Jump to content

Contradictions When Using The Word "god" And "non-Theism&#


Recommended Posts

" 'That there is suffering, this I know'
So proclaimed the Buddha"

 

The first noble truth of suffering, or dissatisfaction, is followed by the reason for it and a "way out". The "nature of things" is not a supernatural or mystical concept and one doesn't have to be a card-carrying anything to observe this. It is in the nature of things to come into being, stay for a while and then pass away - impermanence. Because we cling to and desire things that are impermanent is our innate and conditioned ignorance of the nature of things.

 

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

 

Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance and requires theological and philosophical speculation to resolve. The antidote for this, according to the Buddha is to seriously confront the fact of death and impermanence by continued study and reflection/meditation. This is, as he said, the "king" of meditations.

 

If one says they are a "theist" or a "non-theist" it is beside the point. It is merely speculation, subject to potential error. Realizing (not an intellectual assent of) the "nature of things" is the most profound way to proceed.

 

Steve

Edited by SteveS55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

 

Again my take, for me: existence is real. My access to it is limited and incomplete; and much, if not all of it, is not what it seems. Illusory.

Nevertheless my perceptions are a reflection of existence and at times that reflection may be distorted or at least the perception is distorted.

And a "good" starting point for looking at illusions is when I use the words "I" or "my". I think of myself as real and illusory.

 

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" 'That there is suffering, this I know'

So proclaimed the Buddha"

 

The first noble truth of suffering, or dissatisfaction, is followed by the reason for it and a "way out". The "nature of things" is not a supernatural or mystical concept and one doesn't have to be a card-carrying anything to observe this. It is in the nature of things to come into being, stay for a while and then pass away - impermanence. Because we cling to and desire things that are impermanent is our innate and conditioned ignorance of the nature of things.

 

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

 

Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance and requires theological and philosophical speculation to resolve. The antidote for this, according to the Buddha is to seriously confront the fact of death and impermanence by continued study and reflection/meditation. This is, as he said, the "king" of meditations.

 

If one says they are a "theist" or a "non-theist" it is beside the point. It is merely speculation, subject to potential error. Realizing (not an intellectual assent of) the "nature of things" is the most profound way to proceed.

 

Steve

 

Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others. And the statement, "Everything we think beyond the "true" nature of things is then, born of ignorance..." is stated as if it is dogma and to go against it is considered ignorance and, I guess, heresy (wrong opinion).

 

You point to Buddha's advise for continued study and reflection and mediation but dismiss the same 'need' for other faiths as philosophical or theological speculation - although both these disciplines involve continued study, reflection and mediation or prayer.

 

To say one is a theist, for example, is not beside any point, it is part and parcel of their faith. It would seem that all human faiths, religions, philosophies or whatever one calls them, including Buddhism, are also 'mere speculation subject to error'

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Again my take, for me: existence is real." That's fair enough, Rom. My purpose is not to convince anyone else of my perspective, which is more of a question regarding the nature of things. We could get into what we mean by "real", but that would be engaging more discursive thought than is required. In the end, I think any definition of what is "real" will end in a meaningless tautology.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others." This is more along the lines of others pointing out what should be obvious, or self-evident if you like. I don't have beliefs, I have questions regarding the nature of things. You, on the other hand, cling to beliefs. :)

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Again my take, for me: existence is real." That's fair enough, Rom. My purpose is not to convince anyone else of my perspective, which is more of a question regarding the nature of things. We could get into what we mean by "real", but that would be engaging more discursive thought than is required. In the end, I think any definition of what is "real" will end in a meaningless tautology.

 

I get it Steve ... I am not making claim as to what is "real" ... only that there is a real. And if there is no real ... that too is reality.

 

I don't have beliefs

 

So you believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Of course, I assume, you do acknowledge that your statement ("To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false.") is a matter of belief accepted by some but not others." This is more along the lines of others pointing out what should be obvious, or self-evident if you like. I don't have beliefs, I have questions regarding the nature of things. You, on the other hand, cling to beliefs. :)

 

Steve

 

First you say something is 'simply false' and then you attempt a clarification by stating - that it is false should be obvious or self-evident. In other words, it is 'simply false.'

 

As for beliefs, you have just stated one: existence is not real, to think otherwise is false and (it is obvious that) the nature of things is not supernatural or mystical. This is not a question, it is a statement, a belief statement. It is as much a belief statement as a fundamentalist saying God and his world are real, to think otherwise is false and the true nature of things is found in the supernatural, i.e. God.

 

As for me, I'm not a clingy kind of guy, but I am curious.

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As for me, I'm not a clingy kind of guy, but I am curious.

 

"The dharma is for passing over, not for grasping" We'll make a card carrying Buddhist of you yet...... :D (Just remember that "curiosity killed the cat")

 

Moving on, and trying desperately not to grasp, just now I am dipping into yet another "about Merton" book, this after an interval in my interest. The book I am reading is "Follow the Ecstasy:The Hermitage Years of Thomas Merton" by John Howard Griffin. Not a new book, but while browsing I spotted it. Reading, I was reminded once again of Merton's sheer intensity, the unflagging self analysis that always went hand in hand with the call to surrender completely to the will of God.

 

On the subject of this thread, a relevant passage quoted by Griffin from Merton's Journals during his Hermitage years (From 1965 onwards)

 

My first obligation is to be myself and follow God's grace and not allow myself to become the captive of some idiot idea, whether of the hermit life or anything else. What matters is not spirituality, not religion, not perfection, not success or failure at this or that, but simply God, and freedom in His spirit.

 

​So, the "theist take".

 

And from the Theravada Buddhist texts......

 

So this holy life.......does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.

 

The "non-theist take".

 

I am not seeking to claim some sort of idiot idea ( :D ​) that both are the "same", just reporting the words that came to my own mind, and offered for the thoughts of others.

 

Later on Merton speaks of the "pharisaical division between the sacred and sense, between the sacred and the secular, and to see that the whole world is reconciled to God in Christ" (Merton's emphasis) and, speaking of union with God, that it "means the end of my own ego-self-realization, once and for all".

 

As I see it, the "contradictions" involved between Thestic and non-theistic language involve our own "either/or" mindset. Reality is more "both/and".

Edited by tariki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am not seeking to claim some sort of idiot idea ( :D ​) that both are the "same", just reporting the words that came to my own mind, and offered for the thoughts of others.

 

As I see it, the "contradictions" involved between Thestic and non-theistic language involve our own "either/or" mindset. Reality is more "both/and".

I don't think it is an "idiot idea" - it rings true.

 

I like the comment that reality is both/and. I have for quite a long time believed that the Way (for lack of a better description) is One and men find it (or it finds men) it the particularity of their circumstances. So, given those circumstances, some say, what matter is God, while others say, what matters is the goal, the end - the deliverance of mind.

 

Well and truly said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On 1/13/2017 at 3:29 PM, romansh said:

 

This requires omniscience on your part Burl. For all you (or I) know I might have a perfectly accurate visualization of god. Note I don't believe it ... but I can't assert it like you do.

God's essential being cannot be visualized- that's the most basic teaching in most Abrahamic religions.  Islam and Judaism in particular are explict that God is more dissimilar to a human being than similar.   When body parts are described for God, it is understood analogically.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

God's essential being cannot be visualized- that's the most basic teaching in most Abrahamic religions.  Islam and Judaism in particular are explict that God is more dissimilar to a human being than similar.   When body parts are described for God, it is understood analogically.

That seems a pretty accurate statement to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

God's essential being cannot be visualized- that's the most basic teaching in most Abrahamic religions.  Islam and Judaism in particular are explict that God is more dissimilar to a human being than similar.   When body parts are described for God, it is understood analogically.

God in himself (so to speak) or what is called the Godhead cannot be visualized: agreed. However, it seems important and necessary (and possible) to visualize the human experience of God as John did in his Gospel. And I wonder if one can/must say that the human experience of God must, in some real way, reflect the reality that is God in himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2019 at 9:39 PM, thormas said:

God in himself (so to speak) or what is called the Godhead cannot be visualized: agreed. However, it seems important and necessary (and possible) to visualize the human experience of God as John did in his Gospel. And I wonder if one can/must say that the human experience of God must, in some real way, reflect the reality that is God in himself.

Muslims and Jews get along just fine without doing so, so I don't see why it is necessary.

I don't see the author of the Gospel of John anthropomorphosizing God- that would be a distortion of the doctrine of the incarnation.  The notion of connecting ones religious teacher to the transcendent, what the doctrine of Incarnation is really about, is a common intuition across religions.   And that's all that's occurring in the Gospel according to John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

Muslims and Jews get along just fine without doing so, so I don't see why it is necessary.

I don't see the author of the Gospel of John anthropomorphosizing God- that would be a distortion of the doctrine of the incarnation.  The notion of connecting ones religious teacher to the transcendent, what the doctrine of Incarnation is really about, is a common intuition across religions.   And that's all that's occurring in the Gospel according to John.

Actually, don't the Jews visualize the human experience of God in their scriptures? Where do we think the earliest 'Christians,' all Jews got it, especially as they turned to their Jewish scriptures to understand Jesus? I have not studied Islam closely but doesn't the Koran take many of the same stories (with their visualizations of God) of Judaism and Christianity and add to it with stories of how they 'see' Allah -  in the experience of Mohammed?

As for John, isn't Jesus and the high Christology presented by John, all one giant anthropomorphism? God is shown to be in Jesus and/or Jesus in God. No matter how one understands incarnation, the scriptures (of all religions) are still a human work, utilizing human language to describe, tell the story and present their experience of God in the man, Jesus.

Finally, the incarnation is more than connecting a religious teacher to the transcendent (King, David, Moses or Ghandi) it is the belief and the doctrine that God became flesh in this and only this man, Jesus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/20/2019 at 10:02 PM, FireDragon76 said:

God's essential being cannot be visualized- that's the most basic teaching in most Abrahamic religions.

This of course is an assumption on the part of those that prophesize this particular view. Those that claim this, must have a perception of God and a perception of what others can perceive. Theirs is an opinion as some might point out. Perhaps my perception of God is spot on? 

Back from holiday

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, romansh said:

This of course is an assumption on the part of those that prophesize this particular view. Those that claim this, must have a perception of God and a perception of what others can perceive. Theirs is an opinion as some might point out. Perhaps my perception of God is spot on? 

Welcome back.

........or the assumption/belief is onto something. Many who have this particular view have no perception of God or, if you prefer, it is non-perception perception: God is 'nothing.' What is referred to as the 'Godhead' (God in 'Self') is unknowable, so what is discussed is the human experience of God or, if you prefer, what one believes about that experience.

And you are correct: these are opinions. Well done! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On 1/14/2016 at 7:04 AM, rjunker said:

How can one continue to use the word "God" and "non-theistic" in the same thought pattern?

Instead of a theistic god, one could talk about a pantheistic god, a deistic god, or something else.  There are a number of concepts of gods that are not theistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carson said:

Instead of a theistic god, one could talk about a pantheistic god, a deistic god, or something else.  There are a number of concepts of gods that are not theistic.

Theist,  I find is used in two senses. The first is simply a person who believes in any old deity (or deities). The second sense is somebody who believes in a personal God, usually an Abrahamic one. Confusion can arise here unless one clarifies the meaning.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service