₦airaland Forum

^^^^ I do not know how many times I have advised you to face issues and not people.

What has the foregoing post of yours got to do with anything being discussed here? ? ?

The Oracle of the Octopus was a complete hoax designed to attract attention and raise funds for the owners and related businesses.

A selection of pundits analysed each game and determined what team was more likely to win. Once that determination was reached, certain chemicals were placed on the desired box to lure the octopus that way when placed. The clueless animal was tricked just as surely as we all have been.

It is instructive that all Paul's predictions were fairly obvious easy guesses which did not disappoint. Spain has obviously been the best in the world for more than 2 years now: and no octopus is required to discern this fact.

Most instructive however, is the announcement of Paul's retirement immediately after the world cup.

Why? ? ?

vescucci:
Doctrine to me is a belief or set of beliefs on which a set of practices, conduct or state of mind is based and in which lack of belief compromises or totally dismisses one as a follower in the faith that propagates it. It is what separates Muslims from Jews and Catholics from Protestants and not whether you should turn the other cheek or not.

Beliefs are things that are borrowed and exchanged among many civilizations and cultures of old. It is not altogether unexpected that there should be similarities in myths, legends and doctrine provided it is among religions that have been in contact with one another. Except you think the similarities in mythology between the Greek and Romans are surprising. In my opinion, doctrine by its very nature presupposes an aura of exclusiveness such that anything two religions have in common is likely not doctrine. This is not to say there are no cases of this, I just think there aren't many and certainly not staggeringly so.

Simply and utterly brilliant. I was beginning to believe that no one else would appreciate that subtle connotation of the word "doctrine" as you have just done.

I suppose it might help if one adds to this context the word - [I]"Indoctrination"[/i] - and the very specific connotations that it carries with it.

Thank you.

Deepsight seems to be coming from the premise that religion is something that is arbitrarily invented by it's founders and so therefore can have no bearing on each other.

This is a truly unfortunate assessment of my perspectives.

I have spent 90 per cent of my time on this forum arguing the contrary: the common conscience of mankind and the openness of salvation to men of all faiths under the common principle of love.

I believe that I have already stated that which I am in fact arguing and can not therefore repeat my self.

Pastor AIO:
You just can't withstand my staggering ominipotence.

I looooooove this guy! ! !

Tudor -

Scholastic definition

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent, it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. The statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

Pastor AIO:
Panto- in greek means all

Krator - actually means ruling, or rulership. Not might or potency. So I could argue with translating it as almighty or omnipotent.

Demo -Kracy = People's rulership

Pluto-kracy = money rules

Panto-krator = rulership over all.

"Omnipotence = omni-potens. . .all powerful. . . how is this materially different from "rulership over all?" ? ? ? ? ?

Besides you ignored the Biblical quotes I pointed you to which clearly infer omnipotence whereas you claimed it is not a biblical concept. . .?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=477833.msg6378466#msg6378466 date=1279029738]Dude what is 'strict ominipotence'??

You are either ominipotent or you are not.
Strict indeed[/quote]There are different suppositions regarding omnipotence. . .

Meanings of omnipotence

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[4].
2.A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[5].
3.A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4.Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[6]
5.A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

The sixth is what many religionists imagine is the omnipotence of God. . .that sort of omnipotence is internally inconsistent and inconceivable.

Pastor -

Extracted Article - Scriptural grounds for Omnipotence

In the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, as well as several other versions, in Revelation 19:6 it is stated ", the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (the original Greek word is παντοκράτωρ, "all-mighty"

Many other verses in the Christian Bible do assert omnipotence of its deity without actually using the word itself. There are several mentions of the Christian deity being referred to as simply "Almighty", showing that the Christian Bible supports the belief of an omnipotent deity. Some such verses are listed below:

Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The Hebrew word used here is "shadday" [8])

Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Aside from this the reference in revelation to God as the Alpha and Omega reeks strongly of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. . .

I should note however that none of this addresses the pure illogicallity of strict omnipotence.

@ Pastor –

Many of the things that you put forward are quite amusing. “Sounds esoteric and so likely to be different on a superficial level. . .” I must have entirely failed in interacting with you or conveying my ideas or mind . . .and my failure is resounding.

Let’s have a look at it again: and this only for the objective reader.

Perhaps it is apposite before proceeding to set out to you the basic premise I have laboured to convey: and I say it again for the millionth time: all religions do preach love and detachment from worldly things – nevertheless the specific doctrines of major religions show sharp differences such that any claim that such religions are markedly similar in doctrine must perforce fail.

In case you have forgotten: the initial remark from Mad Max which triggered this discussion was that all religions are staggeringly similar in terms of thought, belief and doctrine.

I firmly disagree with that; and I still do.

The fact remains, just as I have said a zillion times already – the broad similarity in terms of the teaching of love and detachment from the world (which is all that you have pointed out by the way) is not sufficient to support the claims that Mad Max made.

In this regard I did set out a number of charts which you most cavalierly dismissed as inapplicable. Those charts very succinctly set out the core worldviews of each religion and I am aware that you were eager to dismiss the chart only on account of that which it made very painfully obvious; the significant divergences in THOUGHT AND BELIEF between religions.

Now revert to the fact that Mad Max’s opening statement talked about thoughts, beliefs and doctrines!

Here we go – what are the core beliefs of Christianity?

1. That God is supreme and must be worshipped in spirit and truth

2. That God is a Trinity

3. That Jesus is God and part of that Trinity

4. That original Adamic sin introduced death and suffering to Mankind

5. That Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice to deliver remission for sins

6. That Jesus’ resurrection was conquest of death for mankind

7. That belief in Jesus’ saving sacrifice is required to attain salvation

8. That the saved Christian must live in tandem with Jesus’ teachings on love     

OF ALL OF THE EIGHT CORE DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE, ONLY NO. 8 IS A COMMON DENOMINATOR WITH BUDDHISM AND MANY OTHER RELIGIONS.

I state to you that this is absolutely insufficient to deduce that the religions are markedly similar; for the first seven core doctrines as you well know are VERY VERY VERY central to Christian thought and belief; AND THEY DO NOT FEATURE AT ALL IN BUDDHISM.

Now I talked about the thrust of the Four Noble Truths.

Here are the Four Noble Truths again –

1. The Nature of Suffering (or Dukkha):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[3][4]

2. Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[3][4]

3. Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):
"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[3][4]

4. The Path (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:
"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."[5][6]


No logical person can look at the foregoing and insist that these truths are not centrally about suffering and escape from suffering. And not conceptually about the non-contingent love of Christian doctrine.

What I overwhelmingly need to emphasize is the fact that the entire concept and thrust of the Four Noble Truth and indeed the generality of Buddhist thought derives from the philosophy of avoiding, or growing past suffering. Suffering is the central idea which these truths strive against; and it is without doubt that the central plank upon which the cessation of suffering is based is the cessation of craving.

Everything within the Four Noble Truths and any knowledgeable enunciation of those truths points ineluctably to this. Indeed this is the very soul of those truths – they proceed from the point of view of suffering, and then devolve onto the source of suffering: which is identified as craving. Ultimately they wind up prescribing a death to craving as the solution; and it is instructive that the ultimate state for the Buddhist – Nirvana – is a state wherein the ego is virtually removed. Self as known to man, barely exists anymore.

Pastor – you cannot but agree, unless wilfully stubborn, that all of this in concept, origination, thrust and delivery is markedly different from Christian thought and doctrine: for Christian doctrine proceeds from the point of view of a fallen nature of man; which must be remedied by a divine sacrifice; which sacrifice forms the central basis and plank for Christian salvation.

I think it is important that I add that the Noble Truths as I have explained above do not centre around a non-contingent teaching of love. They are not built up from an imperative of love: they are built up from an imperative of suffering and elimination of suffering. It is true that ethical behaviour is therein prescribed: and there is no doubt that ethical behaviour will lead to a reduction of communal suffering: and this is and remains the thrust of the Four Noble Truths and Buddhist philosophy.

THIS IS THE REASON I MADE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU: THOSE TRUTHS DERIVE FROM THE CONCEPT OF SUFFERING AND ARE CONCEPTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND BELIEF WHICH ARE CENTRED AROUND SACRIFICIAL REMISSION OF SINS AND NON-CONTINGENT LOVE!

Now taking apart the Noble Eight Fold Path, we can see the further construct that I try to convey to you: namely that the thrust of these truths centres about suffering and seeks to ameliorate these through the path of moderation through ethics –

[Souced: Wiki] - The Noble Eightfold Path is sometimes divided into three basic divisions, as follows: Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñ ā, Pāli: paññā), Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla) and Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)



All of these are suggestive of a meditative approach to ameliorating the problem of individual and communal suffering.

1. Moral law of karma: Every action (by way of body, speech, and mind) will have karmic results (a.k.a. reaction). Wholesome and unwholesome actions will produce results and effects that correspond with the nature of that action. It is the right view about the moral process of the world.

2. The three characteristics: everything that arises will cease (impermanence). Mental and body phenomena are impermanent, source of suffering and not-self.

3. Suffering: Birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, distress, and despair are suffering. Not being able to obtain what one wants is also suffering. The arising of craving is the proximate cause of the arising of suffering and the cessation of craving is the proximate cause of the cessation of the suffering. The quality of ignorance is the root cause of the arising of suffering, and the elimination of this quality is the root cause of the cessation of suffering. The way leading to the cessation of suffering is the noble eightfold path.[22] This type of right view is explained in terms of Four Noble Truths.

Everything above emphatically proves the point I tried to make regarding the FOCUS of the Four Noble Truths as SUFFERING AND THE AVOIDANCE THEREOF: which thrust is divergent from the core of Christian Doctrine which in many degrees actually embraces suffering in pursuit of salvation – AND AT ALL EVENTS is motivated by salvation based on the sacrifice of Christ – which is a doctrine you will not dare to equate with Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths!

In all of this let me remind you that it will not be useful if you inundate me with details of the positive and agreeable results of all religious lines of thought – including such as are applicable to Christianity and Buddhism: that is a common denominator which is not at issue, thanks.

Pastor AIO:
Deepsight challenged that Buddhism's 4 noble truths had [size=16pt]nothing[/size]  in common with christianity.

Even after corrected, and accepting the said correction, I do not know how any person can repeatedly continue to deliberately misrepresent another person.

Please retract the foregoing. You know that is NOT what I said.

Indeed I stated thus -

Nobody has ever denied the presence of similar motifs that appear in many religions. My qualm is with the assertion that the similarities are staggering on issues of doctrine. That simply is not true.

I repeat: on the question of similarities of doctrine, the differences are sharply cut: and this is underscored by the very fact that the thrust of the Four Noble Truths is conceptually different from the God-centred thrust of Christian doctrine with its rigmarole of the trinity, sacrifice, redemption and salvation through belief in Christ.

So many unfortunate lies from people i respect so much.

This from Mavenbox -

InesQor:
@Deep Sight: You saidCan you please show me where I said paradise only began to exist at Christ's death? Bros, must you tell lies to prove a point?

And here is where you claimed that madam/sir -

Mavenb0x:
Heaven is not part of Hades, but Hades has intersected with heaven [size=16pt]since Christ rose. The intersection is what was called paradise[/size].

And you dared state that I was LYING? ? ?

You went further to state -

Hades is the unseen realm, period.

From which you must not shy away from concluding that God dwells in Hades as well: since Hades is “the unseen realm” and there is no doubt that God and his abode are the prime “unseen realm.”

Abi? Aha. Recant.

From Pastor also – some unpardonable falsehoods – He says - 

This thread was opened because after denying that Buddhism had any similarity with Christianity

Which is ‘staggeringly’ false because I never denied that Buddhism had any similarity with Christianity; the argument was whether the similarities in doctrine were ‘staggering.’ Indeed I specifically stated that all religions do share certain motifs, so why sir would you claim that I denied any similarity? Na wah o, Noetic16 may well have discerned some attributes of yours that I am yet to.

I then tried to show that the 4 Noble truths which are at the heart of Buddhism also feature at the heart of christianity.

Falsehood again. We both acceded from the inception that certain things are common to all religions – such as the adjuration to love and maintain worldly detachment. The argument was about similarities in dogma such as the Trinity, The sacrifice on the Cross, Remission of sins by that sacrifice, etc. You know this very well?

How arguing over the word virtue came into it, I don't know.

It came into it when (as typical of you) you inferred that religion should be an a virtuous practice but comically began to request that the word “virtue” should not be used!

Can you tell me why that word frightens you?

Is it not at the root of all that you have suggested in the OP?

Please if anyone can demonstrate how the 4 noble truths are alien to christianity can they please do so here for us to see.  Otherwise forever hold your peace.

Falsehood yet again. Nobody ever asserted the Four Noble Truths to be alien to Christianity. I did ask what the FOCUS of those truths are: escape from the cycle of suffering or what ? ? ?

Please Pastor.

Now I have steadily become deeply grieved.

Grieved that people may spout such unmentionable falsehoods such as above and end up smelling of roses.

Grieved that the one pointing out the falsehoods must perforce remain a villain.

I am sorry, but I am not able to make sense of the foregoing.

When people make statements they should be ready to face the direct inferences of those statements. It really would be more useful if rather than point to names, you point to the specific arguments and indicate to me how exactly I was being dishonest in any particular instance.

For Viaro, you might want to explain to me how a statement that Jesus (who he asserts to be God) rose and ascended to heaven in a physical body does not translate into God(who Jesus is) being resident in heaven in a physical body? Logic please?

For Mavenbox, you might want to explain to me how "paradise" only began to exist at the moment of christ's death, despite the fact that the eternal Tree of Life is said to exist in paradise from eternity to eternity? Or how "paradise" exists in the realm of the unseen - Hades - despite the fact that "Hades" resfers to the realm of the dead? And despite the fact that God and Heaven are the prime "unseen" - and as such according to her definitions could all be said to be residing in Hades? ? ? ?

Logic please.

And for Pastor's case I have already elucidated above. Would you care to revert to the second-to-last post I made above and address the ISSUES there and NOT the persons?

From your earliest posts on this forum, I had such grave respect for you sir. I still do. Please do preserve that by showing a tendency to address ISSUES and not PEOPLE. For as absurdly ridiculous as anybody can see the ideas of Viaro or Mavenbox above to be; as long as these people are Christians you have since shown that those absurdities will sound like honey to you: whereas the voice of strict and uncompromising logic must perforce continue to appear idiotic, insincere and dishonest to you.

^^^ What is intriguing is that whereas the story he mocks up shows me presuming things to be the same simply because they share some similarities; the argument I have made in this and the originating thread is entirely focused on pointing out differences in spite of similarities.

Interestingly the mock-up he has drawn of me applies exactly to what Pastor AIO is attempting in this thread: namely concluding religions to be similar on account of some similarities. . . whereas I am arguing the exact opposite.

Jupiter. . . by what other name may misrepresentation be called? ? ?

@ Nuclear frankly it is 'staggering' that you would attribute such logic to me. It forcefully emerges that i may have entirely failed to communicate anything while on this forum.

I need to emphasize to you something called the quality of contradictory uncertainty or fear: which is what Pastor AIO displays above. I neednt re emphasize that Pastor is my all time favourite Nairalander: the mind i revere most on this forum.

Nevertheless Pastor is so fabulously nervous of being defined - as any definition whatsoever instantly makes him feel boxed in. Sometimes he carries this contradictory uncertainty or fear to preposterous extents: as in this instance: review -

He starts out this thread seeking to emphasize the same underlying truths which gird all religions. in doing so he draws parallels between the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha and the teachings of Christianity regarding worldly detachment. He spins a good analogy deducing several of the major virtues preached by christianity. When i ask him about religious doctrine, he responds saying that religion for him is first and foremost a practice. There is no doubt whatsoever that he refers to practices of virtue which is exactly what he has spent the opening post dwelling upon - virtues. Addittionally it is quite inconceivable that when he said that for him religion is a practice, he meant practices of evil? No: rather as obvious based on his discourse on the four noble truths and virtues of love, he rather meant virtuous practices. Now the minute i indicate to him that he is talking about virtuous practices, in a fit of contradictory uncertainty or fear he shudders and distances himself from the word 'virtue.'

This is the same way several of you distance yourselves from the direct inferences of your own words. What could be so suddenly frightening about the word 'virtuous'?

That is contradictory uncertainty or fear for you. So preposterous in this instance because the whole discourse he initiated was about virtues. You see, he is again desirous of maintaining a vagueness that will leave him room to say anything. Whereas he knew very well my objections had nothing to do with virtue. This is exactly why he now seeks to avoid the word. Virtue is neutral of such dogma as the trinity etc.

In all of this, as now customary on this forum, i will yet wind up being the insincere and dishonest one. Strange. Really really strange.

^^^ Simply put you both are not able to squarely face the natural, logical and ineluctable inferences of your own words.

Yeah, I noticed that tendency of yours from other threads that is why as innocuous as it may seem it's better to nip it in the bud quick quick. Otherwise it soon turns from innocuous to poisonous.

Men, reflecting this was a wonderful discussion! Learnt sooooo much and very interesting minds.

Whatever happened to Alanitiogo? He must have been an already existing user. . .?

Abi Pastor, was it you: Pastor [size=16pt]A[/size]lan[size=16pt]I[/size]tiog[size=23pt]o[/size]?

^^^ All that for "virtue?" Now we are truly in the woods.

You are gradually reminding me of this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.0.html

But I like this though -

seeming to come into being and then seeming to cease but in actual fact . . . lol . . . and here's the rub . . . in actually fact it all remains the ineffable Sameness. The Oneness and Sameness of all finite things.

yep!

^^^ Pastor, are you ok? Worried.

Is anybody having such a primitive discussion in the 21st century? ? ?

What a bunch of dolts.

Don't worry. migrate to Saudi Arabia - trust me - you will have enough of the decently dressed women you want.

Clowns.

Ah ahn, Pastor you are reverting to your deliberately vague ways. . . what quarrel can you possibly have with "virtue"?

Everything you have said and adduced from the four noble truths centres around virtue anyway. . .

And when you say that religion is a practice for you. . .there is no doubt that you have virtue in mind. . .so why shy away from it?

My fear is that if you shy away from such cardinal aspects of what you yourself are saying, then we will verily end up having said nothing at all!

Pastor AIO:
please sir, where did I say that 'Religion consists principally of what should be the virtuous practices of people'.

I did not say that you said so. If you read my post you will see that the said you suggested so.

And without a doubt you did. For you stated -

Pastor AIO:
Religion is, to me, first and foremost a Practice.

Am I to presume that you imagine Religion to consist for you of evil practices? Clearly not. The only reasonable inference therefore is that as you have said, religion for you should be a (virtuous) practice.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg6352741#msg6352741 date=1278613313] MyJoe, where is you? I've a dozen things I'm puzzled by and would really like your view on them. Your views won't be debated though I hope I can ask clarifying questions. I was going to ask something about the Eden/Adamic fall of man genesis story, but knowing what to ask is a bit awkward if one doesn't know your religious beliefs. I don't even know Deep Sight's. [/quote]If this is not masochism on my part, I do no know what else is; but at the risk of my psycological balance and with great peril to my personal safety I will attempt again to give you my unsolicited and I know much despised views regarding the question you have hinted at: the garden of Eden.

Could it be that the legend related in Genesis regarding the fall of man in Eden is not a reference to an event that occured in this world, but rather describes the departure of the spirit of mankind from the eternal spiritual realm into the world of matter?

This would tally with many things. A forbidden fruit would be the world of matter. Entering into it would bring about knowledge of good and evil, as presumably there is no evil in the realm from which the spirit came. Or there is just pure neutrality. Casting out man from the garden would be sending the spirit out of the spiritual realm into the world of matter. Wearing animal skins is a clear indicator of the physical bodies that man must wear to live in the physical world. Such bodies bear close resemblances to animal bodies. It is instructive that the fruit is given by the woman, since it is by women that we are born into the world of matter. On top of all that God promises that if man eats the fruit he shall die. It is certain that death is only known to man once he has entered the world of matter. Above all the reference to the Lord God strolling in the Garden and communing daily with man there on a one to one basis indicates that this was a spiritual realm where God's presence was.

Most instructively however, the TREE OF LIFE was said to reside in the garden. Crucially, it is said to be guarded by cherubs and a flaming sword after the fall of man. That says it all; it could not have been this earth. It was another realm. The ultimate realm.

noetic16:
There is no biblical basis for such belief. . .as such Nope. However I do concede that there is nothing impossible with God.

So why then were you wondering if the two witnesses would be moses and enoch?

Are they to fly down from heaven on chariots of fire or be reincarnated?

I don't see it as a duel. Its just a mutual quest for understanding the perspectives of one another.

I think it would be apt to say that Life is a practice: or that living should be guided by virtuous practices.

But Religion, as it is and has developed, is not practice alone. Not even "first and foremost" i dare say. Religion consists of ideas, beliefs, doctrines, practices and the whole cabana. The truth is that if the 'practice' you refer to was the leading element, then there would not be different religions in the first place.

It emerges that BELIEFS are actually the leading element in defining religions in this retarded world.

Living, and right living by contrast, can and should come without the baggage of the nuances of religious dogma.

It is therefore entirely inappropriate to suggest that Religion consists principally of what should be the virtuous practices of people. If you would wake up and smell the coffee, religion actually has a truck load of baggage which extends into all sorts of odd dogma and bizzarre beliefs and practices.

So your surmise regarding religious similarities is therefore inescapably flawed to the extent that you seek to brand religion as the practices primarily. That is a false, or incomplete premise. The plain fact remains that people are divided along religious lines based mainly on differences in BELIEFS.

And there are grave differences in those beliefs.

Do you believe in reincarnation?

^^^ Any person with the slightest apprehension of the Godhead must instantly dismiss the notion that it is possible for any spirit being to attempt to "depose" God, or "enter into war" against God, or try to become like God.

Such an endeavour is even more implausible when once considers that the lead coup plotter is said to be an angel of such high office that the eternal, self-existent and intangible nature of God is doubtless known to him. That God IS is something such an angel would know and in light of this it becomes comical to conceive of such a being attempting to war with the intangible self-existent reality that is God, or become like God.

These really do sound like ancient semitic folk tales; which is what they are anyway.

Doctrine

@ Pastor. Perhaps persons who did not view our exchanges in the other thread may not grasp your motivation for opening this discussion.

Underlying every religion is a teaching of love and detachment from worldly things. This cuts across board.

However it seems to me that we have a fundamental difference of understanding in terms of the word "doctrine" - or perhaps we just use the word in different senses. You seem to use it to refer to all and any teachings which may include such broad and generalist teachings such as the universal commandment of love. That is fair enough. I do not however, view the adjuration towards love as a doctrine - not in the particular sense i refer to.

By doctrine, i refer to specific sets of canonical revelations which are central to the framework of teachings set up by a Religious School of thought. These doctrines, i might add, are very specific sets of cannonical teachings.

To crystallize this, the Encarta Dictionary gives as one of its definitions of the word "doctrine" - the following - a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct.

So you see this is the sense in which I refer to “doctrines” – specific sets of canonical ideas revealed and conveyed as the truth upon which an entire belief system emerges. In this particular context therefore, “love thy neighbour” is not a doctrine – but is simply a commandment or an adjuration. On the other hand, a revealed canonical set such as the idea of Singular Triad as a deity is doctrinal. To underscore the point in common language I am sure that you hear the word “doctrine” used more with reference to such specific sets of canonical ideas, than in relation to broad adjurations of love or forgiveness. Thus you hear of “the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” but scarcely hear of the “doctrine” of love or forgiveness. I hope you get what I am getting at. The Trinity is a specific revelatory body of ideas which has become the basis for a given line of religious thought.

It is for this reason that your continuous attempt to stir up the broad ideas of human love and brotherliness and eschewing worldliness as evidence of staggering similarities in doctrine will sit uncomfortably with me.

Let me draw a very rough and hurried table. Below we see that the principle of love is common to these religions. But the doctrinal beliefs rooted in cannon and revelation are very unique to each. The differences in the doctrinal beliefs, are accordingly, staggering.

Religion:         Xtianity                   Islam                          Buddhism

Principle:          Love                        Love                             Love


Doctrines:          Trinity                     One God                AGNOSTIC
                     Christ’s sacrifice            Submission               Meditation
                     Remission of Sins           Sets of Prayer           Reincarnation
                                                                 

Now the foregoing is only a very rough and hurried chart. But it can easily be seen that the doctrines of Christianity which centre around Christ’s sacrifice and remission of sins, justification by faith and grace, the deity of Christ ALL BEAR ZERO SIMILARITY TO ISLAMIC, BUDDHIST OR HINDU IDEAS. INDEED SUCH IDEAS ARE DENOUNCED AS FALSE BY ISLAM AND UTTERLY NON-COGNISED IN THE BUDDHIST AND HINDU WORLDVIEWS.

So it seems to me rather simplistic to assert as you have done, that the teaching of love and detachment from the world is enough to deduce a staggering doctrinal similarity between Christianity and Buddhism for example, as your enunciation of the four noble truths attempts to do.

Now what is crucial for me is that doctrine perforce evokes the ideas of a religion and its view of all existence. Christianity is centred around the idea of the existence of a supreme God and active worship of that supreme God. Pure Buddhism, by contrast, is silent on the question of God, and does not require recognition of, or any apprehension of God whatsoever. At the outset one can see that the worldviews are thus radically different.

@ Max - The perceptions of light and darkness I tried to convey have absolutely no relation whatever with the concepts of day and night as experienced on Earth. I had spoken along the lines of centrifugal and centripetal intangible and self existent realities.

Nevertheless I note that you want a Christian perspective and thus I must leave it to the Christians to revert to you.

Cheers.

@ Nuclear: I regret that you have failed, refused or neglected to address any of the grave issues I did raise in my last post to you: and I am disconcerted that you saw therein only a rehashing of the past: for the specific context deployed is quite different.

Given that you have refused to address any of the grave issues i spent considerable time setting out, I must conclude that it would be unwise to deploy my time in that regard any further.

Warm regards.

^^^ Great question, and although I am not MyJoe, i would like to offer my two cents.

Both Light and Darkness are, in my view, eternal, self-existent realities.

In as much as it is impossible to have a concept of "up" without an equal reverse concept of "down," i do not imagine that the Light may be spoken of without a reverse existence of darkness.

Whether the light is subsumed in a personality i fear no man may ever know - as no man may ever appproach the Light or comprehend its existence. In the same vein it may not be possible to determine if the darkness is subsumed in a personality. What is relevant and important i think, may be a recognition of what these elements represent, and to what extent such may be relevant to our personal lives.

It is tempting to simplistically view Light as "good" and darkness as "evil" - but i fear that is not a subtle or discrete enough perception. I will be more inclined to viewing the Light as the centre of all existent intangible magnetism, and the darkness as the reverse of that magnetism which is inclined to disintegration.

Thus i view the Light as a unifying force in a sense - the centre of ordered existence - whereas the darkness remains the eternal centrifugal force which pulls in the opposite direction - towards disintegration and an existence or reality which is not ordered and therefore meaningless.

I think that this is why the mystic will tell you about an eternal stuggle between Light and Darkness: for a magnetic central and unifying force must needs remain in eternal conflict with that which naturally pulls in the opposite direction and is directed towards disintegration. In this sense i might say that the Light is therefore the bastion of harmony whilst the darkness is representative of distintegration; a pulling apart and thus cessation of ordered existence. It is thesefore the Light that has meaning and purpose and order and direction, whereas the darkness has disintegration as its natural centrifugal tendency.

To crystallize it the Light is representative of life and mind in this regard.

Looking at things this way it seems beautiful and deep that it was written: "The Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth not the Light."