No Religion, Please. We're American.

[Xangsamhua]

IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER DEAL, TAKE IT!

January 6, 2010

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=349

What an aweful piece. It's pretty much how i would expect Ann Coulter to respond to this whole situation though. It amazes me that some people like Hume and Coulter suggest changing religions because it "offers" something better. People should be concerned with what's true, not with what appears to be a "better deal".

I agree, in an ideal sense, and yet a core component of American pragmatist philosophy is that "truth" does not exist, for us, "out there", but has "cash value" in terms of its benefits. Note the following, quoted in Wikipedia, about William James, one of the founders of the Pragmatist school:

James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment.

As world religions go, I think it could be said that Buddhism is nothing if not pragmatic. The question, then, for Woods, Coulter, Hume and the rest of us is whether a faith-based deal - being "born again" as a follower of the biblical Jesus - or a method-based deal as a practitioner of the Buddha's way helps more to alleviate suffering and attain liberation/salvation.

I suspect Hume and Coulter are confusing method and belief. They seem to believe that evangelical Christianity constitutes a system based on objectively valid beliefs and superior ethics. They think that, if Tiger Woods decides to hitch himself to this preferred wagon, his debt-burden accrued through sinful acts will be wiped off. Buddhism (and Roman Christianity) allows no "wiping off" in this sense, so evangelical Christianity must be a "better deal". If your sins can be forgiven by jumping ship and the punishment for them wiped away as well, that would be a good deal indeed. All you have to do is "believe", but how do you do that if you don't really have "faith"? Where is the method? Prayer, worship, reading the Bible? All dependent on faith in an an efficacious external entity. The "deal" depends on surrendering reason to faith. If you're lucky your faith may concur with your reasoning, but faith in the evangelical, Bible-Christian sense, takes priority.

[ChiangMaiFun]

IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER DEAL, TAKE IT!

January 6, 2010

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=349

What an aweful piece. It's pretty much how i would expect Ann Coulter to respond to this whole situation though. It amazes me that some people like Hume and Coulter suggest changing religions because it "offers" something better. People should be concerned with what's true, not with what appears to be a "better deal".

I agree, in an ideal sense, and yet a core component of American pragmatist philosophy is that "truth" does not exist, for us, "out there", but has "cash value" in terms of its benefits. Note the following, quoted in Wikipedia, about William James, one of the founders of the Pragmatist school:

James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment.

As world religions go, I think it could be said that Buddhism is nothing if not pragmatic. The question, then, for Woods, Coulter, Hume and the rest of us is whether a faith-based deal - being "born again" as a follower of the biblical Jesus - or a method-based deal as a practitioner of the Buddha's way helps more to alleviate suffering and attain liberation/salvation.

I suspect Hume and Coulter are confusing method and belief. They seem to believe that evangelical Christianity constitutes a system based on objectively valid beliefs and superior ethics. They think that, if Tiger Woods decides to hitch himself to this preferred wagon, his debt-burden accrued through sinful acts will be wiped off. Buddhism (and Roman Christianity) allows no "wiping off" in this sense, so evangelical Christianity must be a "better deal". If your sins can be forgiven by jumping ship and the punishment for them wiped away as well, that would be a good deal indeed. All you have to do is "believe", but how do you do that if you don't really have "faith"? Where is the method? Prayer, worship, reading the Bible? All dependent on faith in an an efficacious external entity. The "deal" depends on surrendering reason to faith. If you're lucky your faith may concur with your reasoning, but faith in the evangelical, Bible-Christian sense, takes priority.

Excellent piece... clarify Roman Christianity please? my understanding is that the 'confession' wipes it off too? (assuming you mean catholics)

[fabianfred]

IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER DEAL, TAKE IT!

January 6, 2010

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=349

What an aweful piece. It's pretty much how i would expect Ann Coulter to respond to this whole situation though. It amazes me that some people like Hume and Coulter suggest changing religions because it "offers" something better. People should be concerned with what's true, not with what appears to be a "better deal".

I agree, in an ideal sense, and yet a core component of American pragmatist philosophy is that "truth" does not exist, for us, "out there", but has "cash value" in terms of its benefits. Note the following, quoted in Wikipedia, about William James, one of the founders of the Pragmatist school:

James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment.

As world religions go, I think it could be said that Buddhism is nothing if not pragmatic. The question, then, for Woods, Coulter, Hume and the rest of us is whether a faith-based deal - being "born again" as a follower of the biblical Jesus - or a method-based deal as a practitioner of the Buddha's way helps more to alleviate suffering and attain liberation/salvation.

I suspect Hume and Coulter are confusing method and belief. They seem to believe that evangelical Christianity constitutes a system based on objectively valid beliefs and superior ethics. They think that, if Tiger Woods decides to hitch himself to this preferred wagon, his debt-burden accrued through sinful acts will be wiped off. Buddhism (and Roman Christianity) allows no "wiping off" in this sense, so evangelical Christianity must be a "better deal". If your sins can be forgiven by jumping ship and the punishment for them wiped away as well, that would be a good deal indeed. All you have to do is "believe", but how do you do that if you don't really have "faith"? Where is the method? Prayer, worship, reading the Bible? All dependent on faith in an an efficacious external entity. The "deal" depends on surrendering reason to faith. If you're lucky your faith may concur with your reasoning, but faith in the evangelical, Bible-Christian sense, takes priority.

Excellent piece... clarify Roman Christianity please? my understanding is that the 'confession' wipes it off too? (assuming you mean catholics)

Yes..excellent piece by Xangsamhua.....

I think that even Catholic confession has become misunderstood and in fact to get forgiveness requires a real commitment to not transgressing further and a true feeling of regret for having sinned.

[Xangsamhua]

A genuine confession results in absolution, wiping away of the sins confessed, and reconciliation with God. However, one is still culpable for the wrong done. Penance for this can take the form of restoration, where possible, to the victims of one's wrongdoing and/or personal penitential acts in the form of prayers, devotions, mortifications, etc. (the latter could be fasting, self-denial or physical self-punishment such as that practiced by Pope John Paul II). Where penitential acts of this kind are insufficient to wipe the slate clean, a period of punishment in Purgatory awaits before gaining Paradise.

The performance of Church-approved penitential acts can be rewarded by an "indulgence" (partial or plenary) that removes part or all of the period in Purgatory. The Church, through its bishops, is seen to have authority to grant this through its access to the store of merit built up by the human Jesus, his Mother and all the saints. Unfortunately, Purgatory got a bad name in the pre-Reformation period because indulgences were being sold by the Bishops, ostensibly for charitable or constructive works by the Church, but in fact, in many cases, for projects that were by no means holy. However, Purgatory is still Catholic doctrine and indulgences are still available, but not for sale.

[ChiangMaiFun]

A genuine confession results in absolution, wiping away of the sins confessed, and reconciliation with God. However, one is still culpable for the wrong done. Penance for this can take the form of restoration, where possible, to the victims of one's wrongdoing and/or personal penitential acts in the form of prayers, devotions, mortifications, etc. (the latter could be fasting, self-denial or physical self-punishment such as that practiced by Pope John Paul II). Where penitential acts of this kind are insufficient to wipe the slate clean, a period of punishment in Purgatory awaits before gaining Paradise.

The performance of Church-approved penitential acts can be rewarded by an "indulgence" (partial or plenary) that removes part or all of the period in Purgatory. The Church, through its bishops, is seen to have authority to grant this through its access to the store of merit built up by the human Jesus, his Mother and all the saints. Unfortunately, Purgatory got a bad name in the pre-Reformation period because indulgences were being sold by the Bishops, ostensibly for charitable or constructive works by the Church, but in fact, in many cases, for projects that were by no means holy. However, Purgatory is still Catholic doctrine and indulgences are still available, but not for sale.

Again... articulate and superb explanation thanks... but it still sort of 'wipes' the misdeed away whereas in Buddhism the karmic consequences still have to be ‘reaped’... so to speak... there is no short cut in other words.

[PeaceBlondie]

William James invented the first American philosophy, pragmatism. "If it works, it's real." If it doesn't, it's unreal.

[ChiangMaiFun]

William James invented the first American philosophy, pragmatism. "If it works, it's real." If it doesn't, it's unreal.

Well... its temporarily 'real' - if Tiger sought solace in some kind of 'confession' or ''re-born status' psychologically it may be beneficial but spiritually? Probably not...

[Xangsamhua]

A genuine confession results in absolution, wiping away of the sins confessed, and reconciliation with God. However, one is still culpable for the wrong done. Penance for this can take the form of restoration, where possible, to the victims of one's wrongdoing and/or personal penitential acts in the form of prayers, devotions, mortifications, etc. (the latter could be fasting, self-denial or physical self-punishment such as that practiced by Pope John Paul II). Where penitential acts of this kind are insufficient to wipe the slate clean, a period of punishment in Purgatory awaits before gaining Paradise.

The performance of Church-approved penitential acts can be rewarded by an "indulgence" (partial or plenary) that removes part or all of the period in Purgatory. The Church, through its bishops, is seen to have authority to grant this through its access to the store of merit built up by the human Jesus, his Mother and all the saints. Unfortunately, Purgatory got a bad name in the pre-Reformation period because indulgences were being sold by the Bishops, ostensibly for charitable or constructive works by the Church, but in fact, in many cases, for projects that were by no means holy. However, Purgatory is still Catholic doctrine and indulgences are still available, but not for sale.

Again... articulate and superb explanation thanks... but it still sort of 'wipes' the misdeed away whereas in Buddhism the karmic consequences still have to be ‘reaped’... so to speak... there is no short cut in other words.

Yes, I don't think the Purgatory experience is seen as Karmic. Whatever tribulations one undergoes in Purgatory are not seen as directly the result of specific causes. Does the "punishment fit the crime"? I suppose it might, but I haven't seen that as a proposition. And, although Purgatory is not to be regarded as a "place", it is not regarded as taking place here on Earth or in an incarnated lifetime.

Although the doctrine of Purgatory does not occupy a major space in Roman Catholic theology (4 pages out of 1182 in Richard McBrien's "Catholicism"), it is more nuanced than my short summary. For example, Eastern Christianity did not accept Rome's juridical approach and stressed the mystical nature of Purgatory "as a process of maturation and spiritual growth". I'm quoting McBrien (p. 1167) and I don't know how that process occurs. McBrien sees it as not suffering inflicted on us from outside as a punishment for sin, but as "the intrinsic pain we all feel when we are asked to surrender our ego-centered self", but, to me, this is just speculative theology, though perhaps it's closer to the Eastern view. Eastern Orthodox thought has become better known and more attractive to Catholic theologians in recent years.

[rockyysdt]

Again... articulate and superb explanation thanks... but it still sort of 'wipes' the misdeed away whereas in Buddhism the karmic consequences still have to be 'reaped'... so to speak... there is no short cut in other words.

I thought there is a way of short circuiting karmic consequence in Buddhism.

The Buddha continued to suffer from karmic accumulation until he died, but once he became enlightened re birth was extinguished & with it any unused karmic consequence.

If we successfully devote our lives to attaining enlightenment wouldn't this wipe out any effects of unused misdeeds?

[Xangsamhua]

Again... articulate and superb explanation thanks... but it still sort of 'wipes' the misdeed away whereas in Buddhism the karmic consequences still have to be 'reaped'... so to speak... there is no short cut in other words.

I thought there is a way of short circuiting karmic consequence in Buddhism.

The Buddha continued to suffer from karmic accumulation until he died, but once he became enlightened re birth was extinguished & with it any unused karmic consequence.

If we successfully devote our lives to attaining enlightenment wouldn't this wipe out any effects of unused misdeeds?

Wasn't that the case with Angulimala, who had committed horrific crimes in his lifetime?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Again... articulate and superb explanation thanks... but it still sort of 'wipes' the misdeed away whereas in Buddhism the karmic consequences still have to be 'reaped'... so to speak... there is no short cut in other words.

I thought there is a way of short circuiting karmic consequence in Buddhism.

The Buddha continued to suffer from karmic accumulation until he died, but once he became enlightened re birth was extinguished & with it any unused karmic consequence.

If we successfully devote our lives to attaining enlightenment wouldn't this wipe out any effects of unused misdeeds?

If we do... then it is our Karma to do so - to have the opportunity to do so... Karma is dynamic - we would not arrive at that decision or opportunity unless we were advanced enough to do so - and if that were the case we would have little 'built up' bad Karma.

[rockyysdt]

If we do... then it is our Karma to do so - to have the opportunity to do so... Karma is dynamic - we would not arrive at that decision or opportunity unless we were advanced enough to do so - and if that were the case we would have little 'built up' bad Karma.

Perhaps devotion to practice can bring about advancement.

Xangsamhua's example, "Wasn't that the case with Angulimala, who had committed horrific crimes in his lifetime?" might be a good example.

I can't think of anything more heinous than multiple murder, & yet he became enlightened.

Two drivers which appeared to have influenced his success were devotion to the path & a very fine teacher.

I think accepting less than this will have us living our life with the belief we have only a little more than zero chance of enlightenment.

I see myself as a tiny snow ball rolling down the hill.

As I gain size & momentum (actual experience) the plan is to take nirvana by storm.

Edited January 31, 2010 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Certainly our store of merit working through karma gives us opportunities denied others. We are told human rebirth is rare and precious, as is the opportunity to meet the dhamma. Those of us ready to receive it can benefit if we make the effort to practice. Being born in the time of the Buddha and being able to hear the dhamma from him is extremely rare, and comes only to those who have created the causes.

Buddhists who try to follow the dhamma but fail to advance to stream-entry are creating the opportunity to be reborn during the time of the next Buddha.

[nakachalet]

....Mr Hume's remarks about the claimed emotional and salvific benefits of trusting in God, seeking forgiveness, repenting (i.e. "turning away" from) the sinful behaviour and, thereby, obtaining redemption are quite in keeping with orthodox Christianity across the spectrum. Protestants really do believe that repentance brings about forgiveness, which brings about salvation. Catholics interpose a period of time in Purgatory as penance for the harm done by one's sins - something like working through the effects of one's Karma.

while admiring your eloquent passages.... i do wish to correct you and others who agree and believe as you do, specifically, on the followings, and i quote:

1.... seeking forgiveness, repenting (i.e. "turning away" from) the sinful behaviour and, thereby, obtaining redemption are quite in keeping with orthodox Christianity across the spectrum.

2....Protestants really do believe that repentance brings about forgiveness, which brings about salvation....

------

SALVATION is a free gift from GOD, through Jesus Christ alone....

you can not buy it or negotiate it.... but you do need to exercise and demonstrate your repentance in and through your daily living and life; your Christian belief.... and your CHRIST CENTERED daily life style....

SINS can only be washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ who shed His blood, once and for all, on the cross at Calvary.... to wash away all sins....

Another MAJOR point of direct disagreement, sir....

CHRISTIANS REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT REPENTENCE BRINGS ABOUT FORGIVENESS, WHICH BRINGS ABOUT SALVATION.... not true, sir.... Christians do not believe like what you described above sir....

The above.... is definitely NOT a Christian practice nor belief, sir....

The BIBLE teaches that salvation is a free gift from GOD, through Jesus Christ....

human beings really have nothing good enough to offer.... to atone their own sins or sins of others.... regardless of what sorts of self denial or self inflicting injury or pain.... one is trying to go through to redeem one's own wrong doings or sins....

ONLY JESUS CHRIST ALONE, in the eyes of GOD, is good enough to offer Himself as the substitution for our sins.... nothing more.... and nothing less....

XANGSAMHUA, what you describe above is really based on non-biblical information at best sir....

May the good LORD continue to have mercy on us erring humans.... specifically refering to my own self....

Edited March 1, 2010 by camerata
Deleted font formatting. No more proselytizing or shouting please.

[camerata]

Everyone please remember that the topic is whether Tiger should switch from Buddhism to Christianity to improve his current situation. It's not about the benefits of Christianity per se.

[Xangsamhua]

I have Camerata's gentle reminder in mind, so I'll be brief, but inasmuch as poster Nakachalet is responding to comments I have made in this thread, and not wishing to misrepresent people or lead others astray, I'd like to say a little and then forever hold my peace (on this topic).

Nakachalet is quite right that, in a fundamental way, traditional Christian belief accepts that God's creatures can't do deals in order to gain salvation. Repentance is a response to God's invitation rather than a mechanism by which one can earn enough merit to gain a place in heaven. Repentance is, if you believe this, a sign that one has been chosen rather than a means to selection.

This view taken to its logical conclusion leads to predestinarianism, a doctrine that traces its ancestry from Augustine to Luther and Calvin, though the latter, as I understand, was rather stricter in drawing the logical conclusions of the doctrine (he was a lawyer, after all, whereas Luther was a man of passion, who sometimes suffered from doubts).

I believe, however, that later Protestantism was influenced significantly by Arminius, a later 16th century teacher, whose view of predestination was less focussed on God's absolute freedom to predestine people to heaven or hel_l than on God's foresight as to who would heed the call to repent and be saved as a result of repentance and obedience to God's laws. Although the logical issues remain, the Arminian view gave people hope that they could, by their own efforts and with God's blessing, be saved. It was this belief that gave such impetus to the Methodist movement in Britain and, later the US.

I suspect that mainstream Protestantism now includes in its thinning ranks both people who believe they are saved regardless of what good works they may do and those who believe that their own efforts make a difference.

Those who see themselves as "Bible Christians" may take a fairly hard line on these matters and can see themselves as inheritors of an ancient tradition, albeit a somewhat extreme one. Generally, however, the "mainstream", whether Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist or secular, becomes the mainstream because it shies away from logical extremes and textual/scriptural literalism. Taking a view like predestinarianism to its logical conclusion leads one to a position of absurdity ("how could a loving God allow this to be?) or unacceptability (God is essentially cruel). Of course, many people in Western countries, including some radical Christians, now believe it makes more sense not to believe in God at all.

I suggest that Britt Hume thought repentance in the context of an active Christian community would set Tiger Woods right with God, not that it would be an acknowledgement of God's prior decision. However, I'm sure others will disagree with whatever I say (and I may have it all wrong), so I'll leave it at that and say no more.