Theological Opinions

[Nurvingiel]

It's going on the list buddy! (Both books) I actually had the chance to see the Dalai Lama speak in Vancouver! Of course, I went. He spoke about Universal Peace, and it was very... dare I say... enlightening.

Now that hear, shall we talk about Buddhist theology? The original intent of this thread was to talk about the theologies of many different religions. (We can always restart the Christian theology discussion too.)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Ta Nurv, they are both excellent reads, and the first appendix to the Book of Wisdom is the acceptance speech made by the Dalai Lama, for receiving the nobel peace prize.

Dalai Lama the title itself is derived from a few words,
the man who came to be the 3rd dalai lama visited a mongol chieftain (the nephew of genghis khan no less) and, on speaking with the tibetan monk, the mongol converted to buddhism almost instantly. the mongol gave him the name Ta Le, which signifies 'Ocean', speaking of his great depth. This term, in Tibetan, is Dalai, and Lama means 'Wisdom', so the title of Dalai Lama signifies 'Ocean of Wisdom'.

(As you can probably tell, I am a Lamaist Buddhist)

[Rían]

Lief - give me a call sometime if you want to hear the song - I'll play it for you over the phone! It's quite interesting musically, too, as you prob. can tell from the word pattern.

Yeah, I think I'm done debating this issue - I'll respond briefly to your comments:

By free-will, I don't mean freedom from God. Apart from God, one cannot exist. However, I do believe the Bible shows all over the place that humans can choose, within limits God has set, and I see this matching the character of God, too. And I also see predestination. So I think that the two ideas (free-will and predestination) are complimentary, not contradictory. Kind of like faith and works - one can quote "by grace you have been saved, and NOT by works", and then quote "faith without works is dead" (there's better examples, but those will do) and say "so which is it? Faith or works?" But the answer is, I think, that the two are tied together. Real faith cannot help but have works - it's a natural outflow of faith; so if there are no works there is no faith, altho the works did NOT save.

Anyway, again I see that it comes down to practical things - we are called to DO things, and we make choices. What are we going to do today?

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting. As a side note, I read a really good book about Genghis Khan a long time ago, I think his nephew was 'the end of the line' so to speak. Or was that his grandson.

I always figured there was more than one 'type' of Buddhist. What are the other kinds? (Sects... denominations... things... )

What differentiates Lamaists from other Buddhists? Tell me more about the theology, because I don't want to usurp the role of the "Why you believe..." thread.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

There isn't much differentiation between 'denominations' (for want of a more suitable word), Zen is more widely practised in Japan and Korea than in the Indian Subcontinent, and Lamaist is traditionally more widely practised in Tibet, but there are other forms, the base of buddhism, for instance, originated in Nepal and Northern India, with the Buddha himself, Siddartha Gautama (There are many variant spellings of His name), and this has been taken more in s e asia, myanmar, thailand etc. Lamaist Buddhism was first developed in tibet, and zen developed in china and korea, when the area was overrun by mongol hordes, although it has taken a more peaceful tone since the demise of the khanates, in about the 12th century.

[Ñólendil]

Last Child, isn't there is a slight difference, though, between Mahayana Buddhism and Hinayana Buddhism?

I realize even those have their own regions, but my understanding was that there is a difference in belief, particularly in the matter of bodhiccita (sp?).

In his Introduction to Live in a Better Way, Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche said that Mahayana Buddhism states that we must desire to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, not only for oneself. And I believe I have read elsewhere that Hinayana was focused more on performing austerities.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Last Child, isn't there is a slight difference, though, between Mahayana Buddhism and Hinayana Buddhism?

I realize even those have their own regions, but my understanding was that there is a difference in belief, particularly in the matter of bodhiccita (sp?).

In his Introduction to Live in a Better Way, Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche said that Mahayana Buddhism states that we must desire to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, not only for oneself. And I believe I have read elsewhere that Hinayana was focused more on performing austerities.

Yes, there are slight differences, but with all varying forms, as is the case in most religion.

Boddhisattha?

[Nurvingiel]

I think it's very interesting how history can shape religion. (Not just Buddhism.)

I added the book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hanh to the list, which Nolendil mentioned in the "Why you believe..." thread.

[Ñólendil]

Boddhisattha?

Maybe that is it. Unless that word you suggest is the same as Boddhisattva. I am thinking of the word for the motivation to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings.

But I thought that, however it is spelled, that it was pronounced, "bohd-i-chit-tah", or something along those lines

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

For the benefit of those who do not know much of buddhism,
i will transcribe a piece from a scripture.

Illumination of the Five Realms of Existence
Let there be homage:

Homage to the Virtuous One, conqueror of what must be conquered, resplendent with right knowledge, always working for the good of others, the teacher of the three worlds!

'Whatever good or bad deed is done by themselves with body and so on, people reap the fruit of it; no other creator is found'

With this thought, and displaying compassion, the Instructor, the one teacher of the three worlds, spoke for people's benefit about the fruit of each deed.

this is te first section of the scripture, which describes all 8 hells (Narakas) the secondary hells (Nirayas), animals, ghosts (petas), ghouls (kumbhandas), demigods (asuras), human beings and gods (devas)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

By free-will, I don't mean freedom from God. Apart from God, one cannot exist. However, I do believe the Bible shows all over the place that humans can choose, within limits God has set, and I see this matching the character of God, too.

Hmm. I don't see it anywhere in the Bible. The only place I've seen Free Will clearly spelled out is in the Apocryphal book of (I believe) Ecclesiasticus. However, I already wrote my views earlier on the Joshua passage you brought up. What I wrote in response to that tends to basically summarize my views on that.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I also see predestination. So I think that the two ideas (free-will and predestination) are complimentary, not contradictory. Kind of like faith and works - one can quote "by grace you have been saved, and NOT by works", and then quote "faith without works is dead" (there's better examples, but those will do) and say "so which is it? Faith or works?" But the answer is, I think, that the two are tied together. Real faith cannot help but have works - it's a natural outflow of faith; so if there are no works there is no faith, altho the works did NOT save.

I'd really just question what you mean by Free Will. I think slavery to God is freedom, so God ordaining every single thing that happens in creation doesn't seem limiting. I don't see value in God giving beings the ability to decide things he hasn't decided. That's freedom of choice from God's choice. I see no value in it. Oh well, though.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Anyway, again I see that it comes down to practical things - we are called to DO things, and we make choices. What are we going to do today?

I'm not sure I understand this point. We have life. We have our own minds. We each have a soul and spirit. We make decisions.

There you stop. I would go on, one step further. God already made those decisions. When people talk about Free Will, they generally mean "freedom from God." In other words, "God didn't make my decisions. I did." Do you define Free Will to mean that God does not ordain everything? Do you view the statement "God didn't make my decisions. I did.", to be accurate?

When you say Free Will and predestination work together, I'm not positive what you mean, because I dodn't know how you define Free Will, and I'm not completely sure how you define predestination either. It's all a bit vague to me.

[Nurvingiel]

From the GLB thread...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Okay, I'm going to give your post a good response. You ask some very deep and probing things, and I wish to give them a little time, in my responses.

Thank you Lief, and here I was thinking I was just confused. I mean thoughtful... yes... that...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I will answer one thing really quickly, though. Paul was against slavery. He said in one of the Epistles that "no slave-trader shall enter the kingdom of heaven." Paul argued strongly for good treatment of slaves in the Epistles, also.

Well I'm with Paul on that one. He's against slavery, and failing that, at least for the good treatment of slaves. Is that what he's saying?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I also would make the point that not all slavery is wrong. Sometimes it can be beneficial to slave and master alike. Sometimes there are circumstances where the slave would starve if he or she wasn't taken as a slave, but anything other then slavery would be hurtful to the owner.

Do you think not all slavery is wrong, or is that what the Bible says? Either way, I think slavery is always wrong. If someone is on the brink of starvation, I don't think charity should be tied to forcing him to work for you.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

His words to some slaves telling them to obey their masters is completely in keeping with all of God's teaching for behavior. It's like Jesus' words, "do unto others what you would have them do unto you." It's not saying that their treatment is right; it's saying that "this is how you are to behave while enduring that treatment." One should look at Joseph, in the Old Testament. He was a slave for a time, yet he behaved with integrity, and the Lord was with him. So Paul's words made a lot of sense, and they weren't saying that slavery was right. You really need to read that Bible, Nurvi . Sometimes nonbelievers come up with arguments like that which just aren't accurate.

What Jesus said makes sense, especially in the context of the time.

I didn't say Paul said slavery was right, I said this was in the Bible. It's Leviticus that said slavery was okay, so ha!

Is that a contradiction, between Paul and Leviticus? Who was Leviticus?

You don't have to answer all my questions, but I am curious.

EDIT: Are you saying I'm a nonbeliever? Or did you mean non-Christians making Bible-based arguments?

[Lief Erikson]

Non-Christians making Bible based arguments.

I'll respond more later!

[Ñólendil]

Lief, out of sheer interest, and with no interest in arguing the point, how do you treat the problem of evil, in light of your belief in predeterminism?

The problem of evil recognized in philosophy as being "How can a loving God permit evil to exist? Why does evil exist at all?" Or, to be specific to your approach in this topic, "If God predetermines what choices we will make, why would God predetermine that we make evil choices? And if God created us so that we could not act against our nature, why would God give some people apparently evil natures?"

My hunch is that there is more than one power at work, when it comes to the nature of the soul, in your worldview.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well I'm with Paul on that one. He's against slavery, and failing that, at least for the good treatment of slaves. Is that what he's saying?

I think he's in favor of the good treatment of slaves, and he is against slavery when the slavery is abusive and inhumane. There were times in North America's South when slavery clearly wasn't in the best interests of the people that were kept bound in it. There were times where they were horribly abused. However, there were also times when the people were better off in the plantations, and they were much, much worse off when they were freed. Those people would have been better off remaining slaves. Paul was arguing against the brutal practice of kidnapping people and forcing them to slavery, as was later done in Africa. I'll go further into this later.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Do you think not all slavery is wrong, or is that what the Bible says? Either way, I think slavery is always wrong. If someone is on the brink of starvation, I don't think charity should be tied to forcing him to work for you.

In Old Testament times, slavery was a common practice in ancient Israel. I'm not sure how long it lasted. It was the practice throughout all of the ancient kingdoms back then. Sometimes Israelites sold themselves into slavery to their fellow Israelites.

Israel was extremely set apart from the other nations around it though, for its good treatment of slaves. Not only did they punish Israelites who abused their slaves in certain ways, or to certain extents, but they also had a regular period, every forty-nine years, when they had a year of Jubilee. At that fiftieth year, every slave in Israel was freed.

One can't force the rich to show charity. One can tax them and give the money to the poor, but that isn't a good idea, from an economic standpoint. It hurts education and incentives to excell. Also, charity isn't regular food and housing, like slavery is. It's also given generally by those that can afford to do so. Sometimes there are employers who can't afford to pay workers a regular salary. In real life, businesses sometimes go out of business because they can't afford to pay their workers well enough. So the employer can't always make ends meet without slavery. It's not worth his while. The slave also is sometimes better off then the beggar on the street. I think this was particularly true in ancient times. With the current state of our economy, slavery sounds utterly awful. I think that's in large part because of our reference frame. Here we are all so comfortable, so capable of getting jobs. Back in the 1930s though, I bet that there were probably people out there who would have been willing to sell themselves to get food. I bet that there are people in Africa who would do that now. I expect that a lot of them would be better off if there was a government regulated slave-trade going on there, horrible though it may sound. In ancient times, it wasn't easy for people to be well off. People couldn't at all easily just "get jobs."

The slave-trade was an economic policy back then. There are many unfair economic policies nowadays too, and I wouldn't argue that slavery is good. I just don't think it's ALWAYS wrong.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I didn't say Paul said slavery was right, I said this was in the Bible. It's Leviticus that said slavery was okay, so ha!

All right, you got me on that one.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Who was Leviticus?

Leviticus is the name of the third book of the Bible. The word Leviticus means "relating to the Levites."

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Is that a contradiction, between Paul and Leviticus?

In the other major versions of the Bible that are available, the word "slave-trader" was translated in slightly different ways. They interpreted it "kidnapper," in two versions, and in the other, "man-stealer". This seems to indicate that the kind of slave-trader Paul was referring to was the kind that goes to Africa and steals people from their homes. He wasn't referring to the Israelite people that took slaves and provided for them as an economic policy. In those times, people sometimes sold themselves as slaves to other people, to avoid starvation. A good example of this is the land of Egypt when Joseph ruled it. Now remember, Joseph himself had been a slave, so he knew what slavery was like! Nevertheless, he bought every living person, animal, piece of land, everything in Egypt for pharaoh. He didn't consider all slavery to be wrong, even though he'd had some awful personal experiences with it. I should amend my statement a little. They sold themselves to Joseph, and he bought them. It was an economic policy. The people worked for their master all their lives, or in Israel, until the year of Jubilee. They were provided for by their master, also. In the part of the world that we live in, we are so well off that we often don't need the slave trade any more. Back then, I think a lot of people did need it.

One philosophical point I thought of about slavery is that everyone is a slave, to one extent or another. Whatever nation we are in, there are laws that are set up which we are unable to break. We have no choice but to obey the laws our government sets out for us. That form of slavery we all accept in this modern time as good, acceptable and necessary. In those older times, almost-complete slavery also was viewed as good, acceptable and necessary. It was even accepted as such by the slaves themselves! Look at the Israelites, who were kept as slaves by their Egyptian masters at the time of Moses. They didn't find any problem with the slave trade. They started taking slaves as fast as anyone, once they were free. Some of them sold themselves as slaves to one another. And the Lord caused laws to be passed in Israel for the decent treatment of slaves.

[Lief Erikson]

Sure I'll respond to you on that, Ñólendil. You won't like the Apostle Paul's answer .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Lief, out of sheer interest, and with no interest in arguing the point, how do you treat the problem of evil, in light of your belief in predeterminism?

The problem of evil recognized in philosophy as being "How can a loving God permit evil to exist? Why does evil exist at all?" Or, to be specific to your approach in this topic, "If God predetermines what choices we will make, why would God predetermine that we make evil choices? And if God created us so that we could not act against our nature, why would God give some people apparently evil natures?"

My hunch is that there is more than one power at work, when it comes to the nature of the soul, in your worldview.

I'm not positive what you mean by that last. I'll respond to everything else, though . Go ahead and argue it also, if you wish. If there are flaws in my beliefs, I'd be pleased to know them!

How can a loving God permit evil to exist? Why does evil exist at all?

The answer to that, many Christians would argue, is that God made his creatures have Free Will. They are free from God's will. Therefore God doesn't dictate what they do. God knew that they'd do evil, and he allowed it according to his good purpose. I used to believe in Free Will, in the sense that Free Will advocates use it .

Anyway, on to the question as related to my current worldview.

If God predetermines what choices we will make, why would God predetermine that we make evil choices? And if God created us so that we could not act against our nature, why would God give some people apparently evil natures?

Actually, here I am in conflict with my Dad on this aspect of predestination. My Dad thinks that some people are born evil and some born good, but you won't be able to tell the difference between the two until the Judgment, when "the wheat is sorted from the weeds." I don't believe that this is the way it works, though. I think that we're all equally human, and the angels are all equally angels. There aren't some good humans and some evil humans, there are just humans. Only at the end will there be good humans and evil humans. By then, everyone will have decided for Christ or against him.

Now, enough of this interesting but off-topic remark . On to your question.

Evil can be used for good purposes. I'll pick one real-life example here. There were a bunch of Christians that were smuggling Bibles into Russia. On a bus, they were caught. The bus stopped for an hour or two while the passengers and their suitcases were searched. They lost all the Bibles. However, that caused all the other passengers to ask them lots of questions about Christianity. People came to Christ because of the Bibles being lost. I don't remember what happened next, but I seem to recall all the Bibles coming to good purpose also. So anyhow, an unfortunate occurrence was used for the greater good.

Another marvelous real-life example was Jesus' death on the cross. The most horrible act recorded in human history turned out to be the best event in human history. Quite a paradox, eh?

My point is that evil can be used for good. That is what God has chosen to do. All evil in the world is done for the benefit of his elect. In the Book of Romans, the Apostle Paul answered the question. He said that God is the creator, and therefore he has the right to make people do evil and be therefore destroyed. God chose to show his wrath and make his power known, so he bore with great patience the objects of his wrath, predestined for destruction. He did this for the sake of his Elect, to show to them his glory.

That's the scriptural answer. A tough one to accept, I know. I believed in Free Will for a while, unable to accept the clear meaning of Romans 9 when I first read it. I didn't know what to do with that section. I'm glad that the Lord gave me the experiences he has as an author, which have clarified my mind on the subject and made predestination seem less horrendous. As I myself predestine people, predestination no longer seems horrible. In fact, the predestination in my book is marvelous! (Beams arrogantly) So I learned all the more how marvelous God's predestination can be! It's exciting and neat stuff .

Let me ask you this, Ñólendil. When you read a book and a character does something evil, you naturally hope that the villain will get his commupance in the end, right? Villains ending unhappily, and good guys ending happily. Right? That's the natural good ending, correct? Now, let's say I write a book, and the evil character ends up being quite successful and never being punished at all. He dies a happy man, of old age. The author writes in a note at the end, "I'm the author, so that character doesn't deserve punishment. I did it all!" Is the author correct? I personally think not. The character still deserves punishment, even if the author created everything in the way he did!

Another way to look at the problem of God creating people predestined for destruction and horrible pain is this. People breed domestic animals. We kill them, and we eat them. Most people think that the good that comes out of this is worth the pain and death of the animals. Some profit by the destruction of other beings created for that purpose. So on a smaller scale, it's already done by people. This is just a way of looking at it. I know it seems horrible to imagine that happening with God and humans, but that's because the example really isn't completely right. There is something of a parallel between the two situations, though.

Now the next question, about evil natures. My answer to that would have to be that we were incomplete creations, when we were created in Eden. I believe that at the resurrection, we will be made complete. If we had been complete, we would not have chosen evil. If we are incomplete, there is still the possibility of sin. If God predestines that that sin will be committed, then it will be so. However, it's possible my Dad is right on this. Perhaps there are some people with essential natures that are sinful. I don't like that idea. Sometimes I do have to accept scriptural things I don't like, though. There are certainly scriptures that indicate that some people were created with an essentially evil nature.

Gosh! What a culture clash Jesus must have experienced when he came to Earth!

[Rían]

I might try to address some of your points after all, Lief - prob. Monday afternoon. I don't like some of the aspects of your viewpoint - I think they're missing the mark a bit (IMHO ), altho I suspect we agree more than you think.

[Ñólendil]

Very interesting thoughts Lief. I'm glad I asked.

In the author analogy, I think it would be fine if the evil character dies in old age and is never punished. I think that's realistic to life on Earth. There is a genocidal tyrant that died in his sleep, of old age and was never brought to human punishment. I forget who he was, someone else can fill that in if they wish. But certainly people must be held responsible for their actions.

I think of the corrupt people, though.

If I understand you correctly, a person can be born here on Earth incomplete. This person can therefore commit a sin. Let us say God predestines that this person does commit very horrible sins, and the person in question becomes evil. When he dies, he will go to Hell for all eternity. And he will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he cannot control. Let me rephrase that. He will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he did not control. This would be just, you would say, to show the Elect his glory. Yet it still remains that the corrupt live horrible existences, doomed to kill and rape, and suffer "eternal destruction" as you put it. I can only say that this seems very sad.

It also seems true that God showing his wrath upon the evil persons (who become evil according to his own design) could easily be mistaken for God showing his wrath upon guilty and innocent alike, for the necessary effect of evil acts being destined to be is the suffering and deaths of innocent victims of the evil. The evil people suffer for all eternity after life, and many of the innocent people suffer great pains in their lives and at the ends of them. On the other side of the coin those innocent people, provided they have accepted Christ, do go to Heaven for eternity.

In my opinion, it seems to me that under such a model, the real "criminal" is God. I put "criminal" in quotes because these ideas make God seem, to me, more human (broken) than criminal. It seems to me very much like an author of a book indeed, or a child playing with his army men. God creates the conflict, and God wills the evil to be done against the good, and the evil to be punished for actions that were ordained by God, so that He might show the glory of Himself to the good, and deliver them from the suffering which He has caused to be. It is almost as though God should be punishing Himself. It is like a trapper who lays a trap for a specific traveler. The innocent traveler walks by, steps in the trap, and experiences extreme pain. The trapper emerges from the trees, and pries the traveler out from the trap. "Thank you!" the traveler says.

So my own disagreement with the idea comes down to what I would call the "seeming unfairness" of it all. But I don't suppose any answer aimed to tackle the problem of evil would be wholly satisfactory. It's quite a vexing problem in any faith.

Thanks for the long and interesting reply.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I might try to address some of your points after all, Lief - prob. Monday afternoon. I don't like some of the aspects of your viewpoint - I think they're missing the mark a bit (IMHO ), altho I suspect we agree more than you think.

Okay .