- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 May 13
3 edits
The statement "I agree with him and not with you" I was referring to the author of the OP, not to Jesus. Peace.
Misunderstood. Sorry.
The freedom of uncertainty is ok with me.
I think for some it means uncertain just enough to dismiss the Gospel as not true but certain enough to say an alternative teaching is more true.
There is a kind of attractive freedom in that. I have met some people who say "I just don't know anything for sure." But what they are really saying sometimes is "I know EVERYTHING !".
25 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship"I just don't know anything for sure." But what they are really saying sometimes is "I know EVERYTHING !"The statement "I agree with him and not with you" I was referring to the author of the OP, not to Jesus. Peace.
Misunderstood. Sorry.
The freedom of uncertainty is ok with me.
I think for some it means uncertain just enough to dismiss the Gospel as not true but certain enough to say an alternative teaching is more true.
The ing for sure." But what they are [b]really saying sometimes is "I know EVERYTHING !".[/b]
Ah, you actually state the underlying paradox from a Buddhist perspective, (but there is a shift here in the normal understanding of the words you use...)
If all "things" (including concepts) are "empty" - i.e., not existing unto themselves alone but dependent on other "things" and concepts that are equally dependent on them to BE, THEN...
knowing nothing (the nature of emptiness) is indeed to know everything, i.e., the underlying nature of everything.
I am aware that's not the way you were using your words, but just a thought that arose. 😉
25 May 13
Originally posted by TaomanHere is a more important thought that should arise:
"I just don't know anything for sure." But what they are [b]really saying sometimes is "I know EVERYTHING !"
Ah, you actually state the underlying paradox from a Buddhist perspective, (but there is a shift here in the normal understanding of the words you use...)
If all "things" (including concepts) are "empty" - that is not existing unto themselves ...[text shortened]... ware that's not the way you were using your words, but just a thought that arose. 😉[/b]
Islam is dangerous!
http://www.doveworld.org/ten-reasons-islam-is-dangerous
The Instructor
25 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsMmm. My peaceful Islamic neighbours moved into a property in which W.A.S.P. Australians had previously murdered a woman and burnt the house down.
Here is a more important thought that should arise:
Islam is dangerous!
http://www.doveworld.org/ten-reasons-islam-is-dangerous
The Instructor
Thankfully I live in a place where almost everyone including Islamic people live in peace together and we support each other in opposing radical fundamentalists that sound a lot like you.
You are a baiter that constantly requires attention. This is your dose from me for a while. I will let others play that game with you.
26 May 13
Originally posted by TaomanBy all means, tell us how deceived you are. We are all ears.
Mmm. My peaceful Islamic neighbours moved into a property in which W.A.S.P. Australians had previously murdered a woman and burnt the house down.
Thankfully I live in a place where almost everyone including Islamic people live in peace together and we support each other in opposing radical fundamentalists that sound a lot like you.
You are a baiter th ...[text shortened]... res attention. This is your dose from me for a while. I will let others play that game with you.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 May 13
If all "things" (including concepts) are "empty" - i.e., not existing unto themselves alone but dependent on other "things" and concepts that are equally dependent on them to BE, THEN...
knowing nothing (the nature of emptiness) is indeed to know everything, i.e., the underlying nature of everything
I think Buddhism hits on a certain amount of truth.
I think the book of Ecclesiastes which was the writing of the man who had the reputation of being one of the wisest in history Solomon - does intersect with some Buddhist concepts.
"Vanity of vanities - all is vanity" and how Solomon develops those concepts under the inspiration of God, remind me much Buddhist thought about the illusion of human life in a number of aspects.
Things are not as they appear to be. There is a missing substance behind the façade of existence. This kind of concept I think is taught in Buddhism and is echoed to a strong degree in that part of the Bible - Ecclesiastes..
This book could be regarded as giving equal time in the bible for the wise utterance of the emptiness, the futility, the façade of life without some core reality.
I think Solomon also speaks of the core reality in the next book - The Song of Songs in highly poetic romantic language meant to convey the love affair of Christ and His corporate Bride with which the Bible closes.
But the vanity of Solomon's pessimisim and the emptiness of Buddhism I think are similar.
26 May 13
When looking at personal responses to uncertainty, psychological type may also play an important role.
For instance, in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), based on the typological theory of Jung, one of the four 'dichotomies' in a person's psyche is the P/J (perceiving/judging) dichotomy. As I understand it, P's tend to appear more spontaneous, taking things as they come; while J's tend to appear more methodical, planned. (I'm over-simplifying, I'm sure.)
Thus, a person's response to existential/metaphysical/religious uncertainty could also be a reflection of their personality type.
(I'm not assigning a superior value to one or the other. Clearly we would all be poorer without either the carefree, spontaneous types or the ones who make sure all the bills are paid on time!)
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by lucifershammerAh, here you are, and I missed this! Good points. I'm an INFP, but you've probably known that for some time . . . . 🙂
When looking at personal responses to uncertainty, psychological type may also play an important role.
For instance, in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), based on the typological theory of Jung, one of the four 'dichotomies' in a person's psyche is the P/J (perceiving/judging) dichotomy. As I understand it, P's tend to appear more spontaneous ...[text shortened]... carefree, spontaneous types or the ones who make sure all the bills are paid on time!)