connick

Very punny.

Tom Sawyer

And where's Buddha now?

Burning in Hell with the rest of the heathens, that's where.

Apparently his "wisdom" didn't work out very well.

George S

How could you possibly know what you wrote is factual?

connick

I think that's supposed to be part of the humor of it.

Manitoumulegirl

Actually I have done some reading on the various types of Buddhism, including Zen. The apparent contradictions in Zen intrigue me. Bottom line, you just do Zen to do Zen. No expectations of anything at all. At least in the case of Zen, you are not running around trying to convert people or impose your belief on them - a refreshing change from some fundamentalist religions I know of.

Uhmmmm... Are you a fundie or something? Or was your post an attempt at humor? At any rate, how the hell should I know where the Buddha is now? His bones crumbled to dust long ago as far as I know. Or maybe he attained Nirvana - whatever that is. All I know is that his philosophy seemed to work quite well for him in the here now which is all we ever have - just this moment.

I never stated that what I wrote is factual. Its just a parable that caught my attention, and it makes sense to me. All this arguing about the problem of suffering and how can a "good", all knowing god do this or that is to me like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nobody can prove anything either way. Believe whatever gets you through the night. I just don't think the explanations given here and elsewhere are as black and white as people seem to want them to be. :huh:

Tom Sawyer

Seriously? :huh:

Manitoumulegirl

You want me to answer your question seriously or George's? Or both?

connick

Wow, there seems to be a bit of confusion going on in these last few posts. :Cheeky:

At any rate, I'd like to address this notion:
If we present premises, then a conclusion will logically follow. If someone wants to posit a god who cannot be evil but performs evil then the conclusion must be that there is a contradiction. If someone wanted to argue about dancing angels and pins then they would propose some premises regarding the subject. If we agree on the premises of the argument then a black and white conclusion certainly can be reached.

Where, in your view, does the argument stray from solid, black and white logic into a gray area? What part of the argument prevents it from being resolved? True, false and don't/can't know are the only real options I see. I think the conclusion in this case is that an omnimax god is contradictory and therefore false.

Manitoumulegirl

Well, you started off with this: In the first sentence you make two premises:
1) God hates evil.
2) God created evil.

Followed by two more premises which are really repeats of your first two premises:
3) Evil is a part of God's creation
4) God hates evil

Give me scientific proof that God created evil. Further, give me scientific proof that God hates his own creation, assuming your first premise is proven true.

I'll go do a Buddhist meditation on angels dancing on pins until you can get back to me.

PS Take a look at Mark Twains Letters from the Earth if you want to read a really caustic, really funny discussion of your questions.

Evermore

Zen (or Ch'an, as it is known in China) is fundamentalist in it's own way. In order to practice it you must essentially "stall" or "short-circuit" the analyticaly mind in order to "percieve reality as it is" so they say. In other words, questioning certain aspects of reality and so forth is not considered beneficial.
While you would not be met with the whole "mysterious ways" nonsense, the pat response is something like "you're asking the wrong questions" or "the moment you seek answers, you are already a thousand miles away".
So, while it is fundamentalist (in a manner of speaking), it is not an evangelical belief system.

Thanks :wave:

Are you suggesting we may gain nothing from applying our powers of reason and logic to problems? In refusing to believe in anything baseless and unreasonable we must first determine what is basesless and unreasonable. By scrutinizing such issues we may determine the rationality of said belief/viewpoint and go from there. Your statement reminds me of theists who claim that god is "above logic and therefore cannot be understood with the use of logic, nor discounted with it's use". It's really just an excuse to scrutinize your own beliefs. (I mean people in general, not necessarily you in particular. )