Aradia

There is no certainty. There is only delusion.

Amos

"To be is not to be" is to have vacated the lower house of the conscious mind and have taken up residence in the subconscious mind. Hence we [fully] are when we are not [divided]. I've heard it said that "we are" when we will have taken Jesus down from the cross and placed ourselves upon it. Protestants, on the other hand, think that they must wail at the foot of the cross and spontaneously burn with the desire to rise until die from old age nonehteless.

lugotorix

Are you sure about that?

lugotorix

Amos

It depends on which side of the fence you are on. In heaven there are no delusions or there would be death, pain and suffering.

Mageth

"To be is not to be" is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying "X equals Not-X", or "good is bad" or "square circle".

To be is to be. A rose is a rose is a rose. There are absolutes, and this world is real, not an illusion.

Of course, you're expressing a Western, dualistic view of existence here. Eastern thought does not necessarily hold that the world is an illusion.

Another possible Eastern way to look at "to be is not to be" is that, by losing one's Ego, by learning not "to be", one can realize the mystery, or as they might say, one can annihilate onself in the mystery above all mysteries, reach Nirvana. This is expressed metaphorically in Hinduism by the seventh Chakra. It sounds confusing, I know, but the Eastern non-dualistic view of existence is confusing to one who looks through the dualistic eyes of the West.

It's damn confusing to me, that's for sure, but in its essence I think it's far closer to the way the universe really is as expressed by modern Physics than the Western religions. An example is perhaps seen in your use of "absolutes" and "a rose is a rose" (famously recorded by the same Catholic Amos referenced above). Yes, a rose is a rose, but both you and a rose are manifestations of the same underlying principles. Both you and the rose emerge from earthlife, which emerged from Earth, which emerged from the Solar System, which emerged from the Galaxy, which emerged from the early universe, which emerged from a singularity, which emerged from - what? A mystery, no? And I believe (and Eastern religions similarly believe), whatever this mystery is, is as natural as you or I or a rose. Perhaps playfully even as more natural; one might even consider that mystery as the truly natural, and our existence as the "supernatural"!

Through the Eastern way of viewing existence through non-dualistic glasses, one can recognize this commonality of source with other humans, with other life, and even with a rock. Contrast this to Western religions which separate man from other men, man from god, man from nature, and god from nature; this dualistic, divisive way of viewing the world has led to much of the world's miseries over the last three or four millenia.

I think Eastern metaphysics can be viewed as a metaphor for the way the universe is that is similar to, but admittedly different than, the metaphors of Science. Both may be useful as ways of understanding the mystery of "being". And both are preferable to Western Dualistic religions.

Aradia

The very fact that you ask means you don't get the point.

emotional

I believe that the Mystery can never be attained.To quote from here:

Just for the record, I'm currently getting many of my ideas from William Stainton Moses' Spirit Teachings. And J Gresham Machen.

TheGreatInfidel

Well unless you've changed the meaning of apology, I suppose it is.

I wouldn't know. Are you going to answer my question or simply respond with another question in hopes you can pass it off as an answer?

Oh, ok. That settles "apologetics is the good stuff."

When I use analogies I use them in support of a definition already given, but you seemed to have forgoten the definition part.

Spare me anymore analogies and get to the point! BTW, I don't have a fundie-to-english dictionary so you'll have to explain in english.

Well this thread seemed to have started off good, but once the flowery language began it went down hill. All this Buddhism stuff makes as much sense as when my cousin Julio tries to be philosophical while on pot.

How'd you guys like it if you ask me a question and I respond with jfoqjvoijbvwoiehjgnjsiegh.

emotional

It is because traditional monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) have a weak God who needs to be pampered to constantly, and defended from encroaching. Theirs is a delicate God who needs to be placated (by a sweet savour of roasted flesh or by faith in His son) lest he become angry.

Actually apologetics is more "defence of the faith" than "defence of God", so the point your cousin raised isn't relevant. Apologetics is for keeping individual sheep from leaving the flock, and for winning more sheep into the flock.

Mageth

Well this thread seemed to have started off good, but once the flowery language began it went down hill. All this Buddhism stuff makes as much sense as when my cousin Julio tries to be philosophical while on pot.

How'd you guys like it if you ask me a question and I respond with jfoqjvoijbvwoiehjgnjsiegh.

Well, you're right; it would have been better to take it to another thread, which I suggest we do if anyone wants to start one.

BTW, thanks for the clarifications, Aradia. As I said, I'm still learning.