Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by Thomas, Jul 30, 2019.
Is that to be taken as a criticism?
Mhm, I remember. And what are those failings?
Read the OP, read further posts from Thomas. I acknowledge the "failings" spoken of in them. Merton did too.
I am trying to point out that God's "power is made perfect in weakness" as the NT claims.
Mmm .. this is what Michael Novak had to say:-
"It was as though the world (or at least the history of the Church) were now to be divided into only two periods, pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. Everything 'pre' was then pretty much dismissed, so far as its authority mattered. For the most extreme, to be a Catholic now meant to believe more or less anything one wished to believe, or at least in the sense in which one personally interpreted it. One could be a Catholic 'in spirit'. One could take Catholic to mean the 'culture' in which one was born, rather than to mean a creed making objective and rigorous demands.
It certainly is
Yes .. rationality .. most important. Without that, we are left with "non-sense"..
It is, but not always about interpretation.
Sunni/shia is more about "who should be the Pope/ Khalifa" than anything else. Nothing new there.
I don't understand that remark.
Perhaps "rationality" has its place within a larger context?
Maybe "eastern" logic and rationality is of another order?
Maybe if we cling too hard to "rationality" as the bedrock of all things we can actually shut out God/Reality?
Perhaps what is "nonsense" to some could be called the world of inconsistency, mercy and grace.
While a world of "rationality" is the world of consistency and justice.
Prepare to stand before the seat of strict JUSTICE. Good luck.
If we are not rational in formulating our beliefs, then what actually are they? Some random gibberish?
I like to call a spade, a spade.
We all see things differently for a variety of reasons. The main difference between you and me, seems to be the reason behind what we follow.
I have no idea what might happen to me after my earthly death, but I hope for G-d's Mercy
Doesn't that apply to all of us, regardless of our beliefs?
Nevertheless, there are consequences to our choices. My own seem to morph back into grace and mercy.
Yes, there are .. I think that you confuse the consequences of what might happen in this life, with what might happen in the next.
..just a thought..
OK, let me give vent to my own self-righteous side.......
Following this long thread, virtually a monologue dissecting another human being ("we murder to disect" - Blake) and highlighting his failings, again, pointing out the failings of our modern world.......
Just maybe we should spend more time on our own self-reflection? Consider our own intentions?
"Mutual forgiveness of each vice, opens the gates of paradise" (William Blake)
In fact, no, I don't.
I actually think that you avoid the pertinent points of virtually every post I make. Just a thought........
Pertinent point not truly addressed:- the second sentence.
"Nevertheless, there are consequences to our choices. My own seem to morph back into grace and mercy."
Really? .. are you a "Christian Buddhist?"
Instead of G-d, you replace Him with Buddha, and say that he has 3 bodies. Yet another trinity.
How making G-d into 3 persons/bodies equates to grace & mercy beats me..
Why should you think that "the law" is somehow devoid of love and mercy? Where would we be without the rule of law?
Anarchy is certainly not my idea of nirvana!
I am the Cobbler's Apprentice. Own your own words. You have told me I speak gobbledegook and make no sense, that you do not understand me.
Now you give a description of what I am, what I think the Law is, all based upon the sense and understanding of my posts.
You appear to not understand grace and mercy, yet expect it in the next life.
@muhammad_isa , "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ"
Your Christian upbringing appears to have deserted you again.
Christian/Buddhist? Why not? Amida takes no notice of our labels.
And "anarchy" is not my idea of nirvana either. Is that another opinion based upon not understanding a word I post?
Back in the days of the Buddha, nirvana (nibbana) had a verb of its own: nibbuti. It meant to "go out," like a flame. Because fire was thought to be in a state of entrapment as it burned — both clinging to and trapped by the fuel on which it fed — its going out was seen as an unbinding. To go out was to be unbound. Sometimes another verb was used — parinibbuti — with the "pari-" meaning total or all-around, to indicate that the person unbound, unlike fire unbound, would never again be trapped.
Now that nirvana has become an English word, it should have its own English verb to convey the sense of "being unbound" as well. At present, we say that a person "reaches" nirvana or "enters" nirvana, implying that nibbana is a place where you can go. But nirvana is most emphatically not a place. It's realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place: of here, or there, or between the two.
(A Dhamma talk on Nirvana by a Theravada Bhikkhu)
PS. After this rather fine start, the Bhikkhu begins to take a nibble at the Mahayana. Thus I have cut him off in his prime............ Anarchy perhaps!!!
I don't know what you want me to say
I'm not attacking your beliefs .. I'm just explaining from my own perspective.
You say that the consequences of your choices seem to morph back into grace and mercy.
OK .. if that's what you feel.
I feel happy with G-d. I feel I have something concrete to follow, and I don't see that it is devoid of Mercy and Grace.
I am not disputing that. Moses, peace be with him, also came with grace and truth
I get that. I often tell people the same about "jannah" or paradise, sometimes translated as heaven. In the Qur'an, there are 2 different words for heaven .. heaven as in "the firmaments" ie. G-d is in heaven, and the state of being
Ah, the beauty of hermeneutics!
Separate names with a comma.