One article of many found on Google:
Buddhism sees death as not the end of life, but simply a transition; suicide is therefore no escape from anything. Thus, in the early sangha (community of followers of the Buddha), suicide was in principle condemned as an inappropriate action.[16] But the early Buddhist texts include many cases of suicide which the Buddha himself accepted or condoned. For example, the suicides of Vakkali[17] and of Channa[18] were committed in the face of painful and irreversible sickness. It is significant, however, that the Buddha's praise of the suicides is not based on the fact that they were in terminal states, but rather that their minds were selfless, desireless, and enlightened at the moments of their passing.
This theme is more dramatically visible in the example of Godhika. This disciple repeatedly achieved an advanced level of samadhi, bordering on parinirvana, and then slipped out of the state of enlightenment into normal consciousness again. After this happened six times, Godhika at last vowed to pass on to the next realm while enlightened, and quietly committed suicide during his next period of enlightenment. While cautioning his other disciples against suicide, the Buddha nonetheless blessed and praised Godhika's steadiness of mind and purpose, and declared that he had passed on to nirvana. In short, the acceptability of suicide, even in the early Buddhist community, depended not on terminal illness alone, but upon the state of selfless equanimity with which one was able to pass away. It is interesting in passing that all these suicides were committed by the subject knifing himself, a technique which came to be standardized in later Japanese ritual suicide.
When asked about the morality of committing suicide to move on to the next world, the Buddha did not criticize it.[19] He emphasized that only the uncraving mind would be able to move on towards nirvana, and that, conversely, minds desiring to get free of or flee something by their death might achieve nothing. Similarly, there are stories in the Jataka tales of the Buddha
cicerone imposter wrote:Chum, It's more than "appears to be harmful."
I used to word "appears" to make our friendly neighborhood relativist JL Nobody happy. I actually agree with you.
real life wrote:The God of the Bible is so radically different from the God that man would create, it is not even funny.
Given that exact same time period and peoples and cultures and languages and scribes and translations etc. how do you suppose the god that man would have created, would differ from the god of the bible?
JLNobody wrote:real life wrote:JLNobody wrote:
It seems obvious to me that we have created God in OUR image, not the reverse.
Unless you are ONLY referring to physical resemblance in works of art, this idea seems so ridiculous that I can't believe any would take it seriously.
The God of the Bible is so radically different from the God that man would create, it is not even funny.
If you were going to create a God, would you have him prohibiting all kinds of (otherwise) pleasurable behavior? Of course not. You'd have Him approving of all of your favorite things.
This conclusion is so self evident that it hardly needs to be stated (or so it would seem). But then there you are, claiming that man created God.
The idea that this God was man's idea is ludicrous.
Real Life, I repeat: many societies have either gods (polytheism) or a God (monotheism), and those dieties resemble (more often than not) their worshippers-creators.
Religion is a cultural institution, an artifact of human invention. But societies generally hold that their institutions, religion, the family structure, political authority, post-marital resident patterns, economic traditions, legal principles, etc. etc. are GIVEN (either by natural law or by spiritual beings of some sort). This helps to buttress tradition, to render their institutions sacrosanct and of absolute rather than relative value.
Could that possibly be news to you?
Hi Nobody,
Just repeating yourself doesn't mean you are right, nor does it answer my question.
But now I guess I'll have to repeat my question. *sigh*
(Understand that I am specifically referring to the God of the Bible) ---
If you were going to create a God, would you have him prohibiting all kinds of (otherwise) pleasurable behavior?
Wouldn't you instead have Him approving all kinds of pleasure? Wouldn't you make it as easy on yourself as possible?
Think about the Levitical priesthood. Do you think that the messy smelly bloody animal slaughter, and the multitudes of regulations with minute detail and severe penalties (including death) for the priest's failure to comply would have been invented by a priest? I don't think so.
The God of the Bible is crowd-control... an effective way to keep the rabble from becoming unruly.
RI, your reference to the kind of gods humans would fashion, i.e., permissive dieties who condoned hedonism, is misleading. As far as I know, the creators of the Bible or the Koran sought to codify principles of ethics, mystical insights, and constructive social norms. These were probably sages and social leaders who sincerely wished to advance the welfare of humankind, which pretty much consisted of their Hebrew neighbors. This may not be the case for every author, however. And my basic objection to the thinking of most religionists is that they are too literal in their interpretations of the authors' meaning. As such, their reading of the Bible serves to dumb them down rather than stimulate their understanding of life as it was probably intended to do.
It must be remembered that the Bible, as well as the Koran, was written in ages when the level of knowledlge was very low, both in terms of natural science and philosophy (although the latter might not be as far behind the level of contemporary philosophy as I think--consider the "wisdom" of the ancient Upanishads).
My interpretation of the casting out of Eden differs radically from that of fundamentalist Christianity. To me, Adam and Eve were not literally expelled from an idyllic PLACE called Eden because of their disobedience to their Creator, a creator who wanted to keep them ignorant by prohibting their consumption from the Tree oF Knowledge of Good and Bad. Their so=called "expulsion" may have been no more than an automatic consequence of what they did to their own minds. The cultural myth of the expulsion illustrates what happened automatically (and not as a punishment) to mankind upon their development of language and consciousness, in particular their descent into the dualism of Good VERSUS Evil and all other analytic dichotomies. Animals, as far as we know, continue to live in a form of Eden in which they do not have to choose between competing drives and values; they just act out their instincts. As far as they are concerned, they have no knowledge of their inevitable death--as do we on the other side of Eden. Even when "startled" by a lion a zebra flees instinctively and not IN ORDER TO avoid "death." (life and death are among our major troublesome dichotomies). Once we developed the analytical ability to divide the world into opposing categories, we felt the need to "struggle" in order to attain one and avoid the other.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Note that my interpretation is not advanced as dogmatic and absolute truth. Moreover, I do not claim that it is VIRTUOUS to accept my interpretation and EVIL to reject it. It's just an interpretation that reflects MY subjective understanding of one aspect of the wisdom of the Bible.
echi wrote:hephzibah wrote:To be created in the image of something does not make that thing exactly alike to the thing it was created by. It is in the "image" of it, and or the likeness.
If you say so. Is that how the Bible puts it?
If our will is similar to "God's" then isn't it possible for him to make mistakes, just like us?
No I don't think that is how the bible puts it actually. It's more like the New International Hephzibah translation of free will... LOL
No Echi, it's similar. Not exact. If it were exact and we made mistakes, yeah I would see your point. But we are an image of Him. Not an exact replica of Him.
JLNobody wrote:RI, your reference to the kind of gods humans would fashion, i.e., permissive dieties who condoned hedonism, is misleading. As far as I know, the creators of the Bible or the Koran sought to codify principles of ethics, mystical insights, and constructive social norms. These were probably sages and social leaders who sincerely wished to advance the welfare of humankind, which pretty much consisted of their Hebrew neighbors. This may not be the case for every author, however. And my basic objection to the thinking of most religionists is that they are too literal in their interpretations of the authors' meaning. As such, their reading of the Bible serves to dumb them down rather than stimulate their understanding of life as it was probably intended to do.
It must be remembered that the Bible, as well as the Koran, was written in ages when the level of knowledlge was very low, both in terms of natural science and philosophy (although the latter might not be as far behind the level of contemporary philosophy as I think--consider the "wisdom" of the ancient Upanishads).
My interpretation of the casting out of Eden differs radically from that of fundamentalist Christianity. To me, Adam and Eve were not literally expelled from an idyllic PLACE called Eden because of their disobedience to their Creator, a creator who wanted to keep them ignorant by prohibting their consumption from the Tree oF Knowledge of Good and Bad. Their so=called "expulsion" may have been no more than an automatic consequence of what they did to their own minds. The cultural myth of the expulsion illustrates what happened automatically (and not as a punishment) to mankind upon their development of language and consciousness, in particular their descent into the dualism of Good VERSUS Evil and all other analytic dichotomies. Animals, as far as we know, continue to live in a form of Eden in which they do not have to choose between competing drives and values; they just act out their instincts. As far as they are concerned, they have no knowledge of their inevitable death--as do we on the other side of Eden. Even when "startled" by a lion a zebra flees instinctively and not IN ORDER TO avoid "death." (life and death are among our major troublesome dichotomies). Once we developed the analytical ability to divide the world into opposing categories, we felt the need to "struggle" in order to attain one and avoid the other.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Note that my interpretation is not advanced as dogmatic and absolute truth. Moreover, I do not claim that it is VIRTUOUS to accept my interpretation and EVIL to reject it. It's just an interpretation that reflects MY subjective understanding of one aspect of the wisdom of the Bible.
The societies that surrounded Israel practiced polytheism with all kinds of despicable practices which the Israelites time and again slipped into. To suppose that a society that had an obvious thirst for the pagan life that surrounded them would elevate and honor the Torah and the writings of the Prophets which explicitly condemns those practices in no uncertain terms is highly unlikely.
The Hebrews who came out of Egypt would have been steeped in polytheism for 400 years. Their societal norms would have reflected that. So how can you say that they were merely codifying societal norms in the writing of the Torah?
echi wrote:So, they were not created in God's image?
What are you asking? Should we be exactly like God, with all his power?
Doktor S wrote:neologist wrote:Doktor S wrote:Hum.
Ok Neo.
Would you say it was within gods power to know the things he selectively decided not to know?
I would say so.
I smell a trap.
If he was and is capable of knowing everything, would that not make him at least partially responsible for the 'evils' of the world?
You are getting very close to the central issue of the universe: Does God have the right to ask the free will obedience of his sentient creatures?
Quote:Many have been reprimanded, disciplined and some even court martialed. And more in the pipeline.
So since they are punishing this behavior, are you saying that they approve of it? Or not?
hey, I hope you're right about this one. I'm not sure how the prisoners are being treated right now.
Ray wrote:Quote:Many have been reprimanded, disciplined and some even court martialed. And more in the pipeline.
So since they are punishing this behavior, are you saying that they approve of it? Or not?
hey, I hope you're right about this one. I'm not sure how the prisoners are being treated right now.
They are getting treated better than the victims of 9/11, I can tell you that.
Chumly wrote:Quote:You are getting very close to the central issue of the universe:Does God have the right to ask for extra cheese?
God owns all the cheese; so watch where you put your hand.
neo, It's quite evident that from your postering on god, you are quite afraid.
echi wrote:If you say so. Is that how the Bible puts it?
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
'Image' = From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure
'Likeness' = resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.
What we see in the mirror is an 'image.'
I understand, at this point, that reflection (an image) creates awareness. IOW, we reflect God--and therein lies our awareness of self, awareness of God, and even God's awareness of God.
Quote:If our will is similar to "God's" then isn't it possible for him to make mistakes, just like us?
Perhaps mistakes are not something in God's vocabulary? We see mistakes as derailments, failures of a sort. Maybe they are not as significant or enduringly catastrophic as we assign them to be?
