Gloria:
Wow....okay...on my way to packing our bags for Florida but definitely wanted to share my thoughts.
Oops, sorry. In my defense, you did ask. :-) I know I talk (write) too much.I agree with a lot of what you have said. I still firmly believe in Buddhism for many reasons. The main one being that it does not depend on an entity such as God as a source of happiness and well being. I've spent most of my time in the past few years trying to better understand the Four Noble Truths (which I'm sure you already know revolves around suffering and enlightenment from the suffering.) There is a lot of logic and reasoning (to me) regarding understanding the root of suffering and its relationship in the world.
In brief, Buddhism essentially sees the root of man's problem to be suffering caused by desire/attachment. Obviously, I am leaving out a lot of stuff with a one line summary, but I think I am being fair.
I personally find it hard to believe in the all-powerfulness of God (no personal offense to anyone intended) when I see the level of suffering in our world. Logically, if God is loving and caring for us all, how do we explain the wars, poverty, terminal illnesses, etc. as well as the intolerant understanding of the different religions and homosexuality that is so prevalent in our worlds. No, I do not thing "he" is neglecting us nor do I think that "he" is merely allowing us to make our way to "him".
In short (and I would love to go into this further), the existence of *evil* is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a transcendant, personal God who demands goodness.
If you don't mind my baiting the hook and asking you to swallow, would you please give me the definition of evil? I don't mean give me *examples* of evil (war, murder, etc.), but the *defintion* of evil. No, I am not playng a word trick or debate tactic on you, but am trying the socratic method to demonstrate that when we use the word evil, we have something specific in mind. I don't want to give away too much right now.
Again, I am not playing a game nor am I trying to "win" by using fancy arguments to twist anyone into knots.
The Problem of Evil is a very important one that deserves careful consideration. However, I must state in advance that there is a big difference between fairly resolving the issue on a logical/rational level, and resolving it on an emotional level. For the sake of argument, I may have the correct rational answer to the problem of evil and the existence of a good, loving, omnipotent God and still have a very difficult time with the same issue on an emotional level when my mother died of colon cancer (Friday, 10:46 am, April 26th, 1991).
Both are extremely important, but for different reasons. Once understood (and it isn't difficult, despite what modern philosophers claim), the existence of evil is one of the most powerful reasons to believe on a powerful, loving God, but if my son were to be killed for whatever reason, I would have almost insurmountable problems. (Hence the wise Buddhist blessing that says, basically, "May you die before your children, and may your children die before their children.")
On the flip side, I also know that miracles of all sorts happen and they cannot be explained by the level of technology and knowledge that we have today. This is my crossroads. If there is something or someone out there "watching over us", how, why and when does "he" chose to help on only specific occassions and not on other occassions that are of equal importance?
The most difficult thing I struggle with, and I believe Jesus rose from the dead with the same certainty I believe George Washington was our first president, is why does "God" seem to intervene in one situation, but not intervene in another that is just as worthy. However, coming from my perspective the real difficulty (for me, at this point) is not God's existence, but God's character.
With Buddhism...I work on myself and how to help those around me. One of the first steps advised by the Dalai Lama to achieving enlightenment is "helping others. If you cannot help others then at the very least you can do no harm to others."
And that is reason 10,927 why I would like the Dalai Lama as my nextdoor neighbor. Not only is he a great guy, but he seems like the kind of guy who enjoys these sort of discussions I like to have.
Obviously, I still have a lot to work in that realm. One of my largest offense being devisive talk.
Join the club.
Mind if I mention something I learned from a Rabbi? No, you don't mind. Great! Thanks!
The Rabbi makes the point that the saying, sticks and stones may hurt your bones, but words will never hurt you is a big fat lie and everyone knows it.
Gloria, I can guarantee that unless I am physically attacked someday, the worst pain I will receive in my life will be from soneone's words. I am pretty sure that is true for nearly all of us. (Of course, I am excluding physical attacks.)
Then the Rabbi mentioned that when he counsels married couples, he asks them, "If I truly did offer you 1 million dollars to curb your mean speach to each other by 50% for the next six months, do you think you could accomlish that?" When the couple answers Yes (and they all do), then the Rabbi asks, "But you won't do it for a relationship that is worth far more than 1 million dollars?"
I agree with you. I do not want to use religion as a crutch....I want it to be part of who I am. I have made decisions, good and bad, for many years now without the assistance of religion as a reason for my choices. Logic and common sense have been my motivators. Emotion has been my catalyst. I defintely don't presume to say that I fully understand any religion or that any one religion is right.
Understood. I know and understand exactly where you are coming from.
That's why I really don't understand waring countries that fight over religion. Why can't they coexist?
Since I don't believe all religions teach the same thing (they don't), I don't have a problem having reasoned disputes with other people. That's called discussion and persuasion.
But to murder in the name of God is, from the perspective of Judaism and Christianity, is the height of blasphemy. In fact, in the ten commandments, the commandment to "not take God's name in vain" is not a prohibition against swearing using God's name, but means to not "bear God's name in vain" and is a prohibition against doing evil in God's name. In fact, this commandment declares that God will not forgive someone who does this.
This does not mean that if a bunch of Christians formed an army to make war on the Nazi's and free Jews from extermination, that they have violated this commandment. It does mean, however, that Christian Inquisitors or Muslim sucide bombers are in a great deal of trouble on Judgment Day.
One should not pose any harm or ill-will on any other. Agree to disagree, right?
Naturally you and I don't agree on everything. If you and I agreed on everything, one of us would be unnecessary!
I'm sure you've read this email and found many fallacies, flaws or lack of understanding within it.
Even if there were, I am not interested in logic tricks to twist people into knots. I am not interested in spiritual king-of-the-hill. As though somehow I find a fancy argument that you haven't considered and then I can declare myself the winner. That is not how Jesus behaved, so I hardly have license to do so either.
Personally, I don't mind. I'm open to what you have to say, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will "win me over" to your beliefs.
Totally understood. When I mentioned that at the beginning of my last email, it was not as though I expected any such changes to happen. I did that in the interests of full discloser and honesty.
Just that it's nice that we agree on the necessity of the logical side of things and that we are both mature adults enough to agree to disagree when we don't see eye to eye. Will that change the way I view our friendship? Sure....I've gained a lot more admiration and respect for you over this past week.
Oh good lord, now I have gotten to be "respectable." Now I am getting old!
I think I've gotten to know you just a little bit better and understand you a little bit more. I've truly enjoyed it. So, please....tell me more.....
P.S. Regarding the elephant....I do not agree with the Raj that all men are only partially correct. Based on the information that they have, they are correct.
I get your point, but certainly there is a limit. For example, both atheists and theists cannot be right?
We know very little of the origin and validity of the Bible, but it is the center of so many religions. Based on the information we know and that we have, it is a valid text of God and is treated as such. Whose to say we are wrong? No one can prove it.
There are over 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament that verify the validity and accuracy of the text. No other, and I mean no other text of similar antiquity has anywhere near the supporting evidence and reliability as the NT documents. In fact, the entire histories of Alexander the Great, Cesar Augustus, Roman Wars, etc., stuff that historians take for granted to be true, rest on less than 5% of the evidence available for the NT.
In my opinion, we have no Raj in our world that can tell us one way or another that the truth that we now know is whole or incomplete.
If you know this, then you are the Raj!
Jarrod -- Our truth changes with each new fact we learn.Truth is subjective just as happiness and understanding are.
Is that an objective truth claim I see? An objective truth claim that claims there is no objective truth? (Not a word trick here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment