HopperUK posted:what's happening Sounds like some dodgy eastern affectation to me, like red carpet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
HopperUK posted:what's happening once orthodoxy assimilates greek philosophy, there will be huge hats for all
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Sounds like some dodgy eastern affectation to me, like red carpet. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that bling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
The beauty of postmodernity is that we can hold to tradition and still buy into PROCESS THEOLOGY 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:is that not the entire point of the sudden enlightenment school Eh, different things are at play here. There's definitely stuff I struggle with in Buddhist scripture but when we struggle with texts it's not because the texts aren't clear or because there's a message there somewhere that we don't know what it is; rather, it's because we're deluded and ignorant that we don't get it. The koan system is about having the student wrestle with a story until they demonstrate a realization. Realization doesn't come from the stories, the stories are tests. The famous question of the sound of one hand clapping has answers that show where the student is. Basically I'm uncertain it's a fair comparison. That said, I'm also not sure that the approach to Christian scripture is being made correctly by zidan. I mean, "I'm not going to believe humility is a good thing just because some guy said so" isn't really a reasonable approach. If we're talking about nearness to God in prayer, then the whole discussion is moot for an atheist. But that said, rejecting it entirely isn't great. The idea that Jesus is presenting, that motivation and intent defines action more than ostentation and publicity, is certainly a valid and important one. As encouragement for the common people outside the priestly class this is really fantastic advice. Even as a Buddhist I can take comfort in that idea because the idea that my prayers are heard despite that I'm not a high lama all in robes and such is an important support of my practice. If you're genuinely curious about why humility is good tho I would say that it's because it diminishes ego grasping and clinging and encourages the development of altruistic motivation to benefit others before ourselves. Because true happiness comes from giving happiness, developing humility is an important first step. If we are very arrogant this is also a barrier to learning as our approach to new information is very different from as perspective of humility rather than one of authority. So basically humility is super important and just because the Christian scriptures merely point out that fact rather than engage in the discussion of why doesn't make it less important, nor does it invalidate Jesus's saying it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:i don't know but i do know "believing things because they're in scripture" is a preeeetty big thing for shin buddhists The ko'ans generally aren't supposed to teach you about morality, they just shock people into sudden enlightenment (actually there's different interpretations about what they're for, but they're not life advice from God). As for the Pure Land argument, I don't know about your tradition (don't know too much about Japanese traditions in general tbh), but the Pure Land guys I read do have rational arguments about why they're praying to Amitabha, and also, again that's not the source of their moral teachings. If you completely ignore the nonrational claims of Buddhism the other stuff still makes sense on it's own, that's the whole point of modern "skeptical Buddhism" which is a pretty big thing in the west. Lutha Mahtin posted:i think my advice to you would honestly be to stop with the Orientalism I keep using Buddhist and Confucian stuff as examples because that's what I spend most my time studying, so I'm afraid I can't acquiesce to your request without switching careers. Also I just think these traditions are comparable by nature. WerrWaaa posted:It's also a pre-enlightenment text. You can't expect rational step-by-step proofs explaining why humility is a virtue. It's taken for granted that humility is a virtue. It's not the job of the text to convince you of that. It may not be rational in the strict sense of the word, but I do get a reasoning for their points from my Zhuangzis and my Mengzis, and they're older than this text. But maybe I'm really asking about something that people in this tradition don't care about much. Maybe taking the bible at it's word for whatever reason really is just axiomatic in Christianity and can't be further reasoned about. Paramemetic, thank you for your response! I don't disagree that humility is good, it's more that the other guy is roundly condemned for feeling good about himself. But that specific text was more of an example, its conclusions don't have to be wrong for it to be badly argued. pidan fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Also contempt for self is dumb because contempt is dumb. Stop having contempt and start being content, is something I might say if I was selling Buddhism on a late night advertisement, and since it's nearly 2AM, that's what you get. But seriously Shantideva spends like a whole chapter talking about how human bodies are the grossest things and only produce filth and death, how all humans are just animated cadavers already rotting, and how seeking any kind of sensory pleasure is the dumbest thing possible and even he stops short of self contempt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
pidan posted:I keep using Buddhist and Confucian stuff as examples because that's what I spend most my time studying, so I'm afraid I can't acquiesce to your request without switching careers. Also I just think these traditions are comparable by nature. Orientalism doesn't mean "things from Far East Asia," orientalism is Westerners misunderstanding the thought and culture of China, Japan, etc with tropes like the "mystic man of the east" or "Daoism teaches love for nature." Wiki post. Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
The Old Testament is chock full of examples of prideful people being ultimately destroyed by their own self-importance or unwillingness to listen to wiser council. In 1 Kings 12 Rehaboam refuses to listen to Solomon's wise elder council when they advise him to lighten the heavy tax/labor burden of his father's administration over the people. His younger advisers suggest he's the King, and what he says should go, no matter how fervently the people want to be relieved. He wants to feel important, so he refuses to humble himself and loses half his Kingdom in the process. As far as a dissection of pride vs humility itself, the best you'd get is in Proverbs. but even those are pretty fragmentary compared to the insinuations given by object lessons and the stories of the lives of people who were either humble or prideful. The basic point that pride in oneself=bad, and humility=good is recurring and consistent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 07:18
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Also contempt for self is dumb because contempt is dumb. Stop having contempt and start being content, is something I might say if I was selling Buddhism on a late night advertisement, and since it's nearly 2AM, that's what you get. He's really here talking about putting yourself before god, you may be focusing a little strongly on the word.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
I'm honestly really confused because that's one of the clearer texts I've ever read and I am a layman (heh) who hasn't set foot in a church for 10 years. speaking of which, what is a good introduction to Christianity? Like I could go to biblegateway.com and go through the texts but that doesn't really help me with my problem of trying to figure out what branch is best for me because I have no idea what things like "Calvinism" are beyond basics and I suppose I could just wikipedia all the specifics but I've gone down that road a couple times and it just leads to me going in circles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
pidan posted:The ko'ans generally aren't supposed to teach you about morality, they just shock people into sudden enlightenment (actually there's different interpretations about what they're for, but they're not life advice from God). Heck in Taiwan you have people who seek to bring about the pure land on earth, which still is a principle guided by the primal vow. So like, yeah it is important for morality. Amida said everyone, not the monks, not the men, not the rich, not the powerful, but everyone. Kinda has moral implications.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:First of all Protestant Buddhism is an aberration and one founded on racism and imperialism imho. Second, the primal vow is actually the foundation for a lot of Jodo Shinshu "morality" (there's a lot of different ideas at play there but the vow and nembutsu are definitely central themes, while the historical necessity of religion in the muramachi, sengoku, Tokugawa, and especially the Meiji restoration periods also have a huge role in shaping how shinshu views the role of morality). Check out takagi kenmyo, in his essay "my socialism" he states that his socialism is derived from the primal vow and not the writing of Marx. OK, I'll believe you that axiomatic faith in texts and founder figures is important to some Buddhists. I just haven't personally met any. Thirteen Orphans posted:Orientalism doesn't mean "things from Far East Asia," orientalism is Westerners misunderstanding the thought and culture of China, Japan, etc with tropes like the "mystic man of the east" or "Daoism teaches love for nature." Orientalism as in the Said book really refers to the Orient, i.e. broadly the majority Muslim regions of west and central Asia. I know that in online anti-racist circles it means "stereotypes about Asia", but I really don't know how what I wrote was about Asia in any way at all 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:He's really here talking about putting yourself before god, you may be focusing a little strongly on the word. I think a lot of people here "contempt for self" and immediately think of full-time denunciation of your own sins and your own wickedness. It's true that there are a number of very holy people who were famous for this, but it's also a practice that's only suitable for people in very advanced stages of monastic life or another spiritual discipline, to counteract the increasing danger of spiritual pride, which is among the worst of sins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
pidan posted:OK, I'll believe you that axiomatic faith in texts and founder figures is important to some Buddhists. I just haven't personally met any. well this is kind of condescending anyway have you considered that maybe the way relying on tradition, texts, and founders in buddhism looks differently than it does in christianity, so that rather than not seeing any you are in fact looking in the wrong place cause we can't exactly prove that siddhartha gaotama either escaped from the cycle of rebirth into nothingness or, from a mahayanna perspective, could move between all realms of reality, read minds, and recall all of his previous lives. or fly, really. how do we know those are things buddhas can do? texts. how do we know siddhartha achieved nirvana? texts. how do we know if we're meditating right? texts. how do we know it's impossible to practice in this lifetime? texts. i think you're underestimating the importance in scriptures in how we should live our lives as buddhists. i mean, five vows? monastic rules? etc etc?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:I think a lot of people here "contempt for self" and immediately think of full-time denunciation of your own sins and your own wickedness. It's true that there are a number of very holy people who were famous for this, but it's also a practice that's only suitable for people in very advanced stages of monastic life or another spiritual discipline, to counteract the increasing danger of spiritual pride, which is among the worst of sins. Oh, that is legit. For us, recognition that we hosed up somehow is implicit because we're reborn in samsara. We must have done something right and something wrong to have a human life. But there's no point to have any kind of self loathing. First we cultivate humility, then we purify our negative actions through regretting the negative actions we've done, relying on the Buddhadharma, actually applying the antidote which is the practice, and then vowing not to repeat the same negative actions. But yeah at no point should this become the destructive emotion of aversion or hatred. Still, the knowledge that we are "sinners," that we have committed impure actions in this life and past lives, is understood as a basic premise - if we were completely free of negative karma we wouldn't have been reborn in the first place. Edit: by way of preventing spiritual pride, monks are actually taught to always look at a gathering of monks and think "I am the worst monk here." All Buddhists in my lineage are taught to view everyone else as a Buddha and to regard others as our superiors. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
pidan posted:OK, I'll believe you that axiomatic faith in texts and founder figures is important to some Buddhists. I just haven't personally met any. To be totally honest the vast majority of boots on the ground Buddhists in northern India in my experience believe that the texts are all true because if Buddha said it, it must be true. Although Buddha himself taught to try out everything he taught to ensure it is true ("test the lama like a merchant tests gold") in actual practice cultural lay practitioners tend not to do this. Because of the emphasis on education monastics tend to be able to reason towards why a given teaching is important but they don't start from a position of skepticism. The problem of monks believing everything they've read the Buddha said was actually addressed by the head of my lineage recently when he called for the need to establish actual scriptural authority whenever citing the Buddha's teachings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:anyway have you considered that maybe the way relying on tradition, texts, and founders in buddhism looks differently than it does in christianity, so that rather than not seeing any you are in fact looking in the wrong place If you want to discuss the role of texts in Buddhism more, maybe we should take this to the Buddhism thread. I was comparing the practitioners of Buddhism that I've talked to to the practicing Christians I know; maybe the difference isn't really due to the nature of the religions but some other factor. Paramemetic posted:To be totally honest the vast majority of boots on the ground Buddhists in northern India in my experience believe that the texts are all true because if Buddha said it, it must be true. Although Buddha himself taught to try out everything he taught to ensure it is true ("test the lama like a merchant tests gold") in actual practice cultural lay practitioners tend not to do this. Because of the emphasis on education monastics tend to be able to reason towards why a given teaching is important but they don't start from a position of skepticism. I think most people in any belief system don't really question the foundations of their system, but Buddhism has a pretty solid discourse about this starting from the oldest scriptures, while Christianity just doesn't seem to. Even in modern Christianity, you can make a solid philosophical case for a personal God and a trinity and a God who lives as a human being in history. But then they just say "and that's Jesus", and that seems like a huge jump to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
okay even when i was catholic i knew there was no logical explanation for a trinitarian god so you're gonna have to expound on why that doesn't seem like a leap to say that there's one god but also three but not REALLY three but not NOT really three etc etc walking the white line between different heresies also it's not really a logical leap since jesus in tradition was conceived by the power of the holy spirit, died, and came back on the third day. and then ascended to heaven is important also i think. basically the whole jesus tradition is very explicit about jesus being god (or, well, important in the case of some heretical thinkers)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
pidan posted:If you want to discuss the role of texts in Buddhism more, maybe we should take this to the Buddhism thread. I was comparing the practitioners of Buddhism that I've talked to to the practicing Christians I know; maybe the difference isn't really due to the nature of the religions but some other factor. Fair, for example all of the Buddhist sutras literally start with "when Buddha was staying at [place] he taught to [people]...." So the establishment of historicity is clear. And beyond that a huge number of the vinaya teachings are responses to monks doing this or that, so their reasoning is clear. That, and the tradition of debate and discourse, certainly help. It also helps that we're not limited to the exact book but also to commentaries by other accomplished ones. quote:Even in modern Christianity, you can make a solid philosophical case for a personal God and a trinity and a God who lives as a human being in history. But then they just say "and that's Jesus", and that seems like a huge jump to me. Well the historical leap is not a leap to them at the time of writing, because they weren't several thousand years removed. Though the Gospels weren't written by direct apostles they were written by guys who knew the apostles, probably, or at least were written in a timely enough fashion such that they could identify the guy. I mean, I would say probably the historical accuracy of which middle Eastern dude 2000 years ago was the Messiah is much less important than the lessons being taught but that's probably a minority opinion, though I'd say that historicity is less important than one's personal relation with God right now, and I imagine that's agreeable. The Bible isn't meant as a series of teaching discourses however. There certainly are good things in there - both versions of the Beatitudes, etc., but it's not really intended to be a book of teachings as the moral rights and wrongs are pretty straightforward. The goal is also notably less sophisticated and simpler than "try to attain liberation, idiot, here's how" that we get in Buddhism. So there's significantly less need for discourse. Do unto others... Is basically sufficient and summarizes the correct actions pretty well. No need to talk about the skandhas and establish a person as naturally without self or so on. So the need for a discourse tradition is much less, and yet still it exists outside the Bible itself - Augustine, Aquinas, the Catechism, and so on are all discourses and philosophy that establish the church doctrines. While "hey it's not in the Bible, checkmate idiot" works well for solo scriptura guys like that baptist seminarian from last thread, it really doesn't apply to liturgical Christians who like scriptural primacy and yet definitely accept and use the texts of scholars as authoritative on discourse. So basically I guess what I'm saying is that the Bible not carrying the discourse tradition of liturgical Christianity is less of a problem of the Bible and more of a problem of solo scriptura. And it only just occurred to me that this isn't a liturgical only thread anymore and so that last paragraph is less pertinent, but I hope it's helpful to explain why you're getting some of the answers you are in here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Well the historical leap is not a leap to them at the time of writing, because they weren't several thousand years removed. Though the Gospels weren't written by direct apostles they were written by guys who knew the apostles, probably, or at least were written in a timely enough fashion such that they could identify the guy. I think this is on point. I'll add that I like to contemplate how the message of Jesus must have exchanged hands from follower to follower to get to me. It must be an incredibly complicated web of relationships and teachings and imperfect but sincere understanding of a god that is omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. To me, this is the mystery of faith. I'd also argue that gospel of Jesus is most powerfully transmitted through love, which is going to be a personal experience characterized by the loved ones in your life, and this is going to be a much more important driver than any philosophical or spiritual contemplation can arrive at. To quote Dr. Cornel West, "I am who I am because somebody loved me, somebody cared for me, somebody attended to me." The litany of people who have loved me and their relationship to God is foundational to my identity as a Christian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:The restorationist movement was a product of the second Great Awakening; the movement was led by Alexander Campbell in the north and Barton Stone in the south, both of whom kinda came to the same conclusions (restoring the church to AD 33 based solely on the Bible) and they linked up later. About a hundred years since that whole mess started, Oneness Pentecostals kinda grabbed a whole bunch of ideas and theology from the Campbellites, leading them to reject the Trinity 'cause it's difficult to prove its existence from scripture alone and they were returning to the Bible as the sole source of authority. After your original post, I went and read up on the Campellites. Very interesting. The second Great Awakening (and the first) are really enjoyable to read about. Lots of the religious equivalent of convergent evolution going on. Hey, pidan, what's your interest in Eastern religions based in? Are you a practitioner? Philosophy student? You can PM me if you think it's too much of a derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Pidan you've read the Beatitudes obviously. The verse you quoted is in line with the eschatological character of Christ. Those who are least in this world will become greatest in the next, etc. so that's why those who humble themselves in this world will become exalted in the next, and those who exalt themselves in this world will become humbled in the next. I mean I'm still kinda confused about what your objection is. Like, the Bible does not logically argue for its own existence whereas the sutras do?Man Whore posted:I'm honestly really confused because that's one of the clearer texts I've ever read and I am a layman (heh) who hasn't set foot in a church for 10 years. TVTropes, of all places, is a pretty good resource for this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Yes, pidan, I know it's also the mid east, but I was clarifying what Lutha Mahtin was accusing you of specifically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Is Protestantism Midwestern
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Is Protestantism Midwestern
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
pidan posted:If you want to discuss the role of texts in Buddhism more, maybe we should take this to the Buddhism thread. I was comparing the practitioners of Buddhism that I've talked to to the practicing Christians I know; maybe the difference isn't really due to the nature of the religions but some other factor. This post encapsulates a lot of what I think you're doing wrong in your approach. You said in another post that you study Buddhism. This is cool and good, and I think it's important to keep in mind, because the impression that I get from your recent posts is that you are someone who has recently discovered this shiny new intellectual thing that excites you, and you are now trying to hammer the square peg of Buddhism into the round hole of unrelated philosophical and religious traditions, instead of going and learning about another tradition until you understand it from within the framework of the other tradition itself. (Side note: Parable of the Sower amirite folks? :iamafag:) I think a good example of this is how you mention that the function of texts in Buddhism is maybe a derail here in this thread, because to me I think the opposite is true. Your recent posts here include what sound to me like odd and inaccurate assumptions about the role of texts within Christianity, so I think it's important to consider your view of how texts function within the tradition that you are probably basing some of these assumptions on. My only real exposure to Buddhist texts is indirect, as filtered through the Dharma talks at a Vipassana meditation center I go to occasionally, but if the teachers I've heard are representative of any significant portion of Buddhism, I don't understand how or why one could make some of the comparisons and distinctions that you are making. The Bible is sort of the main "primary source" text for all of Christianity, while my understanding is that there is not really an equivalent thing for all of Buddhism; instead, in Buddhism you have more variations on texts, more commentaries on texts, and less-strict/less-all-encompassing canonization of texts. Christianity certainly has textual variations, commentaries, and disagreements about canonization, of course, but these often don't function the same way within Christianity that the Buddhist ones function within Buddhism. And even in cases where they do function in similar ways, it can be to a different degree, or it can be the case that what appears similar in isolation actually works much differently overall once you step back and look at how it interacts with other parts of the respective tradition(s). Another thing that stands out to me is your assertion that Christianity doesn't have skeptical or critical discourse about itself, and Buddhism does. Now, this is certainly an argument that a person could make. However, in this post I'm quoting you seem to present as a somewhat-significant point in your favor the fact that "Christians usually just say 'yeah, Jesus is totally the guy who's the human part of the Trinity'" (n.b. not direct quote). This little nugget of yours is, quite frankly, such a weak thing to put forward that many Christians would be offended by it if they didn't understand the weird direction you're trying to come at the issue from. And I would again say that your direction is one of taking issue X in Buddhism that you understand, and trying to clobber issue Y in Christianity with it, because you think issue Y is equivalent to issue X. So while your comparison makes sense internally, it is ultimately invalid because the premise of X=Y is not a correct assumption. And the reason it is incorrect is because Christianity has a long and rich history of skepticism and arguments about core doctrinal issues. For the issue of Jesus being part of the Trinity, there are in fact many aspects of this that people disagree on, and asking a couple of random Christians about it does not give you the authority nor the necessary information to loudly conclude you completely understand it and can correctly compare it to something in a completely unrelated religion. And for the issue of biblical authority, I would respond to you by asking how a person could possibly explain almost any significant part of Christian history without spending a good deal of time talking about disagreements over the role of the Bible, its authority, its authorship, and its canonization. I don't really have a focused, central thesis to all this, and while a lot of this will probably come across as super critical and blunt, I really am just trying to give you some knowledge about the things that you're asking for. And I guess my conclusion thus far is that you are asking really broad questions that require using a lot of Christian theory and tradition in order to talk about accurately, yet it seems like you either (a) aren't familiar with some of it, and/or (b) misunderstand some of it, because it seems like you're blindly sameing aspects of two very large, diverse, and old religions, and then when you get a weird result from doing this, you act confused and skeptical about the one religion you aren't as familiar with. So my advice would be to study Christianity more, and stop trying to think that you can compare it with Buddhism in the same way that you can compare two carries in a MOBA or something. Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I don't really have a focused, central thesis to all this, and while a lot of this will probably come across as super critical and blunt, I really am just trying to give you some knowledge about the things that you're asking for. And I guess my conclusion thus far is that you are asking really broad questions that require using a lot of Christian theory and tradition in order to talk about accurately, yet it seems like you either (a) aren't familiar with some of it, and/or (b) misunderstand some of it, because it seems like you're blindly sameing aspects of two very large, diverse, and old religions, and then when you get a weird result from doing this, you act confused and skeptical about the one religion you aren't as familiar with. So my advice would be to study Christianity more, and stop trying to think that you can compare it with Buddhism in the same way that you can compare two carries in a MOBA or something. Ecumenicism is hard enough within Christendom, even more so with different religious traditions, and even more so across the bridge of monotheism to . . . whatever Buddhism is, since we can't even decide on that ourselves. I think pidan has a pretty good academic understanding of Buddhism and he's taking the fight abroad, which I cannot really attack too much since I myself did that with the evangelical thread not long ago - although I did try to do it from within the framework of Christian apologetics. And, incidentally, the best thing to come out of that was not only my introduction to this thread but also some really great responses from the liturgical crowd that I found really enjoyable and well informed and quite reasonable. (Incidentally, still waiting on my mother to produce some of her PhD papers for me haha) But to this point, I think it relates also to a general lack of knowledge of the breadth of field of Christian source documents. If you're going purely sola scriptura without allowing for either the oral tradition that follows from that, or the commentaries, or the sermons, and especially if you're ignoring the history of the early church fathers and the establishment of the currently (generally) accepted doctrine over the course of nearly 2000 years, then you're hobbling yourself when you're approaching Christianity. I would not, for example, look only to the Bible if I'm trying to learn about the Trinity. I'd look at the huge body of theological work that has surrounded that topic (and then I'd realize it was all straw and become a mystic, which I did lmao). The Bible is simply not the only or best document for Christian theology, rather it's the source from which Christianity arises. It would be as if to take only The Pairs from the Dhammapada, and then go "but how do we arrive at the concept of emptiness and the selflessness of self and others? How do we know Buddha had bodhicitta and was a bodhisattva?" So basically I think that not only is the issue that he's sameing different religions with different traditions and ways of functioning and so on, but he's doing so while missing out on a huge body of information that is really, really important. You simply can't get to the neo-Platonic and Aristotelian origins of how the transubstantiation of Eucharist works versus the concept of consubstantiation when you're just looking at the Bible. If you try to go sola scriptura you're gonna have a bad time with the meat and potatoes of Christian theology. That said I think it's super important to try not to get too caught up in the details - it's not hard to get lost in the scholarship and forget about cultivating that mystic experience which is what I'm all about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Comparative Theology requires us to understand a religion's theological history/framework/etc from their own perspective. Only then can they ask one another questions from each other's perspective, and even then the comparative theologian must be aware how this question is received by the other tradition. For example, the work I was doing in the ontological question of Deification and Tathāgatagarbha theory. When a Christian says "I am deified and become as God" there are things they mean and things they definitely DO NOT. As is true when some Buddhist teachers say our essential nature is Buddha-Nature. (Even within the Tibetan framework it is argued if that is even an ontological statement at all.) So when we start to ask one tradition questions from another, we have to keep in mind that some frameworks simply don't exist in the other tradition. Mo Tzu frequently chides me when I ask her questions like "What is Jodo Shinsu's theory of revelation?" because the first answer is "it doesn't have one because that's not a framework [her] tradition has" but when you change the question to, "Why are the scriptures held most highly in the Shinsu school more true or more important than the others?" THEN you can have comparative dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:That said I think it's super important to try not to get too caught up in the details - it's not hard to get lost in the scholarship and forget about cultivating that mystic experience which is what I'm all about. This is why I love Aquinas, because for how academic and goony he really was, the man had a prayer life that anchored everything in reality. Look at the office he composed for Corpus Christi. It's all super doctrinal, yet full of obvious love. Going back a few posts, but I want to state my belief in the historical authenticity of the gospel writers. St. Matthew the Apostle wrote the gospel of St. Matthew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Marjoe is a pretty good doc to watch if you want to better understand Pentecostal scams
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
i didn't know owen wilson was pentecostal
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:i didn't know owen wilson was pentecostal actually I think it's Cheers era Woody Harrelson e: except with a fro 2e: also here's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZejYD0EdLXk a good example of why religious literacy is important. so you get jokes from 80s sitcoms. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:that's all western christianities, so to escape from that idea you want orthodoxy (avoid russian theologians, they also believe we're innately tainted) You really have to be specific regarding what Russian theologians you are talking about
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:TVTropes, of all places, is a pretty good resource for this.  I did learn that I am hardcore allergic to Calvinism though, Free will is very important to me and the concept of predestination kind of makes me confused as to why man having free will actually matters. Man Whore fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:This post encapsulates a lot of what I think you're doing wrong in your approach. You said in another post that you study Buddhism. This is cool and good, and I think it's important to keep in mind, because the impression that I get from your recent posts is that you are someone who has recently discovered this shiny new intellectual thing that excites you, and you are now trying to hammer the square peg of Buddhism into the round hole of unrelated philosophical and religious traditions, instead of going and learning about another tradition until you understand it from within the framework of the other tradition itself. (Side note: Parable of the Sower amirite folks? :iamafag:) Thank you for writing this thoughtful answer. I think I may have posed the question in a way that put the focus on the wrong aspects. I'm not trying to do comparative theology, I just picked an example of a tradition that is also old, also focuses on spiritual things and yet does certain things very differently. Maybe that was comparing apples to oranges a bit, but when I know apples and wish to understand oranges, maybe starting with apple-based assumptions is OK? quote:The Bible is sort of the main "primary source" text for all of Christianity, while my understanding is that there is not really an equivalent thing for all of Buddhism; instead, in Buddhism you have more variations on texts, more commentaries on texts, and less-strict/less-all-encompassing canonization of texts. That's exactly the problem: The Bible is and always will be one of the most important source texts of Christianity, because it is thought to be the account of the one time God lived as a human and practiced his salvation work. But when you read the New Testament, its mostly stories about Jesus ranting against the Establishment, and Paul writing letters to ask for donations. Basically what happened is, I read some Bible to find some sort of relationship with Jesus, and it turns out maybe I don't like him that much, even though his friends talk really highly of him. Or maybe it's that the sermons of Jesus read like a commentary on first century Israeli politics, and not so much a guide on things that are relevant today. It has lots of texts like these: Bible posted:37As Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee invited Him to dine with him; so He went in and reclined at the table. 38But the Pharisee was astonished to see that Jesus did not first wash before the meal. Although reading it in the light of your other answers, I guess this does give a necessary context for the rest of his teachings. But then again, is it helpful for each generation to have to understand the political situation of Jesus' lifetime in order to understand what is supposed to be the teachings of God? Traditionally, I guess most people didn't read the Bible, but rather the Church did and then broke down what they considered to be the message. Like, I went to a museum about the first Irish monks in what is now Germany, and they didn't take a Bible on their mission trips, just their missals. But modern Christianity does seem to argue that personal engagement with the Bible is important, even in non Sola Scriptura denominations. This post is all over the place, but I really feel like I'm working towards some sort of understanding here, thank you Christianity thread goons for indulging me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 08:57
|
|
pidan posted:Although reading it in the light of your other answers, I guess this does give a necessary context for the rest of his teachings. But then again, is it helpful for each generation to have to understand the political situation of Jesus' lifetime in order to understand what is supposed to be the teachings of God? There is no such thing as an archetectonic statement, outside of and away from context. Every utterance is an action made in a specific time and place, under a specific set of circumstances. To have a deep understanding of any utterance you have to have a deep regard for the context of the utterance.That is true even of religions that have a scriptural tradition more dependent on direct commandment and law (Judaism, Islam) and is yet more true of Christianity. If you were a educated person in Christendom, historically, that meant a pretty hefty religious education that would have made a person conversant with contextual historical elements w/r/t the bible but more especially gloss and commentary on the scripture and philosophy that helps to underpin a number of its concepts. If you were an ordinary person, you still regularly attended religious ceremonies and were part of a community of the faithful with a tradition.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
AmyL posted:You really have to be specific regarding what Russian theologians you are talking about
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:Thanks, after giving this a read and some of my personal research I have come to the conclusion that the best branch for me is... Free Will Baptist, the branch that my childhood church belonged to  i was raised catholic and when i converted to something else i was all "but there's got to be ritual, ritual is essential. and saints."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
Jesus was (according to the gospels) a specific man living at a specific time and place. Of course a lot of what he said was specific and seems obscure to us today. Reading the Bible for me is all about context. I got myself a study bible (Harper Collins) and I'm slowly working through it, because I loving love footnotes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 12:56
|
|
