The Theist Sanctuary
Ancalagon wrote:
"People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, 'If you keep a lot of rules I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing.' ... I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. ... all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature" -- C. S. Lewis
I pretty much go along with this view. Another way to put it, although I think it more or less comes out to the same thing, is that to be with God (the ultimate source of everything good) is heaven and not to be is hell.
Ah thanks. Yes, I can see how that works now.
I pretty much go along with this view. Another way to put it, although I think it more or less comes out to the same thing, is that to be with God (the ultimate source of everything good) is heaven and not to be is hell.
It's quite odd that this 'condition', for want of a better word, has become symbolized by a place of torture experienced after death - the "reward vs. punishment" thing. It puzzles me how something so fundamental and clear, as in the way it's described above, can yet be so distorted.
As I understand it (and that's probably "badly") the Catholic church seems completely based on the reward vs. punishment model yet the underlying message is so much simpler and non-threatening. More, the threat is a place not intended for man, as shrox points out - so the whole "punishment" angle seems to be drifting ever further from the truth.
The ease with which this has become accepted troubles me somewhat.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
Moog wrote:
The Buddhists call that Dukkha
What's your religion Kobi?
Quote:
Monks, any desire & passion with regard to craving for forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire & passion with regard to craving for sounds... craving for aromas... craving for flavors... craving for tactile sensations... craving for ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing.
What's your religion Kobi?
This is interesting, Moog! I don't know Buddhism very well (that's a shame, because I should read more about it). I'm Jewish.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 161 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 45 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
"A man is as free as he chooses to make himself, never an atom freer"
Cornflake wrote:
It puzzles me how something so fundamental and clear, as in the way it's described above, can yet be so distorted.
Well, those are my conclusions, not where I started from, and I don't think the punishment aspect is invalid, just not something it's a good idea to dwell on.
And I think I can see how people would want to make it sound physically bad, since they would want people to understand it's a bad place, which may not come across with the 'away from God' description. As hanyo already pointed out, being away from God doesn't sound bad at all if you don't believe God exists in the first place.
I don't think hell is physically lit on fire or that there is externally imposed pain, I think it's more like a state of mind, but a very nasty and unpleasant one.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Moog wrote:
The Buddhists call that Dukkha
What's your religion Kobi?
Quote:
Monks, any desire & passion with regard to craving for forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire & passion with regard to craving for sounds... craving for aromas... craving for flavors... craving for tactile sensations... craving for ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing.
What's your religion Kobi?
My understanding of dukkha is slightly different and not really like the idea of hell being away from God. It's true that suffering comes from craving which comes from desire. However, the 'qualities worth realising' are already there underneath all the defilements. There's no transcendent God-like force involved, just a realisation of what was there all along. Like that metaphor of cleaning the mirror so you can see clearly.
Apparently, when you clean the mirror, you might realise that there isn't one there - or something else I can't really do justice to in words and don't really undertand.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
puddingmouse wrote:
Moog wrote:
The Buddhists call that Dukkha
What's your religion Kobi?
Quote:
Monks, any desire & passion with regard to craving for forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire & passion with regard to craving for sounds... craving for aromas... craving for flavors... craving for tactile sensations... craving for ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing.
What's your religion Kobi?
My understanding of dukkha is slightly different and not really like the idea of hell being away from God. It's true that suffering comes from craving which comes from desire. However, the 'qualities worth realising' are already there underneath all the defilements. There's no transcendent God-like force involved, just a realisation of what was there all along. Like that metaphor of cleaning the mirror so you can see clearly.
Apparently, when you clean the mirror, you might realise that there isn't one there - or something else I can't really do justice to in words and don't really undertand.
Cool. I'm not really that bothered what people call this stuff, or whether it's conceived of as a natural or supernatural process. I'm results oriented. I'm happy to work with conceptual frameworks that are theistic, atheistic, magical, secular or jazz funk fusion. As long as the results are good. I am led to believe that Meditation also works on atheists.
_________________
Not currently a moderator
Moog wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Moog wrote:
The Buddhists call that Dukkha
What's your religion Kobi?
Quote:
Monks, any desire & passion with regard to craving for forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire & passion with regard to craving for sounds... craving for aromas... craving for flavors... craving for tactile sensations... craving for ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing.
What's your religion Kobi?
My understanding of dukkha is slightly different and not really like the idea of hell being away from God. It's true that suffering comes from craving which comes from desire. However, the 'qualities worth realising' are already there underneath all the defilements. There's no transcendent God-like force involved, just a realisation of what was there all along. Like that metaphor of cleaning the mirror so you can see clearly.
Apparently, when you clean the mirror, you might realise that there isn't one there - or something else I can't really do justice to in words and don't really undertand.
Cool. I'm not really that bothered what people call this stuff, or whether it's conceived of as a natural or supernatural process. I'm results oriented. I'm happy to work with conceptual frameworks that are theistic, atheistic, magical, secular or jazz funk fusion. As long as the results are good. I am led to believe that Meditation also works on atheists.
The problem with being results oriented (from a Zen perspective) is that it implies one has created a concept or target to aim for e.g. enlightenment, or rather what one conceives of as enlightenment and one aims for this mental abstraction. The danger there is that one chases pleasing mental images and sensations. There is nothing wrong with that if it is what one wants. My perspective is that 'enlightenment' may or may not exist but it is not something to be aimed for, nor is it something that one can 'achieve' or 'own'. Instead one opens up to what 'is', rather than having pre-conceived ideas of it. By cleaning the mirror whatever 'is' becomes apparent of itself.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
TallyMan wrote:
Moog wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Moog wrote:
The Buddhists call that Dukkha
What's your religion Kobi?
Quote:
Monks, any desire & passion with regard to craving for forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire & passion with regard to craving for sounds... craving for aromas... craving for flavors... craving for tactile sensations... craving for ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing.
What's your religion Kobi?
My understanding of dukkha is slightly different and not really like the idea of hell being away from God. It's true that suffering comes from craving which comes from desire. However, the 'qualities worth realising' are already there underneath all the defilements. There's no transcendent God-like force involved, just a realisation of what was there all along. Like that metaphor of cleaning the mirror so you can see clearly.
Apparently, when you clean the mirror, you might realise that there isn't one there - or something else I can't really do justice to in words and don't really undertand.
Cool. I'm not really that bothered what people call this stuff, or whether it's conceived of as a natural or supernatural process. I'm results oriented. I'm happy to work with conceptual frameworks that are theistic, atheistic, magical, secular or jazz funk fusion. As long as the results are good. I am led to believe that Meditation also works on atheists.
The problem with being results oriented (from a Zen perspective) is that it implies one has created a concept or target to aim for e.g. enlightenment, or rather what one conceives of as enlightenment and one aims for this mental abstraction. The danger there is that one chases pleasing mental images and sensations. There is nothing wrong with that if it is what one wants. My perspective is that 'enlightenment' may or may not exist but it is not something to be aimed for, nor is it something that one can 'achieve' or 'own'. Instead one opens up to what 'is', rather than having pre-conceived ideas of it. By cleaning the mirror whatever 'is' becomes apparent of itself.
I would say that chasing abstractions or pleasing images isn't a very good result.
_________________
Not currently a moderator
Moog wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Moog wrote:
I would say that chasing abstractions or pleasing images isn't a very good result.
That begs the question "What would be a good result?"
Cessation of suffering.
Fair enough. I won't dig any deeper into something you seem reticent to discuss.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
TallyMan wrote:
Moog wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Moog wrote:
I would say that chasing abstractions or pleasing images isn't a very good result.
That begs the question "What would be a good result?"
Cessation of suffering.
Fair enough. I won't dig any deeper into something you seem reticent to discuss.
That's my answer
Would you like me to expand on that in some way?
PM incoming.
_________________
Not currently a moderator
I've been told today that conceptions are the enemy, and words are a trap, so I won't spend too many words on concepts.
I think that concepts and words can be trapping, but they can also provide necessary frameworks for direct, non conceptual understanding. Like the scaffolding one needs to build a house. You shouldn't try to live in the scaffold.
Remember that aversion is the other side of the coin to attachment.
All my google adsense ads are about scaffolding now. ![]()
_________________
Not currently a moderator
