Post Reply
Page 3 of 16  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Buddhist canon stating "there is no God"
2 years ago  ::  Jul 13, 2012 - 2:37AM #21
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Buddhism and theism are indeed quite relevant to each other for the following reason:



If Buddhism is true, then a god would be pointless and unemployed.  As I always assert, they are clearly mutually exclusive.  So mutually exclusive.... indeed, theism had no reason to even be addressed.  It replaces theism.  



To try to add theism to Buddhism would be like adding a stone wheel to a rocketship.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 13, 2012 - 3:22AM #22
gangajal
Posts: 835

Jul 13, 2012 -- 2:37AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


Buddhism and theism are indeed quite relevant to each other for the following reason:



If Buddhism is true, then a god would be pointless and unemployed.  As I always assert, they are clearly mutually exclusive.  So mutually exclusive.... indeed, theism had no reason to even be addressed.  It replaces theism.  



To try to add theism to Buddhism would be like adding a stone wheel to a rocketship.  




True. It would be pointless to add western style Theism to Buddhism. Nevertheless, a God may not be pointless and unemployed. Some people do not want nontheism. Staying with a God may well be the most suitable thing for such a person (who does not like nontheism).


In fact some people (atheists like the Lokayats) do not like both theist style dharmas and non-theism. What would happen to them? They will stay where they want to stay.


One size does not fit all.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 13, 2012 - 9:39AM #23
dio
Posts: 5,078

I go with the idea that with Buddhism it doesn't matter if there is God or not.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 13, 2012 - 2:51PM #24
Bob0
Posts: 485

Buddhism and theism are indeed quite relevant to each other for the following reason:



If Buddhism is true, then a god would be pointless and unemployed. As I always assert, they are clearly mutually exclusive. So mutually exclusive.... indeed, theism had no reason to even be addressed. It replaces theism.



To try to add theism to Buddhism would be like adding a stone wheel to a rocketship.



Your lack of understanding of Buddhism gushes over these threads. Both to try to add theism to or atheism to Buddhism is not conducive to the goal. Your points continually try to make Buddhism something it isn't. And yet you keep on redefining Buddhism so that you can keep the argument going.


A good thing though, DIO has a much better understanding. Possibly your misinformation had a hand in it.


Bob


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 13, 2012 - 4:21PM #25
justjeff
Posts: 1

I'm going to take a stab at this, even though it may not be a particularly good stab, Still, I felt it welling up to add to the discussion.  I will say upfront that I'm not any kind of expert on Buddhism though I have spent a good deal of my life incorperating aspects of Buddhist faith and scriptures into my own path.


If we are to presume that Buddhism is used as a means or a system by which it's adherant may be illuminated, or recognize that which is eternally truth through a process, the affirmation or denial of God would be entirely for the express purpose of clarifying an interpretation on the part of the person/group who present God as part of an inquiry.  The word God confuses things a lot because each person brings their own ideas, attachments, concepts, etc. to the table on what they consider God to be (or not to be).   


As long as there is no object to point to and say "this is God" or "that is God" God may be presumed to simply be, or may be presumed as absent.  A fullness which is empty of qualities.  I get the idea that the denial or acceptance of God is 2 sides of the same coin though. 


Anyways, this was my first post (had to jump in somewhere).


Respectfully,


Jeff 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 13, 2012 - 4:25PM #26
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Jul 13, 2012 -- 4:21PM, justjeff wrote:


I'm going to take a stab at this, even though it may not be a particularly good stab, Still, I felt it welling up to add to the discussion.  I will say upfront that I'm not any kind of expert on Buddhism though I have spent a good deal of my life incorperating aspects of Buddhist faith and scriptures into my own path.


If we are to presume that Buddhism is used as a means or a system by which it's adherant may be illuminated, or recognize that which is eternally truth through a process, the affirmation or denial of God would be entirely for the express purpose of clarifying an interpretation on the part of the person/group who present God as part of an inquiry.  The word God confuses things a lot because each person brings their own ideas, attachments, concepts, etc. to the table on what they consider God to be (or not to be).   


As long as there is no object to point to and say "this is God" or "that is God" God may be presumed to simply be, or may be presumed as absent.  A fullness which is empty of qualities.  I get the idea that the denial or acceptance of God is 2 sides of the same coin though. 


Anyways, this was my first post (had to jump in somewhere).


Respectfully,


Jeff 





Hi, Jeff!!!!

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 13, 2012 - 4:55PM #27
Aka_me
Posts: 12,325

Jul 13, 2012 -- 4:21PM, justjeff wrote:


I'm going to take a stab at this, even though it may not be a particularly good stab, Still, I felt it welling up to add to the discussion.  I will say upfront that I'm not any kind of expert on Buddhism though I have spent a good deal of my life incorperating aspects of Buddhist faith and scriptures into my own path.


If we are to presume that Buddhism is used as a means or a system by which it's adherant may be illuminated, or recognize that which is eternally truth through a process, the affirmation or denial of God would be entirely for the express purpose of clarifying an interpretation on the part of the person/group who present God as part of an inquiry.  The word God confuses things a lot because each person brings their own ideas, attachments, concepts, etc. to the table on what they consider God to be (or not to be).   


As long as there is no object to point to and say "this is God" or "that is God" God may be presumed to simply be, or may be presumed as absent.  A fullness which is empty of qualities.  I get the idea that the denial or acceptance of God is 2 sides of the same coin though. 


Anyways, this was my first post (had to jump in somewhere).


Respectfully,


Jeff 




welcome Jeff,


there is no statement one might make about Buddhism, which will earn unanimous agreement by ALL Buddhists.


even saying "Buddha tried to break people of 'belief in the absence of experience'".


while many people equate the word God, to the Abrahamic version, what the non-Abrahamic members can't seem to comprehend is that a transcendent God as unmanifest is by definition outside limited human comprehension.


which is ironic, because the page on transcendence includes an entry for Buddhism, so it's not as if the term is completely foreign to the theology.

happy will be the day that my tax dollars are not killing innocent women and children in war crimes and crimes against humanity as we shove our head up each other's WhoHa thinking our ends justifies our means while demonizing the enemy for doing the same, when it is we who are the original terrorists. and have an active role creating today's turmoil.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 15, 2012 - 12:54PM #28
chevy956
Posts: 1,961

Since you yourself can't even demonstrate the fact that your transcendent god exists, why should it be of concern to any one? A transcendent god by definition is outside the realm of human existence, therefore irrelevant to humans and we need pay no further attention to them.


Your original post is irrelevent to Buddhist practice. Your continued assertions that Buddhists must believe in the supernatural are simply untrue. I'll say it again until the point sinks into your thick little skull- Baha'i's don't get to define Buddhism. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 15, 2012 - 2:28PM #29
Aka_me
Posts: 12,325

Jul 15, 2012 -- 12:54PM, chevy956 wrote:


Since you yourself can't even demonstrate the fact that your transcendent god exists, why should it be of concern to any one? A transcendent god by definition is outside the realm of human existence, therefore irrelevant to humans and we need pay no further attention to them.


Your original post is irrelevent to Buddhist practice. Your continued assertions that Buddhists must believe in the supernatural are simply untrue. I'll say it again until the point sinks into your thick little skull- Baha'i's don't get to define Buddhism.



this forum does not exist for the purposes of demonstrating a transcendent God exists.


did Buddha try to get congregants to terminate believing in the absence of experience... or not.


[off in the background] that would be the sound of cognative dissonance?

happy will be the day that my tax dollars are not killing innocent women and children in war crimes and crimes against humanity as we shove our head up each other's WhoHa thinking our ends justifies our means while demonizing the enemy for doing the same, when it is we who are the original terrorists. and have an active role creating today's turmoil.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 15, 2012 - 4:28PM #30
Bob0
Posts: 485
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 16  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook