Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 10-09-2002, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
So galiel and RD, if you would, let us continue our discussion on the atheism vs. pantheism thread.

Perhaps 'Pantheism vs. Naturalism' ...

Answerer · 10-09-2002, 03:52 AM

Well, since Buddha is the 'awaken one' , I'm quite confident to say that He will not attached Himself to names and labels such as buddhist, atheist christian , Indian, etc nor the unique viewstand that each group has, He just simply an onlooker.

Jobar · 10-09-2002, 08:25 AM

I can't quote it exactly, but Buddha made a statement to the effect that he neither affirmed nor denied the reality of god(s) in heaven(s). Sounds pretty agnostic to me. He considered such questions extraneous to his main message- how to live in the world and deal with suffering. (I have seen the exact quote posted on II somewhere- if someone would be so good as to reproduce it here or link to it, it would be appreciated.)

Amos, I know I talked about Meister Eckhart, the (IIRC) 13th-century Catholic mystic who was executed for heresy, with Albert Cipriani. Have you any knowledge of his sermons? Some of what he said is in tune with my own beliefs- so I know that it is possible that Catholic mysticism can be a path to metaphysical understanding. (I also know the Church *did* execute him for heresy- be glad you are alive today and not then, Amos!)

galiel · 10-09-2002, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
I can't quote it exactly, but Buddha made a statement to the effect that he neither affirmed nor denied the reality of god(s) in heaven(s).

So that is where "plausible deniability" came from. I wonder if Nixon ever attributed the source?

10-09-2002, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:

Amos, I know I talked about Meister Eckhart, the (IIRC) 13th-century Catholic mystic who was executed for heresy, with Albert Cipriani. Have you any knowledge of his sermons? Some of what he said is in tune with my own beliefs- so I know that it is possible that Catholic mysticism can be a path to metaphysical understanding.

We'll let Buddha rest because I can see why he would want to steer away from the concept God. I argue gnostic and agnostic from their opposite definitions while you cling to the modern use of the word agnostic.

I've heard of Meister Eckhart but did not know that he was executed and will probably forget it tomorrow.

Mystics can very easy have wrong opinion and most of them do. This is not wrong in itself as long as they keep it to themselves and not lead sheep astray past the point of no-return (hell).

As far as I can tell the Catholic Church does not rate mysticism very high. They will at least check them out against their own truth and take it from there (and rightfully so).

As for me? I am harmless because nobody will listen to me.

Jobar · 10-09-2002, 05:40 PM

I listen to you, Amos. Sometimes I think you are rather insane, and often I can't understand your metaphors and parables and terminology- but you are interestingly crazy, and on those occasions when I *do* understand you I find myself agreeing with you, often as not. You are one of the few theists who post on II that I genuinely like- why, I may even be learning to tell when you are joking and when you are serious. (Maybe.)

Answerer · 10-10-2002, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
[QB]I can't quote it exactly, but Buddha made a statement to the effect that he neither affirmed nor denied the reality of god(s) in heaven(s). Sounds pretty agnostic to me. He considered such questions extraneous to his main message- how to live in the world and deal with suffering. (I have seen the exact quote posted on II somewhere- if someone would be so good as to reproduce it here or link to it, it would be appreciated.
[QB]

Well, I think you are talking about the arrow and the doctor story. Anyway, to me, I think that the Buddha is trying to make that person, who asked those questions, to see the path to the non-attachments of viewstands and opinons rather than to take up a new and unique point of view.
Hope you knew what I means.

10-10-2002, 06:08 AM

Sorry Jobar, but I am not complaining at all. If I wanted shallow conversations I could be right in there but then I would probably remove all doubt and prove myself crazy.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

galiel · 10-10-2002, 08:33 AM

Amos:

Ma, atah choshev she rack atah yechol ledaber b'sapha muzarah she aph echad lo yechol lehaveen? Ha evdel who she afilu atah lo mevin et atzmechah!

10-10-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
Amos:

Ma, atah choshev she rack atah yechol ledaber b'sapha muzarah she aph echad lo yechol lehaveen? Ha evdel who she afilu atah lo mevin et atzmechah!

Hi galiel, I can't seem to follow that. Is that perhaps glossolalia in heathen form?

10-10-2002, 06:08 AM	#28
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Sorry Jobar, but I am not complaining at all. If I wanted shallow conversations I could be right in there but then I would probably remove all doubt and prove myself crazy. [ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2002, 03:52 AM	#22
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Well, since Buddha is the 'awaken one' , I'm quite confident to say that He will not attached Himself to names and labels such as buddhist, atheist christian , Indian, etc nor the unique viewstand that each group has, He just simply an onlooker.

10-09-2002, 08:25 AM	#23
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I can't quote it exactly, but Buddha made a statement to the effect that he neither affirmed nor denied the reality of god(s) in heaven(s). Sounds pretty agnostic to me. He considered such questions extraneous to his main message- how to live in the world and deal with suffering. (I have seen the exact quote posted on II somewhere- if someone would be so good as to reproduce it here or link to it, it would be appreciated.) Amos, I know I talked about Meister Eckhart, the (IIRC) 13th-century Catholic mystic who was executed for heresy, with Albert Cipriani. Have you any knowledge of his sermons? Some of what he said is in tune with my own beliefs- so I know that it is possible that Catholic mysticism can be a path to metaphysical understanding. (I also know the Church did execute him for heresy- be glad you are alive today and not then, Amos!)

10-09-2002, 05:40 PM	#26
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I listen to you, Amos. Sometimes I think you are rather insane, and often I can't understand your metaphors and parables and terminology- but you are interestingly crazy, and on those occasions when I do understand you I find myself agreeing with you, often as not. You are one of the few theists who post on II that I genuinely like- why, I may even be learning to tell when you are joking and when you are serious. (Maybe.)

10-10-2002, 08:33 AM	#29
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Amos: Ma, atah choshev she rack atah yechol ledaber b'sapha muzarah she aph echad lo yechol lehaveen? Ha evdel who she afilu atah lo mevin et atzmechah!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.