? Were you out there in front of the courthouse protesting that pursuit of justice?

And I don't do rabbit trails. Your question about "experience" has no bearing on the practical and theological issues of righteousness and justice. And "justice" and "righteousness" are not peculiar to Christianity. The OT probably has hundreds (if not more!) of references to one form of these two terms or another.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I always apply the LNC to everything. But YOU do have a problem: There is no contradiction between love and justice or justice and mercy.

Christianity is unique in that God’s mercy is shown through His justice. There is no setting aside of justice to make room for mercy. The Christian doctrine of penal substitution states that sin and injustice were punished at the cross of Christ and it’s only because the penalty of sin was satisfied through Christ’s sacrifice that God extends His mercy to undeserving sinners who look to Him for salvation.

https://www.gotquestions.org/mercy-justice.html

It is understandable you are promoting your Calvinistic views, but please refrain from stating your Calvinism as general Christian doctrine. Apostolic Christianity has no such doctrine of penal substitution.

One of this doctrine's problems for traditional Christianity is:

If god’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than god—necessity—which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinists will be quick to argue, “No, justice is an aspect of God’s nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature.”

The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by some- thing outside of Himself, i.e. my actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.


Other problems with this doctrine include compromising the Divinity of Christ, misunderstanding the words "justice" and "propitiation" God not being immutable and many others.

http://stgeorgepa.net/2011/06/orthod...ary-atonement/

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Did you think the The Nuremberg trials were a huge waste of time in seeking Justice for what Germans crimes against humanity? Were you out there in front of the courthouse protesting that pursuit of justice?

I objected to your literal minded projection of human justice to your biblical god's cosmic concept of justice. Human understanding of justice varies from culture to culture and generation to generation. We do the best we can. However you think your version of god, although defined and modified by ancient mid east tribal cultures, is absolute for every human today.

The Nuremberg trials were appropriate human justice for post WWII Nazi Germany. Perhaps the atrocities of infanticide of which you claim your god acted with justice, should have been held in the same post WWII court, trying that absurd claim?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It is understandable you are promoting your Calvinistic views, but please refrain from stating your Calvinism as general Christian doctrine. Apostolic Christianity has no such doctrine of penal substitution.

One of this doctrine's problems for traditional Christianity is:

If god’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than god—necessity—which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinists will be quick to argue, “No, justice is an aspect of God’s nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature.”

The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by some- thing outside of Himself, i.e. my actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.


Other problems with this doctrine include compromising the Divinity of Christ, misunderstanding the words "justice" and "propitiation" God not being immutable and many others.

http://stgeorgepa.net/2011/06/orthod...ary-atonement/

I will answer more fully later, if necessary, as I'm leaving here shortly to attend a function. But there is the huge problem with your premise below which can easily be demolished:

The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise.

Your problem is that you have forgotten that God himself promised Adam what would happen if he sinned; therefore, for God to NOT have acted in punishing Adam's sin (as well as all those in Adam), as he promised he would, God would have denied himself. To not keep his own promise would be to have lied. (And God cannot do this, cf. Tit 1:2) He would have denied his own holy character by acting contrary to his nature. Yet, scripture tells us that God also cannot deny himself (2Tim 2:13). To put this another way:

God most certainly is not free to act contrary to his nature, since He cannot sin. His very holy nature restricts his freedom!

Good to see you back. I thought a great dragon might have eaten you.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I will answer more fully later, if necessary, as I'm leaving here shortly to attend a function. But there is the huge problem with your premise below which can easily be demolished:

The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise.

Your problem is that you have forgotten that God himself promised Adam what would happen if he sinned; therefore, for God to NOT have acted in punishing Adam's sin (as well as all those in Adam), as he promised he would, God would have denied himself. To not keep his own promise would be to have lied. (And God cannot do this, cf. Tit 1:2) He would have denied his own holy character by acting contrary to his nature. Yet, scripture tells us that God also cannot deny himself (2Tim 2:13). To put this another way:

God most certainly is not free to act contrary to his nature, since He cannot sin. His very holy nature restricts his freedom!

Good to see you back. I thought a great dragon might have eaten you.

There is nothing to answer. I stated a fact, penal substitution is not a generally accepted Christian doctrine. Penal substitution is not accepted in traditional Apostolic Christianity, it is a Calvinistic doctrine. I understand you disagree with traditional Christianity, but your disagreement does not override fact.

Feel free to espouse your Calvinistic theology, but don't claim your personal theology as generally accepted Christian beliefs.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

There is nothing to answer. I stated a fact, penal substitution is not a generally accepted Christian doctrine. Penal substitution is not accepted in traditional Apostolic Christianity, it is a Calvinistic doctrine. I understand you disagree with traditional Christianity, but your disagreement does not override fact.

Feel free to espouse your Calvinistic theology, but don't claim your personal theology as generally accepted Christian beliefs.

You also stated a false premise, grounded in RC, Arminian drivel.

And since you're stuck on facts, what part of the analogy in Rom 5:12ff. don't you get? And what part of this text, don't you get:

Rom 3:25-26
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
NASB

Paul makes a point of emphasizing, by twice stating, that Christ's death demonstrated God's righteousness.

Now, allow me to reveal another truth to you: God would not be able to save anyone apart from Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. Or to state this differently: God would not have been able to manifest his love toward sinners, thereby saving many, apart from Christ's death on the cross. Since God cannot deny himself, He took it upon himself to satisfy his own righteousness and justice by being in Christ...in his life and death and resurrection.





And my only claims to my posts are what scripture teaches.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God would not be able to save anyone apart from...

"Then he is not omnipotent." -- Epicurus

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I objected to your literal minded projection of human justice to your biblical god's cosmic concept of justice. Human understanding of justice varies from culture to culture and generation to generation. We do the best we can. However you think your version of god, although defined and modified by ancient mid east tribal cultures, is absolute for every human today.

The Nuremberg trials were appropriate human justice for post WWII Nazi Germany. Perhaps the atrocities of infanticide of which you claim your god acted with justice, should have been held in the same post WWII court, trying that absurd claim?

Oh...so you do the best you can with your moral relativism? And of course moral relativism is so much superior to eternal truth, right? But of course, you can't appeal to Buddha because the Big Guy was clueless when it came to justice, right? So, now you have to switch horses and appeal to what...
some imaginary psychological social contract between all humans that evolved with the human race?

Yes, God acted with justice. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God -- either IN Adam or by their own personal sins. This makes all people guilty and deserving of condemnation.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You also stated a false premise, grounded in RC, Arminian drivel.

Some more facts for you. I did not state anything from the RC. I gave you the Eastern Orthodox view rejecting the concept of plenary substitution. Also, I have told you many times I do not embrace Arminianism. It would behoove you to look at the sites, which are cited, to avoid embarrassing yourself.

If you want to argue about plenary substitution, argue with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. See http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...the-atonement/

also, your only claims about what you post are what you think Scripture teaches.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"Then he is not omnipotent." -- Epicurus

It's not a question of his power. It's a question of his nature against which he cannot violate. God can no more go against his nature than you can yours.

Also, bone up on the Law of Identity.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Some more facts for you. I did not state anything from the RC. I gave you the Eastern Orthodox view rejecting the concept of plenary substitution. Also, I have told you many times I do not embrace Arminianism. It would behoove you to look at the sites, which are cited, to avoid embarrassing yourself.

If you want to argue about plenary substitution, argue with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. See http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...the-atonement/

also, your only claims about what you post are what you think Scripture teaches.

Again, what part of the analogy in Rom 5:12ff. can't you comprehend?

A body was prepared for Christ by God so that, unlike the Levitical priests under the Old Covenant, Christ's could take his seat on the throne next to the Father. Jesus on the Cross said, "It is finished" and then when he ascended to the Father he SAT down. But neither in the Holy Place or in the Holy of Holies in the Temple were there any chairs. Those priests could never sit down! And there is a reason for that. Read Hebrews some day and learn something.

When you deny the doctrine of plenary substitution, you unwittingly place Christ's sacrifice on the same level as that of the blood of sacrificial animals which could never take away sin. You totally degrade His atoning sacrifice.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...so you do the best you can with your moral relativism? And of course moral relativism is so much superior to eternal truth, right? But of course, you can't appeal to Buddha because the Big Guy was clueless when it came to justice, right? So, now you have to switch horses and appeal to what...
some imaginary psychological social contract between all humans that evolved with the human race?

Yes, God acted with justice. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God -- either IN Adam or by their own personal sins. This makes all people guilty and deserving of condemnation.

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
..Deuteronomy 24:16

Does your god contradict himself here, or is this another example of your idolized law of non contradiction failing?

Morality stemming from Buddhist compassion, or Christian love for that matter, is not as relative as you claim.

Btw, from the film Judgement at Nuremberg, Spencer Tracy...

Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, "It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.

it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."

The Nuremberg trial which you brought up, was not "moral relativism", another of your biblical bugaboos--- you think "non-believers" are guilty of. Human condemnation of infanticide although once practiced by earlier primitive cultures is universally abhorred today.

[hcap]

Buddhism is closer to the N.T. than the O.T.

The old testament is similar to other metaphysical religious texts which use war and struggle as an analogy to the inner psychological-spiritual battle, as in the Bhagavad Gita.

Compassion and love are very close, except Buddhists expand fellow humans in the N.T., to all sentient beings.

Karma is a broad concept in asian thinking applying cause and effect to sentient beings.

https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/karma/

The law of cause and effect.

The Bible refers to karma in the book of Galatians when it says, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

If you sow evil, you will reap evil in the form of suffering. And if you sow goodness, you will reap goodness in the form of inner joy. Every action, every thought, brings about its own corresponding rewards. Human suffering is not a sign of God’s anger with mankind. It is a sign, rather, of man’s ignorance of the divine law. Karma is the way God teaches us.

Karma is justice without hundreds of twisted misunderstood overly intellectual convoluted biblical passages you pass of as "gods word"

Or just as likely your own .

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Does your god contradict himself here, or is this another example of your idolized law of non contradiction failing?

Morality stemming from Buddhist compassion, or Christian love for that matter, is not as relative as you claim.

Btw, from the film Judgement at Nuremberg, Spencer Tracy...

Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, "It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.

it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."

The Nuremberg trial which you brought up, was not "moral relativism", another of your biblical bugaboos--- you think "non-believers" are guilty of. Human condemnation of infanticide although once practiced by earlier primitive cultures is universally abhorred today.

"Human infanticide" should be condemned since nations who engage in that behavior do so for evil reasons whenever that action is not specifically sanctioned by God. However, God, as sovereign King and Judge of all the earth is on high moral ground whenever he does sanction it since he judges sin, which he must do, being a righteous God. God cannot clear the guilty (Num 14:18; Ex 34:7, etc.)

Furthermore, by having the Isreaelites kill the young God was actually being merciful since they escaped the pains of hell for all eternity.

This fact goes back relates to the quote I posted recently about how mercy and DIVINE justice are intricately connected in a way they can never be in the sphere of human justice. Here is the quote again:

Christianity is unique in that God’s mercy is shown through His justice. There is no setting aside of justice to make room for mercy. The Christian doctrine of penal substitution states that sin and injustice were punished at the cross of Christ and it’s only because the penalty of sin was satisfied through Christ’s sacrifice that God extends His mercy to undeserving sinners who look to Him for salvation.

So...while the writer is alluding to the salvation of all those who have attained to a true knowledge of good and evil, nonetheless his remarks apply equally, in principle, to all those who have not attained to such knowledge.

Jesus revealed his Father's will with respect to all youngsters and their eternal destiny:

Matt 18:10,14
10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven..."Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
NASB

Because children who die before their time are preordained in eternity to be in Christ, his righteousness will be imputed to them, thus guaranteeing their eternal salvation. The Father's judgment of sin, that was laid on his Son on the Cross, makes mercy toward children not only possible but a spiritual reality.. Therefore, your repeated, mindless charge of "infanticide" and "murder" against God is patently absurd.

Now...if morality stemming from Bud's teachings on compassion and the bible's teaching on love are not so relative, then this would make love and compassion amoral acts, having no right assigned to them if exercised or wrong attached to them if not exercised. So then... since our conscience is moved one way or another by our moral or immoral acts, what is to move or conscience to love or not love to have compassion or not, since you're saying that morality stemming from either of these is hardly relative? Why should any of us be very concerned about loving or having compassion on anyone, since there is no right or wrong associated with these acts?

Also, did your buddy Big Bud make specifically make exemptions for withholding compassion from certain people. For example, did Buddha say that it was okay to take vengeance on your enemies? Or did he address this at all? If not, it would seem that Buddhism is a half-assed religion or philosophy or whatever you want to call it. Does Buddhism leave much of the practice of living life up to the discretion of individuals? You, as a student of Big Bud, seem to applaud the Nuremberg trials when over and over, over the course of all these years, you have told us that what counts the most in life -- above all else -- is "compassion" and "empathy"! Or did Buddha teach and promote selective compassion and selective empathy?