Is God Important?

[wynn]

ACtually I would argue that its precisely because is not obligated to serve anyone (and that everyone - either directly or indirectly - is constantly, constitutionally and irrevocably in a relationship of service with him) that he is important.

IOW its the unique position of god that distinguishes him from others that are merely powerful, influential, etc (but as the most powerful, most influential etc) that make him important

At the same time, God being in the position of the most important, and if we assume that God cannot act against Himself nor cause any lasting damage to anyone, then God is also the one that can be most easily and most safely ignored.

God is bound to His subjects, a servant to them even as He lords over them, whether they acknowledge Him or not.

Other than God, there is no other being in a position of power that one could ignore and still be left alive and even unharmed. Everyone else in a position of power makes it clear that they will not tolerate being ignored.

 

[lightgigantic]

At the same time, God being in the position of the most important, and if we assume that God cannot act against Himself nor cause any lasting damage to anyone, then God is also the one that can be most easily and most safely ignored.

not at all since the consciousness that stabilizes understanding god on that platform (ie I am soul and ultimately have nothing to do with this material world) is not available to one who is ignoring god. IOW the default position of ignoring god is to be extremely engrossed with the material conception of life (or the pursuit of the cessation of desire ... which is met by a host of challenges)

God is bound to His subjects, a servant to them even as He lords over them, whether they acknowledge Him or not.

Other than God, there is no other being in a position of power that one could ignore and still be left alive and even unharmed. Everyone else in a position of power makes it clear that they will not tolerate being ignored.

On the contrary, the cost of ignoring god is to be relegated to the existence of constant (and repeated) death

 

[wynn]

not at all since the consciousness that stabilizes understanding god on that platform (ie I am soul and ultimately have nothing to do with this material world) is not available to one who is ignoring god. IOW the default position of ignoring god is to be extremely engrossed with the material conception of life (or the pursuit of the cessation of desire ... which is met by a host of challenges)

On the contrary, the cost of ignoring god is to be relegated to the existence of constant (and repeated) death

For all practical intents and purposes, no ordinary person actually subjects themselves to God, only to people who claim to be representatives of God; nor does an ordinary person ever actually know for themselves whether they are ignoring God or not - instead, they have to, again, blindly trust people who claim to be representatives of God.
In that case, one might as well forget about the whole matter, as one is doomed to never actually know God and God's desires for oneself.

Unless one concocts one's own version of theism, which, I am sure, you will claim is not efficacious in the least.

 

[wynn]

or the pursuit of the cessation of desire ... which is met by a host of challenges

You yet have to provide references to the Pali Canon where the Buddha taught that the solution to suffering is to become desireless.

This desirelessness business is a soundbite from pop Buddhism that has, to the best of my knowledge, no basis in the Pali Canon.

 

[lightgigantic]

For all practical intents and purposes, no ordinary person actually subjects themselves to God, only to people who claim to be representatives of God; nor does an ordinary person ever actually know for themselves whether they are ignoring God or not - instead, they have to, again, blindly trust people who claim to be representatives of God.
In that case, one might as well forget about the whole matter, as one is doomed to never actually know God and God's desires for oneself.

Unless one concocts one's own version of theism, which, I am sure, you will claim is not efficacious in the least.

unlike, say, the trust one must place in one's doctor when undergoing a serious procedure ... or the trust in one's water supplier in providing a drinkable beverage ...hell, or even the trust that in placing food in one's mouth that one's body will be capable of doing whatever mysterious manner of action in providing energy and sustenance :scratchin:

 

[lightgigantic]

You yet have to provide references to the Pali Canon where the Buddha taught that the solution to suffering is to become desireless.

This desirelessness business is a soundbite from pop Buddhism that has, to the best of my knowledge, no basis in the Pali Canon.

no need
plenty of others willing to take the mantle in that regard

 

[wynn]

no need
plenty of others willing to take the mantle in that regard

Given that you have, at least in the past, expressed that the Buddha taught that the solution was to extinguish desire, and given that you believe that the Buddha is an incarnation of the God you believe in, I would expect you to be more precise in your claims about what the Buddha supposedly taught.

 

[wynn]

unlike, say, the trust one must place in one's doctor when undergoing a serious procedure ... or the trust in one's water supplier in providing a drinkable beverage ...hell, or even the trust that in placing food in one's mouth that one's body will be capable of doing whatever mysterious manner of action in providing energy and sustenance

Oh please.
None of those trusts is even remotely of the scope as having to trust a human for all input in matters of "God."

Having to trust self-declared representatives of God in all matters of "God" is much like being vicariously married, to a person one has never met, and interacting only with the spouse's lawyer (or at least a person who claims to be the spouse's lawyer), but never actually with the spouse.

 

[Yazata]

I'm not really concerned with the "existence" question. I'd rather ask, is God important? If yes, how so?

The answer would seem to depend, in large part, on the answer to the existence question.

If there really is a God, and especially if this God has revealed himself to humanity in one or more of the world's religions, if this God has desires and even specific commands about what human beings should be doing, or if this God is the ultimate source and/or destination of some beatific state of salvation, then God would appear to be the most important being in existence.

If God doesn't exist, and is just a/the mythological deity imagined by one or more of the world's theistic religions, then God might not be very important at all in the big picture. Of course, even if God doesn't exist, just the fact that so many people believe that he does will have historical importance in itself.

 

[Yazata]

If you can't tell if it exists or not, could it still be important?

Maybe this unknowable God offers salvation to those who do A, but not to those who do B. If we can't know whether God exists, we probably can't know what A is, or even whether there is an A. Even if some earthly religion insists that it knows what A is and proceeds to tell us, we still don't know whether what that religion says is true, or whether a competing religion across the street might have the truth instead. Or maybe nobody knows. Or something.

So if we have no way of knowing whether propositions about God and God's purposes are true or false, those propositions might not have much practical importance in telling us what we should be thinking or what our behavior should be. But since our eternal fate would still depend on what we (unknowingly) do, it would still be vitally important.

Even if God doesn't have any interest in what we do and offers us nothing remotely like salvation, even if God is just the first-cause, ultimate ground-of-being, or some philosophical abstraction like that, God would still seem to be the most important being that there is. (Even if we have no way of knowing it.)

 

[wlminex]

Response to Thread title . . . . . Yes, I believe that God is important . . . reminds me of a poster I saw years ago that said - "Ah, that man's reach should exceed his grasp; or what's a Heaven for?"

 

[lightgigantic]

Given that you have, at least in the past, expressed that the Buddha taught that the solution was to extinguish desire, and given that you believe that the Buddha is an incarnation of the God you believe in, I would expect you to be more precise in your claims about what the Buddha supposedly taught.

but how can one know this unless they blindly place their trust in Buddhists?

For all practical intents and purposes, no ordinary person actually subjects themselves to Buddha, only to people who claim to be representatives of Buddha; nor does an ordinary person ever actually know for themselves whether they are understanding Buddha or not - instead, they have to, again, blindly trust people who claim to be representatives of Buddha.
In that case, one might as well forget about the whole matter, as one is doomed to never actually know Buddha and Buddha's instructions for oneself.

Unless one concocts one's own version of Buddhism, which, I am sure, you will claim is not efficacious in the least.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

but how can one know this unless they blindly place their trust in Buddhists?

For all practical intents and purposes, no ordinary person actually subjects themselves to Buddha, only to people who claim to be representatives of Buddha; nor does an ordinary person ever actually know for themselves whether they are understanding Buddha or not - instead, they have to, again, blindly trust people who claim to be representatives of Buddha.
In that case, one might as well forget about the whole matter, as one is doomed to never actually know Buddha and Buddha's instructions for oneself.

Unless one concocts one's own version of Buddhism, which, I am sure, you will claim is not efficacious in the least.

Except that the kind of Buddhism I am referring to, has a clause that many would consider self-defeating, as if the Buddha would have shot himself in the foot when he (supposedly) said:


"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

Kalama Sutta


There is an element of knowing for oneself.

This is typically absent in theism - in theism, one generally isn't allowed or supposed to know for oneself, but instead is expected to live as an eternal, eternally confused and miserable, infantile slave of some person who claims to be God's representative.



And I am not a Buddhist, so don't even try to use my references to Buddhism against me.

 

[wynn]

but how can one know this unless they blindly place their trust in Buddhists?

For all practical intents and purposes, no ordinary person actually subjects themselves to Buddha, only to people who claim to be representatives of Buddha; nor does an ordinary person ever actually know for themselves whether they are understanding Buddha or not - instead, they have to, again, blindly trust people who claim to be representatives of Buddha.
In that case, one might as well forget about the whole matter, as one is doomed to never actually know Buddha and Buddha's instructions for oneself.

Unless one concocts one's own version of Buddhism, which, I am sure, you will claim is not efficacious in the least.

Simply repeating in line with the disciplic succession that you belong to may be good, as far as your belonging there goes, but it doesn't guarantee that you will know or speak the truth.

If you believe that the traditional Pali Canon are the teachings of the Buddha, then it is perfectly in place for others to request references to the Pali Canon for the things you claim the Buddha claimed.

If, however, you think that the Pali Canon has nothing to do with Buddhism or the historical and modern Buddhist schools, and yet you believe that the historical and modern Buddhist schools are descendants from what the Buddha (the one that is an incarnation of the God you believe in) taught ... then I don't know what to say.

 

[lightgigantic]

Simply repeating in line with the disciplic succession that you belong to may be good, as far as your belonging there goes, but it doesn't guarantee that you will know or speak the truth.

If you believe that the traditional Pali Canon are the teachings of the Buddha, then it is perfectly in place for others to request references to the Pali Canon for the things you claim the Buddha claimed.

If, however, you think that the Pali Canon has nothing to do with Buddhism or the historical and modern Buddhist schools, and yet you believe that the historical and modern Buddhist schools are descendants from what the Buddha (the one that is an incarnation of the God you believe in) taught ... then I don't know what to say.

so why does a (fat, angry, male) buddhist get to believe in the authority of the pali cannon and I don't?

 

[lightgigantic]

Except that the kind of Buddhism I am referring to, has a clause that many would consider self-defeating, as if the Buddha would have shot himself in the foot when he (supposedly) said:


"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

Kalama Sutta


There is an element of knowing for oneself.

This is typically absent in theism - in theism, one generally isn't allowed or supposed to know for oneself, but instead is expected to live as an eternal, eternally confused and miserable, infantile slave of some person who claims to be God's representative.



And I am not a Buddhist, so don't even try to use my references to Buddhism against me.

just as I thought

The authority of the pali cannon is a waste of time

 

[wynn]

so why does a (fat, angry, male) buddhist get to believe in the authority of the pali cannon and I don't?

just as I thought

The authority of the pali cannon is a waste of time

Get yourself together, dude.

There are times when you become so grossly impious, it's horrible to see it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Get yourself together, dude.

There are times when you become so grossly impious, it's horrible to see it.

just playing it back at you.

What you are conveniently forgetting is that you can quite easily enter into a discussion on what does and doesn't constitute buddhism (regardless of the sex and size of a person who yells at you) when it suits your purposes.

 

[wynn]

just playing it back at you.

What you are conveniently forgetting is that you can quite easily enter into a discussion on what does and doesn't constitute buddhism (regardless of the sex and size of a person who yells at you) when it suits your purposes.

Then you are mistakenly assuming me to have more faith in and loyalty to a particular side than I actually have.


I brought up the issue of what the devotees claim the Buddha taught as a pointer to my concern about the integrity of devotees, and how my wellbeing can be therefore compromised in their association. Devotees tend to take so much effort to present Christianity in a more palatable light; but for them, Buddhism is apparently fair game to criticize and ascribe all kinds of nonsense to - even though they believe the historical Buddha was an incarnation of the God they believe in, Krishna.

You wouldn't call Varaha a pig or a swine, would you? That would be offensive. But dissing the Buddha is somehow allright?

It's because of things like this that I find it hard to trust devotees.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then you are mistakenly assuming me to have more faith in and loyalty to a particular side than I actually have.


I brought up the issue of what the devotees claim the Buddha taught as a pointer to my concern about the integrity of devotees, and how my wellbeing can be therefore compromised in their association. Devotees tend to take so much effort to present Christianity in a more palatable light; but for them, Buddhism is apparently fair game to criticize and ascribe all kinds of nonsense to - even though they believe the historical Buddha was an incarnation of the God they believe in, Krishna.

You wouldn't call Varaha a pig or a swine, would you? That would be offensive. But dissing the Buddha is somehow allright?

It's because of things like this that I find it hard to trust devotees.

you miss the point
You stumbled on to an authoritative aspect of buddhism, which according to your credo , is an epistemological impossibility.
Saying that you don't readily identify as a buddhist simply places you in a worse position (since you also insist being an outsider places one in even more of a double bind)