Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

@igm,

igm wrote:

My point was it seems that conmen are always caught because we only record them as conmen 'because' they were caught. Those who remain undetected are naturally free from being called conmen and free from being caught.

In Buddhism it is taught that the conman/woman would damage their own mind and that will eventually cause suffering because it is at odds with the natural way the mind is. It is the consequence of cause and effect. Negative actions must give rise to negative effects. This makes more sense if one believes in reincarnation i.e. believing that the mind-stream is unstoppable. A conman would be reborn in a place and with circumstances that suit his/her mental dispositions if that karma is dominant in that lifetime. They will suffer due to having conned others in the past. They cannot escape their actions i.e. their karma.

No need for a god to punish they punish themselves due to the damage they inflict on their own mind-stream.

I use to think karma was the ultimate problem solver but I don't any more. There is a problem with it. I think a huge majority of people who do wrong actually don't consider themselves doing any wrong. They assume they are in the right. If your mind is assuming that you are always doing good with yoru actions then by all means why would karma effect your mind or become a corrective experience? It wouldn't.

This is why the most important thing is to be skeptical of all claims, not matter how insignificant they may be. Then it is everyones duty to challenge those who make claims. If those claims hold water, then by all means they should be looked as supportable. We should never avoid checking someones homework and assuming they are doing good and that they have valid arguments when they haven't been checked throughly. This is where all the conmen reside. They prey on people who refuse to check the validity of their claims.

It is all our duties to challenge every and anyone who makes claims that have not been throughly checked or confirmed. If you can't or don't want to check, then by all means you shouldn't accept what is being sold until you can take the time to do so.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

OMG duh, blonde in me.. Off course, now where do you plug them in? Smile

Birthday, June is sooner than Christmas ..

And, now OMG, ok I watched it, firstly.. RL congrats, a 2 min video yay, just kidding. But, I'm crying, or was from laughter... What a classic.

PLEASE everyone watch this one, take Jesus or the representation of man out of it, tut, tut RL Smile

But just the song itself verse the ending hahahahahahahaha..

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I wonder how Ryan is doing, I have not heard from him in a few days.

Actually, I was going to write something simular just then on the last post but got side tracked from laughing...

Also, I am worried about anyone going without sleep for so many hours... I assume that, that has run its course and he's doing a 24hr sleep.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

The word 'karma' just means action. Every action is a cause that must have an effect. When it comes to mind the motivation behind an action has a mitigating influence but in the end it's just cause and effect.

Karma is a conventional truth teaching. Ultimately any action done while having misunderstood reality's true nature will eventually lead to suffering; even actions designed to bring happiness... because happiness is temporary and must end only to be replaced by the easier to come by suffering. Again these conventional teachings only work out fully if the mind-stream is unstoppable.

So Karma is not about what humans believe is a just outcome; it's what effect must happen due to a collection of causes and conditions (whatever that might be) ... the outcome is inevitable and actions that work against the true nature of reality lead to an alienation from it and that is what we conventionally call 'suffering'.

2 Replies

@igm,

What sort of actions work against the true nature of reality? What are we supposed to do to reduce suffering?

If a theology was based on that and had been worked out over many centuries by men who step outside society by their vows, and I'm not concerned if they are occasionally broken, and who are clever enough to become fluent in Latin sufficiently to communicate in it and make it sing, we would have the Catholic Church.

I think we use "force" which Dante called virtu or vital force. Chaucer says "of which virtue engendered is the flour". In Medieval Latin virtutes means miracles.

The Church spells out what the actions are that work against the true nature of reality. Or what it thinks they are. And everybody has a free choice about whether to agree or not except those with a hard on.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

The word 'karma' just means action. Every action is a cause that must have an effect. When it comes to mind the motivation behind an action has a mitigating influence but in the end it's just cause and effect.

Karma is a conventional truth teaching. Ultimately any action done while having misunderstood reality's true nature will eventually lead to suffering; even actions designed to bring happiness... because happiness is temporary and must end only to be replaced by the easier to come by suffering. Again these conventional teachings only work out fully if the mind-stream is unstoppable.

So Karma is not about what humans believe is a just outcome; it's what effect must happen due to a collection of causes and conditions (whatever that might be) ... the outcome is inevitable and actions that work against the true nature of reality lead to an alienation from it and that is what we conventionally call 'suffering'.

I know what karma is. I am saying it doesn't work how it is discribed. It would require some third system to actually make it work but there is no third system.

I am saying a person can get away with horrible things if they think their actions were not negative or bad and if no one discovers their actions. This shows that the concept of karma does not work.

If a person believes that they are doing good by their actions they won't feel any guilt for their actions. The only way they could realize they did something bad were if there was a third system that was involved and pressed the guilt onto them or made them realize their actions were wrong. This doesn't happen.

If a person were to discover this persons actions then they could impress upon this person they have done something wrong. However; if they never get discovered then by all means they would live out a conscious free life.

This shows that karma is only useful when two things are true. The person commiting the actions have a conscious towards these actions and secondly that others are witnesses to these actions. Without these two premises there are people who can get away with horrible things and not feel bad or haunted by their actions.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

What sort of actions work against the true nature of reality? What are we supposed to do to reduce suffering?

Ultimately we have to stop misunderstanding reality's true nature which is beyond elaboration.. so if we believe that elaboration will lead to freedom from suffering.. it won't. Conventionally Buddha taught there is no truly existent self so the actions that work against the true nature of reality in the conventional sense are 'selfish' actions. To reduce suffering conventionally we work at continually decreasing selfishness.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Conventionally Buddha taught there is no truly existent self ...

Is there any chance that the Buddha was wrong on this?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

My thought exactly. If there is no existent self, how can anyone be selfish? As with all religions, the true believers can't seem to see the contradictions.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

My thought exactly. If there is no existent self, how can anyone be selfish? As with all religions, the true believers can't seem to see the contradictions.

I have explained this before.

People don't understand what the buddha meant by this statement.

The reason he says there is no self is because of the characteristics of what would make up a self. He says there are no characteristics that stay the same constantly. Since nothing stays constantly how can you then nail it down as being real? You can't.

So give me a characteristic of a self that remains the same for ever.

The answer to this question is why he came to the conclusion that the self is really just an illusion. It is an illusion based upon the idea that we are beings that never change.

It is like water in a river. The water in a river is constantly changing, it is never the same water. Yet we give the river a name as if it is always the same. It's not the same, so naming a river is actually wrong. Why do we name rivers? What is not changing? There is absolutely nothing about the river that is permenant so why do we name something that is only "one thing" at "one time" if it is going to change later?

Naming things is an attempt to nail them down. It gives us the impression that things stay the way they are permenantly but they don't. In fact nothing does. Everything is in a constant state of flux, therefore you can say everything is illusiory. This includes the self.

Just like you are not the same person you were at the age of five. Absoltuely nothing about you right now is the same as you were at age five. Not a single thing. So how can you be considered the same? You can't, it is an illusion.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I am saying a person can get away with horrible things if they think their actions were not negative or bad and if no one discovers their actions. This shows that the concept of karma does not work.

Due to the mind-stream being unstoppable and there being past and future lives nobody escapes cause and effect, I've already said this. Their mind is damaged if they act against reality's true nature it is unavoidable. It's simply cause and effect.

The karmic effects of this life is mostly from actions in a previous life. The karmic effects of the next life is mostly the actions performed in this life and other previous lives. If the causes and conditions are correct there will be an effect.

Conventionally it taught to think of karma as 'seeds' planted in the mind-stream that will ripen when suitable future conditions arise. In this life it may seem that someone is 'getting away with murder' but in the future i.e. some future life they will experience the effect of the damage that selfishly motivated murder has done to their mind. Usually as I said in the next life or some future life when conditions are suitable for the cause to ripen.

Krumple wrote:

If a person believes that they are doing good by their actions they won't feel any guilt for their actions. The only way they could realize they did something bad were if there was a third system that was involved and pressed the guilt onto them or made them realize their actions were wrong. This doesn't happen.

This in my opinion is not correct. If an action is selfish it will ripen later as suffering due to cause and effect just as a seed ripens when there is light, moisture, temperature and the seed is not damaged; when this happens it must produce a shoot.

Your reply is correct 'if' the mind-stream isn't unstoppable. Karma only makes sense if the mind-stream is unstoppable; conventionally this is called reincarnation.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I have explained this before.

People don't understand what the buddha meant by this statement.

The reason he says there is no self is because of the characteristics of what would make up a self. He says there are no characteristics that stay the same constantly. Since nothing stays constantly how can you then nail it down as being real? You can't.

In other words the Buddha was defining "self" in a way that would make the assertion "there is no self" correct?

Didn't you just lecture me in another thread about doing that sort of thing?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Conventionally Buddha taught there is no truly existent self ...

Is there any chance that the Buddha was wrong on this?

No, but if you can show me where the truly existent self is then... the Buddha must be wrong.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

It's not a case of people not understanding, but of people not being fooled by the double talk. As Frank has just pointed out, this is a blatant case of crafting a definition which supports the thesis--the ultimate question begging.

If anything, the Buddhists are the most hypocritical, self-deluding religionists out there. It's not about ending sufffering, it's about ending personal angst, it's about ending personal anxiety. Buddhists don't give a rat's ass about the starving peasant family next door, except to the extent they expect the poor bastards to feed them. Buddhism is ultimately selfish, much more selfish than most other major religions. It's about you and you alone, and to hell with everybody else.

Buddhist "priests" and monks and nuns in South Asia are parasitic organisms who not only do nothing to end anyone else's suffering, by being useless mouths whom the peasants feed, they increase suffering.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

So the earth is not the same after a meteorite lands? Or the solar system when an entity enters it from space.

Where does that get us?

Your keyboard is not the same because some molecules were rubbed off or on by your fingers and your fingers are not the same either.

You could be dis-inventing language and get to "Uuuuuummming" under a banyan tree insisting it isn't a banyan tree.

And the prisoner in the dock is innocent on all occasions because he's not the guy who did the crime.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

No, but if you can show me where the truly existent self is then... the Buddha must be wrong.

You are asserting that the Buddha CANNOT be wrong on this issue...and then, in effect, asking me to establish that you are wrong or to accept that you are correct?

Are you kidding?

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Due to the mind-stream being unstoppable and there being past and future lives nobody escapes cause and effect, I've already said this. Their mind is damaged if they act against reality's true nature it is unavoidable. It's simply cause and effect.

I don't believe this because I have not seen any supporting evidence of it. Sure it sounds good but it would also mean there is some thing that governs this to make it work. How does it work? How is it that the mind is "damaged"? I just don't believe that is possible. What makes it become damaged? How does it get damaged if a person honestly thinks their action is right when it might have been wrong? How? This would mean there is a third system involved which I claimed can not be there. I have never seen any proof of it.

I would love for what you say to be true, but I see no support for it.

igm wrote:

The karmic effects of this life is mostly from actions in a previous life. The karmic effects of the next life is mostly the actions performed in this life and other previous lives. If the causes and conditions are correct there will be an effect.

Yes I have heard this many times. I am skeptical of it on two levels. One level is, so what? If I have lived multiple lives and the current state of my life is the direct result of my past life, then so what? I have no knowledge that this life is the result, so it does absolutely NOTHING to help me. I have no memory, I have no direct understanding of how these pieces connect so it is useless. With that, there is no supporting evidence that we live multiple lives. It sounds great, but I have never seen anything that actually supports that it is true.

igm wrote:

Conventionally it taught to think of karma as 'seeds' planted in the mind-stream that will ripen when suitable future conditions arise. In this life it may seem that someone is 'getting away with murder' but in the future i.e. some future life they will experience the effect of the damage that selfishly motivated murder has done to their mind. Usually as I said in the next life or some future life when conditions are suitable for the cause to ripen.

Like I said before, it sounds nice in theory but it also is horrific if it is true. Sure it gives a good reason for all current suffering, but as the buddha pointed out, a person of the past is not a person of the present. Therefore you are being punished for something that you did not infact do. If I had a past life where I was a murderer but I am not aware that that life took place yet I am being punished because of it, then by that very thing, it is unjust. This means karma is unjust. It only works if you are aware of it that way it could actually create a result. It would be like a person being tossed in prison and when asked why, their accusers claim that in the future they are going to commit a crime and thus they are now going to be punished for it. It is no different than that.

igm wrote:

This in my opinion is not correct. If an action is selfish it will ripen later as suffering due to cause and effect just as a seed ripens when there is light, moisture, temperature and the seed is not damaged; when this happens it must produce a shoot.

My response to this is, even a weed that is poisonous and constricts another plant, doesn't it also live? Doesn't it also flower? Doesn't the poisonous plant continue to exist?

igm wrote:

Your reply is correct 'if' the mind-stream isn't unstoppable. Karma only makes sense if the mind-stream is unstoppable; conventionally this is called reincarnation.

I don't believe there is reincarnation. In fact I don't even think the Buddha meant actual reincarnation or even rebirth. I have difficulty with this concept. I don't see how it is possible, I don't see how a mind stream can continue from one life to another. What exactly is being transfered? How does it work?

Even if it did work, it is meaningless if there is no recollection of it. It might as well not even take place then because it is useless. If you can't learn from one lifes failures what good is having multiple lives? If the mindstream just continues flip flopping from good here and bad there, what good is it? Who cares to even solve it as well? So you might have some good lives, you might have some bad ones, what difference does it make? You won't remember them anyways.

If I have had a million past lives, they are meaningless to me because I have no direct knowledge of them. They might as well not even have existed because of that. To punish me or if my current life experience is the direct result of my past life actions, what good is it? I still have not learned anything from them.

I can't honestly point at them and say, well this is a direct result of some past deed. How can you honestly say that? If everything is of the past, then that means nothing new is being input? That doesn't make any sense then. There would have to be new input, or else the future from this life would not result.

If there is new input, new karmas, then you can not pinpoint which result is a past or which is a present result. You can't even determine any of it. So what good is it? It might as well not even exist since it becomes meaningless or useless.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Set, I must say it feels good being on the same side of an issue with you here.

Quote:

It's not a case of people not understanding, but of people not being fooled by the double talk.

BINGO!

I have trouble understanding why Buddhists are so confident in citing his "teachings" as "revelations of truths"...rather than simply "thoughts on difficult issues from one man's perspective!"

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
No, but if you can show me where the truly existent self is then... the Buddha must be wrong.

You are asserting that the Buddha CANNOT be wrong on this issue...and then, in effect, asking me to establish that you are wrong or to accept that you are correct?

Are you kidding?

The Buddha doesn't have to be wrong... you have to be correct if you assert there is a truly existent self. The Buddha looked for one and could not find one. When I look neither can I. So it's for you to find the truly existent self and then if I agree with you I will say there is a truly existent self... until then I have the absence of a belief in a truly existent self.

There are many scientists and philosophers here in the West who cannot find a truly existent self.

Most of the world's troubles are caused by selfishness which in turn is due to a belief in a truly existent self.

3 Replies

I'm waiting for one of them to mention the Dalai Lama, their god on earth--and just about the biggest bullshit artist and flim-flam man going.

1 Reply

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know