RongzomFan Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) Yes, you do admit, either way you are screwed. See bold: So, I can't just give you a yes or no. If I say yes, that means "eternal" is up for grabs, which it isn't when we're discussing the idea of God. If I say no, that means the Creator can't create or really do anything...both answers would negate the very idea and definition of a Creator God. Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted December 11, 2013 Yes, you do admit, either way you are screwed: Notice that I didn't give either answer... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted December 11, 2013 My Creator? I said previously that a definition could be 'an eternal being' (unchanging nature) 'which has an intelligence and action that responds to creation' (aspects changing). So, I can't just give you a yes or no. If I say yes, that means "eternal" is up for grabs, which it isn't when we're discussing the idea of God. If I say no, that means the Creator can't create or really do anything...both answers would negate the very idea and definition of a Creator God. Is it possible for something to be eternal and changing at the same time? Well, even if God doesn't exist, we have to come to terms with why and how this apparent world manifests. If there is infinite cause and effect, then we must say that all of this is eternal (there was literally no beginning if this is the case)...and it's very apparent that it changes, since appearances change. So yes, it's possible for "something" to be eternal and changing both at the same time. There's the full quote of mine. It's answering your question, not avoiding it. It's not giving one of two provided answers, but giving room to more options or even simply saying "both at the same time". Which reminds me of this passage... If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'" - Gospel of Thomas, portion of 50 We really don't need to keep asking the same questions once they're answered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thunder_Gooch Posted December 11, 2013 What if God doesn't exist in the same sense that you don't exist? ;D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 Oh, I've certainly been hypocritical before and I suspect I'll be hypocritical again. Not in this thread, though. Out of curiosity, are you accusing me of being an Abrahamic hypocrite or a Vedantaic hypocrite? FWIW, I espouse neither. If you espouse any form of eternalism than you are an advocate for the hypocrisy of an eternalist. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) If you espouse any form of eternalism than you are an advocate for the hypocrisy of an eternalist. This. Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted December 11, 2013 If you espouse any form of eternalism than you are an advocate for the hypocrisy of an eternalist. What about infinite regression of cause and effect (no possible beginning to dependent origination)? That's eternalism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted December 11, 2013 If you espouse any form of eternalism than you are an advocate for the hypocrisy of an eternalist. When did I make that statement? And how, exactly, do your repeated and unfounded accusations of hypocrisy support the assertion that there cannot be a creator? (Said aaccusations being violations of the forum's ToS, BTW...) 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) When did I make that statement? And how, exactly, do your repeated and unfounded accusations of hypocrisy support the assertion that there cannot be a creator? (Said aaccusations being violations of the forum's ToS, BTW...) I just assume you're an advocate of eternalism like most of the other posters on this forum. My accusations stem from what turtle shell posted here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=501751 which I contrasted with here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502017. Edited December 11, 2013 by Simple_Jack Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted December 11, 2013 This thread will continue ad nauseum with no absolute answers. There are none. As for me I am going on vacation and enjoy the natural world. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 What about infinite regression of cause and effect (no possible beginning to dependent origination)? That's eternalism. The simplified version according to Buddhism: Karma is volition and what proceeds from volition, state Buddha, Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu. Karma/rebirth, therefore come from the mind. One important Buddhist tenet is beginninglessness. There is no absolute beginning. All the diversity that we see in the universe is a result of all the individual actions of all sentient beings. The answer is that we (every sentient beings in the universe) all did by the force of our past actions which have no beginning. In fact, Buddhists accept certain kinds of infinite regression as a logical consequence of dependent origination, for example, the infinite regression of dependent causality. ~ Loppon Namdrol 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 This thread will continue ad nauseum with no absolute answers. There are none. As for me I am going on vacation and enjoy the natural world. Unless you mean this as a metaphor for taking time off from TTB's: don't forget to consider putting time aside for meditation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 11, 2013 D.O. means you are a bundle of parts. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted December 11, 2013 Unless you mean this as a metaphor for taking time off from TTB's: don't forget to consider putting time aside for meditation. Perhaps I am beyond meditation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted December 11, 2013 There are two posting here that seem to spend all their free time on this thread. Very strange. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 Perhaps I am beyond meditation? Do you possess the wisdoms, kayas, omniscience of a buddha? These are the standards by which Mahayana Buddhists go by. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) There are two posting here that seem to spend all their free time on this thread. Very strange. Eh, I feel like killing time by posting in this thread. Gatito would be happy, since this keeps RongzomFan and me from posting in the other "enlightened parts of the forum", which is actually hypocritical. Edited December 11, 2013 by Simple_Jack 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 11, 2013 There are two posting here that seem to spend all their free time on this thread. Very strange. Why do you have the picture of the Joker in your avatar? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted December 11, 2013 Why do you have the picture of the Joker in your avatar? The joker is an ancient archetype. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 D.O. means you are a bundle of parts. Specifically, 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted December 11, 2013 Do you possess the wisdoms, kayas, omniscience of a buddha? These are the standards by which Mahayana Buddhists go by. I am not a Mahayana Buddhist so stop trying to fit me into your neat little limited categories. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) Those standards also apply to Vajrayana which includes Dzogchen and Mahamudra. Edited December 11, 2013 by Simple_Jack Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Isimsiz Biri Posted December 11, 2013 Anyone can google "Banu Qurayza genocide" This is a typical Jewish lie and the story has been made up 150 years after Prophet Muhammad's death. It does not fit to other well known wars in Prophet Muhammad's life. He forgave the worst enemy of Islam, the Meccans after the conquer of Mecca. He even forgave the woman who had assassinated his own paternal uncle Hamza and chewed Hamza's liver after killing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 11, 2013 It does not fit to other well known wars in Prophet Muhammad's life Of course it does http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
