Forgiveness and repentance

Com'on guys. Let's get back to the topic, and away from personalities.

My money says I don't! Why would I want to?

Frank attacks me like a rabid mongrel and you point your finger at me.....because I'm a Christian! Go figure.

So why are you even bothering, then? Why not leave now? Better yet, why not try to discuss civilly?

Ok- Now let's all cool down!

OK ... thread's unlocked. Before posting, please refamiliarize yourselves with THE TERMS OF SERVICE, in particular, Section III, as pertains to Ad Hominem attacks.

Thank you.

Sin seems to be a preoccupation among the Abrahamic religions. If we were talking about Shamanistic religions the term we used would probably be taboo. A number of AmerInd tribes of the Southwest talk about the need to remain in harmonious balance with nature. To be out of balance, to have strayed from the Path of Beauty is, I suppose roughly equivalent to "sin". The value of maintaining a harmonious balance is also similar to the fundamental beliefs of both Taoism and Buddhism. The virtuous individual finds their proper relationship to Universe, to other people, and within themselves. To become "out of joint" in those relationships leads to unhappy results. Among the least thoughtful, "unhappy results" might mean actual misfortune, i.e., sickness, injury, financial reverses, etc. The result of being "out of balance", or "out of joint" is more complex than that, but let's discuss that later.

Sin. What is it, and where does sin come from for followers of the Abrahamic religions? One frequent answer is that sin is the disobedience of God's divine laws. Jews, Christians and Muslims all insist that God has, in one way or another, dictated laws that must not be violated, and that those laws are written into their religious texts. Original Sin, we are told, was Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden. The result is that all humans thereafter are carry that sin, or have at the very least a sinful nature. Disobedience is sin, and even the smallest and most innocent of sins, it seems, can have terrible consequences far beyond what anyone can imagine. To that end, the followers of Abrahamic religions must be constantly striving to avoid sin, or to find some means of expiating it. But what is sin, and how might one appease a God who would saddle all humanity with suffering because two innocents at the beginning of time failed to understand the consequences of their acts. What child can avoid putting beans up their noses; if that is the one thing they are denied out all things? To punish countless generations for that sin, argues for a terribly unjust God that one should rightly fear.

So is God Just, or not? If God is Just, then his Divine Laws must be known. There doesn't seem to be any agreement amongst Abrahamic scholars as to what Divine Law consists of. A few might say the whole of the Law is in the Ten Commandments, but that ignores all the other Divine Injunctions that are scattered willy-nilly through the Old and New Testaments, in the Koran and Book of Mormon, and who knows how many other religious texts that someone believes is the Word of God. Are only the oldest texts valid, or can/does God amend old Laws and append new ones from time to time? What happens when one Law contradicts another? With the Abrahamic insistence that God's Law is written into their religious texts, they also seem to be implying that only the literate have much of a chance at learning what it is that must be obeyed without the slightest deviation.

These sorts of problems are magnified by the difficulty in clearly communicating an idea in writing. Different writers have varying ability to express themselves. Even the best writer's efforts to be clear will suffer when his words are translated from the native language into another. We write according to what we know and understand of the world, so the words and examples we choose closely reflect our own time and circumstances. The Abrahamic texts claim to be extremely old, and if so, have been written in languages that are long dead. I have had Jewish friends insist that Modern Hebrew is identical to that spoken by Abraham, but I think that is more wishful thinking than otherwise. My guess is that today's Hebrew is no closer to the ancient language than Olde English is to what is currently spoken by teenagers in the inner-city. The popular language spoken in Israel between 30 BCE and CE had to be translated into Greek and Latin, and none of them having much relationship to Hebrew. There followed many translations, some by fine scholars but most by individuals whose efforts were more driven by the need to justify their own beliefs than to accurately translate from an ancient language into their own. The proof of this assertion is the multitude of translations that exist today in which there are very wide discrepancies. Jewish scholars frequently point out errors in the books of the "Old Testament" used by both Christians and Muslims. Even within Christianity there are numerous versions of the same writings, and they don't always clearly agree with one another.

This suggests that if God has decreed a set of Laws they must be either unique to each religious structure, or if applicable to all sentient beings, such Divine Law must be evident to everyone, in all times and in all places.

If the Law applied only to the Chosen, then to believe or act in contradiction to the Law would not be a sin. For example, would it be a sin for a Southern Baptist not to be Kosher? How about an Australian Aboriginal? If not, would a person who isn't a nominal follower of any the Abrahamic faiths sin, so long as they followed their own religious doctrines? What is sin must vary from religion to religion. Within the Abrahamic faiths there must be Jewish sins, Christian sins, and Muslim sins. That, I think, would be heartily denied by the Abrahamic crowd. However, what Jew would regard an uncovered female face to be a sin? The incompatible nature of these major Abrahamic Schools is one of the most troubling factors in trying to resolve religious differences of the modern world. The one thing they seem to agree upon is that all the rest of us are damned in the sight of God because we don't belong to their particular faith.

If, on the other hand, God's Law applies to all humans no matter where or when they live, no matter what religion they follow, then the divine law must be evident to all equally. It shouldn't matter if the individual is smart, or mentally slow and illiterate. The elementary laws of mathematics and physics that govern the physical world are common to all. We all can look up at the stars, or out to an unbroken horizon. We grow up learning very early that there are consequences for our thoughts, words and actions. Some of those consequences are predictably "good", and some are "bad". What does "good" and "bad" mean to the child, or the simplest mind? Isn't a "good" consequence to be secure, loved, and free from hunger, pain and fear? Aren't "bad" consequences pain and suffering, to be afraid and vulnerable to harm? Universal, or Divine, Law applied to human conduct then boils down to two things: First, that the universe is a rational place where physical laws exist and to ignore those laws will render "bad" results, and Second, the ways in which we interact with other humans, especially those within our own group, may either "good" or "bad" depending upon how well we conform to custom and taboo. Disobey either physical law, or the law/customs of one's social group, is a sin that leads to "bad" consequences.

Now, how can one expiate their sins? Even within the Abrahamic religions answer will vary. Say a special prayer of contrition, sacrifice something of value, or otherwise receive punishment to "balance" the scales of Divine Justice. Some followers of Abraham would say that no sin can ever be fully expiated, and others claim that all sins, even cold-blooded mass murder of infants, are forgiven by a moment's deathbed regret. Christ, according to Christians, redeemed all of humanity from Original Sin. Whew, that's a load off of my mind that God no longer intends my suffering because of Adam and Eve's faux pas.

How does one mitigate sins against those the Divine Laws of physics and cultural tranquility? Well, we can't repeal the Laws of Gravity, nor reduce the speed of light. Angles will never be trisected, nor the circle squared. Violate those laws and you just have to live with the consequences. If you are a Navajo, you might have a healing song sung. Sometimes, just to say you're sorry will patch up the venial sin of ignoring your Mother-in-Law. Violation of important taboos often requires punishment, some times even death. The thing is that each society has its own taboos, and scale of values. Members of the group are taught from childhood what the taboos are, and what consequences to expect. Cultures are usually in constant evolution as circumstances change. As a group faces new inventions, ideas and challenges they modify their values and taboos accordingly. What was once believed is slowly abandoned as new knowledge spreads through the group. A violation of a taboo at one time required death might at another go almost unnoticed.

In the modern world where challenges to traditional mores are constant, and the pace is ever quickening, it is sometimes difficult to know what thoughts, words and behavior will result in socially "good" consequences, and what will be a "sin". We all just do the best we can to avoid pain and suffering. We all try to live in accordance with what we believe to be "Divine" law, and most of us avoid "sin" as much as we can.

Well, if you are athiest or agnostic- and you are having a moral question- where would you go for clarification?

I might discuss the problem whith people whom I respect as rational and logical individuals....but the bottom line would be the evaluation of the problem with my own mind.

Okay, I am an athiest. I have had situations where I wasn't sure what the "right" thing to do was. When I discuss the situation with someone- inevitably they bring up god or whoever they worship. Which turns me right off.
I don't feel like discussing why I do not believe in god- and that is where the conversation goes.

beebo- There are plenty of atheists and agnostics on this site, if you want to kick around some ideas, without being inundated with chapter and verse!

Beebo,

Consider the effects that your thoughts, words and actions will produce. Choose those that will cause the least suffering. The problem that we all have is that we can never know with any degree of certainty what the effects of our thoughts, works and behavior will be. Sometimes, the outcome of the most kindly thought will be real suffering. On the other hand, to cause a small suffering to a single person may in the long term result in far less suffering for a great many people far beyond our ability to project. Often the best we can do, is to leave things alone, but that is usually only possible if you enter a monastry.

If you live in the world, you will inevitably be drawn into it. You will desire some things, and fear others. In reacting to those emotions it is tempting to act on the emotions, and without thought of the consequences. Such a course of action is much more likely to cause suffering, than the considered and least action taken.

The past is no longer, and the future will never arrive. There is only the now, and it is already past into nothingness. We must all go through a certain amount of suffering as we try to hold onto what must pass, and reachout for what must forever be beyond our grasp. We will all become sick, injured and old. We all will die and be forgotten. For those who are awake to the real nature of things, suffering can be mitigated and controlled. By taking on some of the suffering of those who are driven by their unchecked desires and fears, we contribute a small bit toward improving the lot of all sentient beings. That is good, and virtuous.

If you choose to think, speak and act in ways that you know must cause suffering, then you've done an "evil" thing. Intentions do play a role, but always remember that no thought, word or deed is entirely risk free.

You don't need a God, or a religion to have self-discipline, or to direct your energies toward relieving the suffering that makes up so much of life. Indulge in random acts of kindness. Be patient with childish behavior. Learn as much as you can, and apply that knowledge to make life as pleasant as possible for yourself and for others.

truth
Thanks for such a mature perspective. Buddhism does help.

Re: truth


actually, the meditation and 'oneness' taught by them is but a shadow of the peace offered by Christ....

Re: truth


You know this because you've studied buddhism or even tried it out (to give it a fair chance?)

I have read about Buddism and am interested in that way of life. Isn't Budda a god? - or have god like qualities? Anything like that turns me right off. If a person is describes as having supernatural powers- I really feel like I am taking advise from one of the superheros off of my daughter's Saturday morning cartoons.

There are different sects of buddhism, but the kind that I like (and I forget the name of that kind) has no g-ds or g-desses although it has people you are supposed to revere as scholars/moral guiders. Their prayer/meditation sessions are really interesting.

Let's clear up a few misconceptions. First, the term "Buddha" is from the Sanskrit and means "Awakened". A Buddha, in the strictest sense is a person who has had an experience that transcends the mundane, and reveals the true nature of existence. Buddha is not a God, but a mortal whose teaching can be useful to other mortals in their struggle to find meaning and escape from suffering.

The first, and most important of all Buddhist sutras is the Deer Park Sutra. Sutra is another Sanskrit word meaning "to sew" and is the root for the English Surture. In the Deer Park Sutra, the heart of Buddhist doctrine was laid, The Four Nobel Truths and the Eight-Fold Path. I won't give those here since they are easy to find on the internet. However, you should know that these central doctrines are more like a physician's diagnosis and prescription for the reality of suffering than some sort of religion analogous to the Abrahamic faiths. The Eight-Fold Path, which some have compared to the Ten Commandments, was actually meant as a guide to how Buddhist monks should live their lives. In the early days of Buddhism, monks made up the vast majority of Buddhists, but the reason why is another story.

The Buddha taught that what we believe to be real, the perceptual world, is only an illusion. Instead of multiplicity, the universe is indivisible and insubstantial. There are, in ultimate reality, no time or spacial dimensions. This is an infinite reality without beginning or endings, hence no creator nor gotterdamerung. There are no gods, and sentient beings, including humans, have no Atman (Sanskrit=soul). Suffering is caused by our attachment to the illusion, to our emotions, desires and fears. Once we understand the sources of our suffering we can do something about it, and free ourselves from it.

I think you may be interested in the Theravada School of Buddhism. Theravada is based on the most ancient of Buddhist texts written in Pali. These texts were written realtively soon after the Great Decease (the death of Siddhartha, The Buddha). Thus, Theravada is generally regarded as closest to the actual teachings of The Buddha. Theravada is an austere form of Buddhism, and hasn't changed much in over 2,500 years. This form of Buddhism has proven to be extremely good in helping the highly motivated, dedicated, and disciplined individual to achieve personal enlightenment.

However, the followers of Theravada are much smaller than those who follow one of the Mahayana Sects, or the Tantric School common in Nepal and Tibet. Mahayana (Sandscrit=The Great Vessel) is what generations of Buddhist scholars developed from the original teachings of the Buddha. Mahayana texts are in Sanskrit, and generally try to look for the esoteric meanings that underpin the Buddha's teachings. A central departure(?) from the earliest Buddhism is the concept of the Bodhisatva. It was reasoned that a person on the cusp of Enlightenment would choose, out of compassion for the suffering of others, instead to act to relieve the suffering of those not yet close to awakening.

This was an important concept, and it had very large consequences. First, Buddhism for the first time began to develop an iconography and rituals. Second, Buddhism was much moe approachable by people who had responsiblities, families and could not easily leave "the world" for the monastery. Buddhism become aaccessibleto the masses, and began to expand out from its stronghold in India. One branch went north into Nepal and Tibet, where Buddhism aabsorbedthe aboriginal sshamanisticreligion Bon-pa and become the Tantric School. The Tantric School is heavily reliant on the 100,000 Teachings of MMilrepa and is the form followed by His Holiness the Dali Lama.

A second route of expansion was west through Pakistan and Iran into a region called GGandara where Buddhism came into direct contact with HHellenisticGreek culture. The result was the introduction of Greek sculptural concepts into Buddhist iconography. This route then turned north and west through the Tala MMakanDesert, and to the gates of Northwestern China. There the Chinese, seeing many similarities to Taoism came to believe that Buddhism was the final teachings of Lao Tzu. This stream of expansion became very popular and won many converts to Buddhism in China, especially in the Northeast. Over time a number of sects developed around the idea of "The Pure Land". Central to this idea is that anyone who lives a "pure life" and says the appropriate mantras (prayers) will go to a "Pure Land" after death and then be reborn with another opportunity to approach Enlightenment. We can still see this form of Buddhism in China, Korea, and there is even a popular strain of the Pure Land Schools in the West. Please note, there are still no Gods in the religion.

The third route of expansion was along the sSouthseacoast and into Southeastern China. The most important historical carrier of Buddhism along this route was BBodhidharma a man who has largely passed into legend. The Buddhist form that Bodhidharma brought into China was called CC'han and by the Japanese, "Zen". This form of Buddhism is really much closer to the Theravada than either the "Pure Lands" or TTanricschools. C'han, or Zen, emphasizes personal enlightenment that can be attained by any serious practitioner. Emphasis is generally on meditation, and the differences between the three primary Zen sects are minor and have more to do with ritual and the forms of meditation favored. Zen has been reasonably successful in its appeal to Westerners, especially intellectuals and those with refined aesthetics.

We should also note that Buddhism in China never displaced Confucianism and Taoism, both of which also are divided into a number of schools and sects. The Chinese tended to use a mix and match approach to religion, and temple alters often held iconography from all three of these important popular religions. Westerners coming into contact with Chinese religion often, probably almost inevitably, misunderstood how great the differences were between Asian concepts about religion and the religions of Abraham. Ho-Ttaibecame for the West the, "Fat Buddha". Actually, Ho-Tai is the Chinese eequivalentto Santa Clause and is revered by the populace at large. Ho-Tai was a Buddhist monk in South China who worked in a monastery kitchen where he loved to sample the fare. He was a likable fellow, and was known for his love of children. Whenever he could, Ho-Tai, would gather home-made toys and "cookies" into a large sack. He carried his sack of goodies to all the surrounding villages where he was greeted by throngs of children. After his death, he became legendary and his statue became a common fixture as a good luck charm.

I've talked on another thread here about the differences between the religious experience as it differs. The transcendental experience is direct and difficult to communicate because it is so foriegn to the founders cultural roots. Often the direct experience leads to the founding of a new religion, or sect. The second form of religious experience is doctrinaire. This arises out of the attempt by disciples to "make sense" of the original direct experience as reported to them. The disciples jockey for leadership and interpret the first hand experience through their limited understanding. Over generations, the doctrines evolve slowly (religions are mostly very conservative and resistent to change), until rather wide gulfs separate a number of schools and sects. Doctrine hardens into dogma. The third form of religious experience is that of most people who live and work in the mundane world. For most people, of most religions, their faith is fairly nominal. They are the same religion as their parents, and their religion is largely a reflection of their cultural context. Superstitions, even if not a part of the formal religion, are sometimes as powerful as any fundamental doctrine. People go to church to cement their social ties and standing, and conform more to the easiest rituals than to the more difficult fundamentals of their religion.

These three forms are apparent in all of the religions Im familiar with.

truth
Thanks, Asherman, for a wonderfully concise overview of Buddhism.

Re: truth


yes, thank you asherman....even if it is all worthless, it WAS an overview..