Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

[mtmynd1]

You're upset. I get that. I apologize if I am the cause of that upset. However, we are here to discuss philosophy, are we not? So we need not become personal and nasty in the process. We can discuss the ideas without assassinating each other's personalities, or so I believe.
Essentially, you reassert your determination to read the word "within" for the word "among." You do so, as you say, because it allows you to make a connection between the Bible and "Buddha" and "Krishna" et al. At least, you cite those two in specific. You do not do it because you are not aware that the Greek will not support your interpretation, or that the rest of Scripture flatly denies it. You do it because it works for supporting your existing preferences -- or so you seem to say.

You can, of course, do that. You will be misinterpreting, of course, since the words you cite don't bear the reading you wish to take from them. But you have freedom to do so. Everyone has the right to be wrong -- even if he knows, as you now know, that you are indeed wrong. For you have a right to make a religion out of your own imagination, just as you say you do, in your conclusion. And you have a right to stand or fall before your Creator based on your choice.

So I think that while we cannot agree on your reading, we can agree on your right to insist you live and die by your conscience. And that I freely concede to you.

I personally do not call upon any religion or philosophy to verify what it is that I have personal knowledge of.

That being said, it is not with a malicious and unkind heart that I say to you, your opinions are but that, your opinions. I am not interested in them nor anything you have brought to this table has shown me anything of philosophically nutritious.

I certainly would hope the "I Can" and do it justice.

Have a pleasant and joyful day, amigo.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, you've misread my pseudonym, and thus attributed to me an arrogance I would hope not to have...and certainly a claim I do not make.

The name isn't "I Can." It's "Immanuel Can." If you are aware of the true Referent of that full name, then you know I'm not claiming special wisdom for myself, but for Him.

Best wishes.

[mtmynd1]

Ah, you've misread my pseudonym, and thus attributed to me an arrogance I would hope not to have...and certainly a claim I do not make.

The name isn't "I Can." It's "Immanuel Can." If you are aware of the true Referent of that full name, then you know I'm not claiming special wisdom for myself, but for Him.

Best wishes.

But if you, "I. Can" cannot and Immanuel Kant 'can' who is there to believe what is correct and what is not? Tis only Truth that holds the weight while opinions are but a flurry like snow flakes covering up Truth, hiding it in hopes that opinions are so much better than the reality.

[Immanuel Can]

You still don't understand.

Immanuel Kant is also named after Someone. There was an Immanuel long before there ever was a Kant. Or a Can.

If you want truth, that's the only place to go.

[thedoc]

On reading about Hinduism I found that there is a version of the Triune God. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, different forms of the same all-pervading Brahman. I realize that others may have different interpretations of this, but this is the way I see it.

thedoc:

I don't want to be contentious -- I actually quite like you, and have no wish to offend. But I also don't agree, and since this is a site for this sort of discussion, I'm going to risk being a bit strong in response, okay?

If you look at a group of people long distance..say, several miles, you won't be able to tell their height, gender, age, features...or even their number, if they are in a group. Get closer, and you'll see some of these features. Get closer still, and you'll recognize faces. Get right up to them, and you'll see they're all very different in many ways.

Similarly, if you keep all "religions" distant and treat them as a mass, you can convince yourself they're simply a blob-like manifestation of the same thing. You can mistake yin-yang for good and evil, for example, or mistake karma for justice, or Allah for Yahweh and both for Zeus or the Gnostic Demiurge. You can mistake Buddhist empty-mind meditation for Jewish full-mind Scripture scholarship. You can mistake the Nirvana concept for Heaven. But in every single one of these pairings, you're totally confused if you do. They're not only not the *same* things; when you look at them clearly, they're often quite *contrary* conceptions, in that one tradition will freely declare that the other tradition is doing precisely the wrong thing, or is failing to look at the world at all in an enlightened way.

Look at you and me right now: we have different viewpoints, don't we? We aren't agreeing about this, are we? If you and I, mere philosophers as we are, can experience a stark disagreement, then what odd logic would lead us to think religious traditions were simply incapable of such strong disagreement?

Now an illustration, if I may. I used to teach World Religions. At the beginning of my class, I would give to my students a little quiz. On one side, it asked rudimentary questions to discern their knowledge and exposure to religions (I didn't want to end up teaching what they may already know, so I had to know what they knew, you see.) So it had questions like, "How many times annually do you go to a religious place?" "A religious service?" "Read from a religious scripture?" etc. On the other side I would have a list of other statements -- all strong opinions people have about religions -- things like "Religions cause wars," "Religions all teach peace and love," "Religions all believe in the Golden Rule," and so on, all beside a ten-point scale to indicate how they agreed or disagreed.

And guess what? The students who scored the most strong, bigotted and ill-informed opinions on the seconds side were invariably all the same ones who scored lowest on the experience side. Many of them freely admitted to having nearly zero exposure to any religious-associated experience; and they were invariably the most strongly opinionated of all...especially about the idea that all religions are the same.

The truth is this: the only way to continue believing all "beliefs" (or "religions," if you like) are essentially the same is to keep them as far from you as possible and in fuzzy focus. If you know anything about them in particular, then immediately elements of that illusion begin to drop away. Know a lot, and the illusion is completely gone.

Me, I've studied a whole bunch, read a whole bunch of their texts, met a whole bunch of folks from different groups, sects and denominations, and been in a whole lot of foreign places. I know darn well they're different and so will you if you go and look. But I don't ask you to believe me.

I say, "Go and look."

I don't mind contentious, But I believe we are posting at cross purposes here. You are pointing out that different religions have different definitions of God and I agree, I was only saying that all religions have some definition and description of God even if that definition and description differs from other definitions and descriptions. I must also disagree with one small point, Allah and Yahweh are the same God, as the Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham and that was Yahweh. Same God different names. I may have only looked at a few religions and you say you have looked at many, but are there any religions that do not worship a God by some name, whatever that name and description might be?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes.

Certain forms of Buddhism claim to be philosophical rather than theological, and not to believe in any gods or spirits. Occultists and animists believe in a multitude of spirits, but no exclusive God. And even in the case of religions that do believe in the supernatural, the proposed nature of God or gods varies so widely that there is not even a reasonable possibility they refer to the same entity. For example, Judaism is notoriously monotheistic, and as such denies polytheism's most basic supposition completely.

Then, even in the case of monotheistic religions, Islam claims to believe in the God of Jews and Christians...but their Allah differs profoundly from the God of Abraham described in Torah and believed in by Jews and Christians. Allah is a vengeful, distant crusader god who demands the forcible submission of infidels, regardless of their choices. The God of the Torah and New Testament, by contrast, is motivated by what the Jews call "chesed," or "lovingkindness," and as the Christians point out, says "Love your enemies." In conversion, He appeals to human free choice, not force, politics or domination. And you can see the difference starkly today in politics in the countries where Islam dominates. The ethics are very different there.

It would be convenient, I suppose, if we could just believe "all roads lead to God." For then we could all stop discussing the issue, and everybody could just choose his or her own flavour, and it would all work out. We'd also be saved the necessity of ever having to know what another religion actually believes or does, and hence we would not have to think about it further. However, as philosophers, we can see that any such belief simply runs afoul of the Law of Non-Contradiction immediately. It's just not rational, and there's no reasonable prospect that that particular belief is true.

[uwot]

The God of the Torah and New Testament, by contrast, is motivated by what the Jews call "chesed," or "lovingkindness," and as the Christians point out, says "Love your enemies." In conversion, He appeals to human free choice, not force, politics or domination. And you can see the difference starkly today in politics in the countries where Islam dominates. The ethics are very different there.

Well, you didn't have an answer last ime I asked, Immanuel Can; frankly I'm not expecting any better this time, but can you account for the following?

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

It flatly contradicts your assertion above. Is it from a corrupted version of the bible?

[thedoc]

The God of the Torah and New Testament, by contrast, is motivated by what the Jews call "chesed," or "lovingkindness," and as the Christians point out, says "Love your enemies." In conversion, He appeals to human free choice, not force, politics or domination. And you can see the difference starkly today in politics in the countries where Islam dominates. The ethics are very different there.

Well, you didn't have an answer last ime I asked, Immanuel Can; frankly I'm not expecting any better this time, but can you account for the following?

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

It flatly contradicts your assertion above. Is it from a corrupted version of the bible?

These are similar to the instructions that Joshua received when he led the Israelites into the Promised land, they failed to follow these instructions to the letter, and some have suggested that is the cause of their troubles today.

[thedoc]

Yes.

Certain forms of Buddhism claim to be philosophical rather than theological, and not to believe in any gods or spirits. Occultists and animists believe in a multitude of spirits, but no exclusive God. And even in the case of religions that do believe in the supernatural, the proposed nature of God or gods varies so widely that there is not even a reasonable possibility they refer to the same entity. For example, Judaism is notoriously monotheistic, and as such denies polytheism's most basic supposition completely.

Then, even in the case of monotheistic religions, Islam claims to believe in the God of Jews and Christians...but their Allah differs profoundly from the God of Abraham described in Torah and believed in by Jews and Christians. Allah is a vengeful, distant crusader god who demands the forcible submission of infidels, regardless of their choices. The God of the Torah and New Testament, by contrast, is motivated by what the Jews call "chesed," or "lovingkindness," and as the Christians point out, says "Love your enemies." In conversion, He appeals to human free choice, not force, politics or domination. And you can see the difference starkly today in politics in the countries where Islam dominates. The ethics are very different there.

It would be convenient, I suppose, if we could just believe "all roads lead to God." For then we could all stop discussing the issue, and everybody could just choose his or her own flavour, and it would all work out. We'd also be saved the necessity of ever having to know what another religion actually believes or does, and hence we would not have to think about it further. However, as philosophers, we can see that any such belief simply runs afoul of the Law of Non-Contradiction immediately. It's just not rational, and there's no reasonable prospect that that particular belief is true.

That The Muslim description of God differs from the Christian description of God might be from human misunderstanding and error and not from a different God, it could be the same God but human error. After all both the Bible and the Quran were written by humans, and subject to error.

Yes the Christian teaching is to "Love your Enemies", but it is possible to Love your Enemy while you are killing them. I would be doing them a favor by putting them out of my misery.

[thedoc]

Yes.

Certain forms of Buddhism claim to be philosophical rather than theological, and not to believe in any gods or spirits. Occultists and animists believe in a multitude of spirits, but no exclusive God. And even in the case of religions that do believe in the supernatural, the proposed nature of God or gods varies so widely that there is not even a reasonable possibility they refer to the same entity. For example, Judaism is notoriously monotheistic, and as such denies polytheism's most basic supposition completely.

In those certain forms of Buddhism is there a spiritual aspect of a human being, and is it extinguished on the death of that individual? If so, which forms are these, I would like to read about them myself, I admit most of my reading has been in Zen Buddhism.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was not limiting belief to an exclusive God, a multitude of spirits would also satisfy my definition of a religion.

I also never claimed that all religions believed in the same God, just that they all believe in a God in some form.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair questions, thedoc:

In those certain forms of Buddhism is there a spiritual aspect of a human being, and is it extinguished on the death of that individual?

The spiritual is certainly a strong element in Buddhism -- the idea of persisting souls is always there, as it is in Hinduism; the element of reincarnation denies that soul-extinction happens at death, however. Only when one escapes the wheel of samsara through enlightenment does one experience Nirvana, soul extinction.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was not limiting belief to an exclusive God, a multitude of spirits would also satisfy my definition of a religion.

Well, if you're well-read in Buddhism, then you'll know that "god" means something very different there. There are "gods," but they are sort of spirits trapped within samsara; and the Buddha himself is more enlightened than the best of them, as he is their teacher. This clearly isn't the same idea as in, say Judaism or Islam when they talk of "God".

So inasmuch as any belief in the supernatural (such as spirits and souls) though not necessarily in the Western kind of "God," qualifies one as "religious," then yes, Buddhism is religious. But then, some sort of belief in the supernatural is not absent from any ideology except something like radical Materialism. For example, many people believe in the real existence of non-material entities like souls, meaning, morals, etc., but I don't know if you want to call them "religious"...maybe you do.

I also never claimed that all religions believed in the same God, just that they all believe in a God in some form.

Okay: but now you have to ask yourself, is that similarity among the "religions" in question a sufficiently important one to justify classifying them all as equivalent, or of indicating a sufficiently important grounds of agreement? For unless I misunderstand you, you are hoping they have a common core value that gets to the essence of "religion", and hence of not worrying too much about what variety of "religion" one chooses.

But if so, this "value" that you choose as the essential descriptor of all "religions" must not merely be true, but must also surely be something of sufficient importance to warrant the conclusion that they are essentially interchangeable or optional in respect to each other. So you have to ask, "Does 'Belief in [a] god' constitute a common feature of adequate significance to warrant that conclusion?"

I don't think so. I don't think that, "belief in a god of some kind" is a sufficient commonality to warrant any confidence of equivalency at all.

I would suggest, in fact, that that range is pretty broad...so broad, in fact, that it fails to tell any really important fact about them. It's rather like saying, "All people have noses": it may be true to say, but it so glosses over important distinctions that it's practically useless as an observation for getting to know anything substantial about particular people, their individuality, their personalities, their purposes, their aims, their genders, their ages...and so on.

Similarly, the definition that "religion" is "belief in a God, gods or godlings" is one that simply leaves too much out. It essentially obliterates all the key distinctions (indeed, it wipes out all the distinctions upon which religious people themselves would most ardently insist!) And I would suggest that we must not do that with "religions," at least not if we want to know anything important at all about any of them, or even about the phenomenon in general. And we certainly wouldn't know enough from that single criterion to suggest we could simply dismiss their differences and keep their "essence."

It's just not much of an "essence" you've specified there.

[thedoc]

Fair questions, thedoc:

In those certain forms of Buddhism is there a spiritual aspect of a human being, and is it extinguished on the death of that individual?

The spiritual is certainly a strong element in Buddhism -- the idea of persisting souls is always there, as it is in Hinduism; the element of reincarnation denies that soul-extinction happens at death, however. Only when one escapes the wheel of samsara through enlightenment does one experience Nirvana, soul extinction.

I Just need a bit of clarification here, It was my understanding that on enlightenment the soul of the individual joined with the "one mind" (or whatever label you like) and rather than extinction, it was the identity of the individual that was lost with the transition from dualism to non-dualism?

[thedoc]

Fair questions, thedoc:

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was not limiting belief to an exclusive God, a multitude of spirits would also satisfy my definition of a religion.

Well, if you're well-read in Buddhism, then you'll know that "god" means something very different there. There are "gods," but they are sort of spirits trapped within samsara; and the Buddha himself is more enlightened than the best of them, as he is their teacher. This clearly isn't the same idea as in, say Judaism or Islam when they talk of "God".

Yes there are spirits that are trapped in samsara but Buddha taught other people and I understand that Hinduism was the background that Buddha drew from for his teachings and that Hinduism included the belief in a multitude of gods in just about everything. But it is still my understanding that the one-mind was superior to and something to which the Buddhist aspired to be joined with. In my understanding that would place the one-mind above everything else much like the Gods of other religions.

[thedoc]

So inasmuch as any belief in the supernatural (such as spirits and souls) though not necessarily in the Western kind of "God," qualifies one as "religious," then yes, Buddhism is religious. But then, some sort of belief in the supernatural is not absent from any ideology except something like radical Materialism. For example, many people believe in the real existence of non-material entities like souls, meaning, morals, etc., but I don't know if you want to call them "religious"...maybe you do.

To me a religion would involve some kind of worship or reverence of the supernatural element of that belief system. Just believing is some supernatural element would not be enough.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it's a kind of "potato-potahto" thing, if you know what I mean.

You can call it "soul extinction" or "reabsorption," or whatever, but it's an attempt to get at a single idea. In fact, Buddhists often resort to analogy, since precise labels are hard in regard to Nirvana.

For example, they use the example of a candle being blown out, or of a water droplet dispersing into the ocean -- one minute the flame has distinct identity and then next it doesn't; one minute the water droplet is itself, and the next it is gone into a greater oneness. In the same way, the personal identity or "soul" is present, and the next it's gone into the Great Oneness...

Is that better than "extinction"? Hard to say. It's the end of desire, which is the thing Buddhists posit as the problem with the world, and it's the transcending of materiality, which is also supposed to be good; but it's also the end of the individual identity...so...?

Now to the second message...

...it is still my understanding that the one-mind was superior to and something to which the Buddhist aspired to be joined with. In my understanding that would place the one-mind above everything else much like the Gods of other religions.

Again, you've got a similarity, but not a profound one. It's not sufficiently informative to be useful. What sort of "God" is this "One-Mind"? Is it a "Force"? Is it a Person? (No, I believe is the answer in Buddhism) Is it a fragmented unity, like the Many-gods-in-One of Hinduism? Is it the monolithic, singular Allah, who famously "has no son"? Or is it the Triune God of Christians?

These are mutually-exclusive possibilities, in many cases, so it's got to be one or the other, or else none of the above; but as Aristotle showed, it cannot be all of them at once. (Law of Non-Contradiction)

So again, to say, "They all have some conception of a god or gods" is true but is not telling us much...certainly not telling us they're all essentially the same in core value.

And third message:

To me a religion would involve some kind of worship or reverence of the supernatural element of that belief system. Just believing is some supernatural element would not be enough.

Well agreed...but I think it's even more than that. For you see, one could worship Molech, who said "Burn your children for me," or Pharaoh, who said, "Throw your male children into the river," or Jesus who said, "Let the children come to me, and don't prevent them; for of such is the Kingdom of God." But the mere fact of "worshipping" something doesn't tell us which to do. And any god that wants either of the former is certainly not the God who says the latter.