victorialis

Paul -- a Gnostic? Zowie...! Thanks much for putting me onto Elaine Pagel; I've found Gnosticism a bit difficult to get next to, and her writings look lively indeed. I'm thoroughly enjoying the results of the search I ran on her.

Psyche and pneuma: I like these words, they're a lot more exact.

boneyard bill writes:

No Buddhist metaphysics? While I'd agree that Buddhism concerns itself little or not at all with cosmology, I'd have to say it does have a theory of being, of existence -- a remarkably monolithic (though recondite) ontology.

But you've isolated what I think is the sticking point in our attempt to reconcile Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism eschews extraneous concepts and images, while both Christian cosmology and ontology are heavily buttressed with specific mythopoetic devices. Christianity overfeeds psyche at the expense of pneuma, while Buddhism concentrates almost entirely on pneuma.

I think myth is greatly overrated, Jung et al notwithstanding, and here's why: its products are nearly impossible for us latter-day hominids to actually use. They are distant, nebulous, hugely ideal; one never quite gets there, if I may put it that way. And in a theology as thoroughly obsessed with a mythopoetic endgame of eternal life (read: changelessness) as Christianity, the lack of a sense of "getting there" is a big, big flaw, to me. Christianity seems unable to value being, in the direct way that Buddhism does.

The Christian transformation of the individual may or may not be visible to the individual, so the venture requires not only faith, but also a guarantor (god), a stabilizing authority in a recognizable (anthropomorphic) form with which we can identify. We need this anchor, to avoid being overwhelmed by the great transcendent/immanent bulk of the unknowable. This guarantor we've concretised is also unknowable, yet we must concentrate upon it at all times, because we've personified it and it's watching us. There are way too many single-blinds here.

I say the unknowable immanance/transcendence of reality doesn't need personification. I say so because I don't see what it gains by personification, outside of mythopoetic clutter that will eventually backfire by limiting something unlimitable.

Buddhism can't be bothered with any of that; "kakunen musho, boundless expanse and nothing which can be called holy" -- Buddha is an exemplar, not a divinity. Irrespective of the divinity/humanity of Jesus, could he not be viewed in exactly the same light, for exactly the same qualities, as Buddha: as an adept, an exemplar?

boneyardbill writes:

How about this: if Christianity could be applied, not to evoke relationship with the divine along mythic lines, but to educe the true-nature , in the way Buddhism does -- would there be any need for mythopoeia in Christianity?

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: victorialis ]</p>

St. Robert

Boneyard bill: I really loved your last response. The difference is the Christ, but also the cross. Jesus received the suffering of crucifixation, so that we might receive the peace of God. There is nothing that compares to the significance of the cross. I do believe that Buddha was searching for the peace that only God can provide.

HelenM

He's not alive [on earth] today though...so he didn't know about the God of Israel...so does that mean he's facing eternal torture in hell?

love
Helen

St. Robert

All I know is that God is a loving and just God. People will be held accountable by God for what they know or are exposed to. If the saving grace of Jesus Christ has been offered and refuse by someone, then that person will be held accountable for the rejection of Jesus. Siddartha had no opportunity to know or refuse the claims of Jesus.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

victorialis

I wonder whether you really mean this.

HelenM

So is he going to heaven or hell?

There's no other option...is there?

Where does someone go who never heard of Jesus? Does it make sense for him (or her) to go to Jesus' Father's house if they are strangers?

Does it make sense for him (or her) to be eternally tortured (or simply annihilated)?

What do you think and why?


love
Helen

Liquidrage

St. Robert.

You are on the wrong post in the wrong forum to be expressing these views.

You're hijacking the thread with your unrelated beliefs which is uncalled for.
No, it's not acceptable to just interject "Jesus loves you..." into any thread you see fit.

This will be my only comment on the subject to prevent further hijacking of the thread.

Grizzly

Hello all,

I agree with LiquidRage that this thread is veering off-course. Although I did (and still do) find the christian vs. buddhist views on suffering disussion to be very "enlightening". St. Robert, you are still welcome to post on this thread, but please keep on topic.

If other wish to debate Christian beliefs, please direct your discussion to the MRD forum.

Thanks

Grizzly

AdamWho

Hello, Liquidrage and HelenSL are you following St. Robert around waiting to refute his next ill-informed sloganistic response? So am I...

He has been at this forum on and off for a while and doesn't respond to argumentation very well, but is generally polite.

St Robert:

Did you leave becuase victorialis & boneyard bill were getting to heavy, or too busy posting in Existence?


Summing up the arguments on the subject: "Is Desire the cause of all suffering?"

It was argued (bill) the word desire is not a good translation but it should read clinging or obsessive attachment.

Others, in response to a flood of Buddhist "dogma", have suggested that suffering and desire are mental states and all the mechanisms of Buddhism are a type of "therapy".

Some argue against Buddhism, stating that: if Buddhism has useful parts then lets take those parts and toss away the mysticism.

I argued that Buddhism, while useful as a guide, if taken as a "religion" it operates negatively on a individuals and societies.

There was an argument that suffering did not exists.

We had some discussions on the eightfold path and its usefulness. I argued that it was a useful guide as long as the user didn't dogmatize the meanings of the steps.

There are other angles that I didn't cover if anybody wants to recap or dispute my claims.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

HelenM

I might be, I guess...

Based on how I have felt when it's been done to me here (rarely, but occasionally) I guess maybe I oughtn't do it.

But then OTOH it's so hard not to follow someone around who seems to be ignoring you...to try to get an answer out of them...

Ok, I'm out of this thread now...sorry for my contribution to derailing it

love
Helen

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>