What I believe - Thoughts from a Christian Deist

herrshuster · 1 month

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna states that all who achieve the final liberation do so through Him and Him alone:

I am the goal, the supporter, the Lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge, the friend, the origin, the dissolution, the foundation, the substratum, and the imperishable seed.

Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me and I am not separated from them.

Even those who lovingly devote themselves to other gods and sacrifice to them, full of faith, do really worship me though the rite may differ from the norm. For it is I who am the recipient of all sacrifices and Lord.

How do you determine that Jesus is the only and 'pure' manifestation of God, as you seem to suggest in your original post, and that Krishna is not? Or, do you believe that Jesus and Krishna are both equally divine and that one is no different from the other?

The state of enlightenment you mention has been achieved, if we accept their scriptures and traditions to be true, by atheist Jains, agnostic Buddhists, Hindus meditating upon Brahman and for a thousand years, if not more, before Jesus existed or the Bible was written. If it is Enlightenment you truly value, then why privilege Jesus over Krishna or Buddha or Mahavira, assuming you do so?

herrshuster · 1 month

This resonates with Jainistic thought.

As a Jain, I would say that Jain philosophy is much closer to atheism than it is to deism or theism. We reject the idea of a supreme deity and the idea that the universe was created. We believe that the universe is an uncreated entity, without beginning or end, but undergoing cycles of contraction and expansion. There is nothing beyond the universe, as Jains understand it, no creator, no overseer, and no destroyer. Our religion sets forth a path, as Buddhism does also, towards enlightenment without heed of any supreme beings or deities.

In alliance with Hindu thoughts on multiplicities of gods, I can accept that some mythologies worship the Enlightened that they see as gods and name, as they are out of time and space.

Most Hindu traditions espouse the existence of Brahman, the eternal, infinite, and transcendent spirit that pervades and constitutes the universe, from which everything that exists emanates. Many of them, especially the bhakti traditions, believe that Brahman is embodied in divine incarnations such as Krishna and Shiva. This is very similar to your own conception of Jesus as the manifestation of the 'Deity.' They also have their divinely revealed scriptures and records of miracles affirming their faith, as Christians do. And while you describe their beliefs as a 'sin', I think most Hindus would gladly accept that their faith in, for instance, Krishna is just as valid as your own in your preferred deity.

It's good that people are willing to study other religions than their own, but we should make sure not to misinterpret the teachings of those religions so as to force them to resemble our own opinions.

Your beliefs seem to be little different from that of a Christian who declares Jesus to be the only incarnation of God, believes in sin, rejects the divinities and beliefs of other religions as 'sin' while granting that they contain some precepts of value and truth. And that's fine - there is nothing wrong with identifying as an unorthodox Christian. But, what is it about your beliefs that make you a deist?

m0yashi · 1 month

This is not just true of Christians. It applies to Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and so on. Each of these religions teaches compassion and love for others, and for the most part, their adherents strive to live out those values.

chenb0x · 1 month

After the Death of Christ, the Holy Spirit was given to us as a guiding light. Hence, our ability to achieve enlightenment, even if by another name.

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that "our ability to achieve enlightenment" is based on the death of Jesus Christ.

What about the many people who achieved enlightenment before his death and before he ever lived?

And more generally, why does our ability to achieve enlightenment depend on Jesus' death, mediated through an ethereal, holy spirit, when the Buddha set forth the Middle Path towards liberation five to six centuries before Jesus existed? Surely in those hundreds of years, at least some Buddhists would have achieved enlightenment without the holy spirit?

And if they could do so, surely Buddhists following the Middle Path alone, without belief in the Holy Spirit or the divinity of Jesus, can achieve enlightenment today.

chenb0x · 1 month

Preface: I'm not a Christian or a Buddhist, but I respect and find both religions fascinating, and the blending of the two religions (Catholicism and Buddhism) even more so. These questions are just out of curiosity and not meant as arguments.

Buddha did not call himself a God

True. Buddha doesn't concern himself with the existence (or non-existence) of supreme beings. But, Jesus describes himself as the only son of God and the only way to the Father. Do you think Jesus spoke of God in a metaphorical sense, as representing the state of enlightenment and not as a literal being? And how does Jesus' declaration of exclusivity reconcile with this view of him as simply one among equals?

Also, how do Catholic Buddhists approach the Buddhist belief that each of us can attain Buddhahood, i.e. become enlightened as Buddha, or Jesus, was? If Catholicism holds Jesus to be the sole Redeemer, and the Second Person of the Trinity, can that be reconciled with the idea that each of us can become the equals of Jesus?

Falling_angel · 1 month

he personally believed people lived on the sun (but it does make you wonder why God didn't correct him) and it was an accepted scientific position of the day

I don't think scientists have ever believed that humans lived on the sun, especially not scientists in the 19th century. Do you know of a prominent scientist from that era who held that view?

chenb0x · 1 month

Out of curiosity, how do you view Buddha as a Catholic? Do you regard him as being enlightened as or an equal of Jesus, or as a lesser being?

Kevin_Scharp · 2 months

Right, the extent to which a living being is sentient and can feel pain or suffer is a key consideration. It doesn't make sense to reject antibiotics, for example, for the sake of bacteria, which utterly lacks sentience, when a human being's life may be at stake. For that matter, even by breathing, we might killing many micro-organisms.

So, even as we hold non-violence as an important ideal in our interactions with living beings, we do recognize that there are circumstances in which we must necessarily, and perhaps unintentionally, do harm to live. But, Jainism holds that this shouldn't lead us to abandon the ideal of non-violence and to not attempt to minimize the harm we cause to others (and to be mindful of the harm that we do commit, even if it is to plants or other 'lesser' beings).

Kevin_Scharp · 2 months

It advocates non-violence as an ideal in our interactions with sentient beings in general. Concurrently, it acknowledges that some life forms, such as micro-organisms and some plants, are necessarily subjected to harm in order for us to live, but it holds that this is no reason to abandon the ideal of non-violence and to not attempt to minimize the harm we cause to others.

It also recognizes that there is a continuum or gradient of sentience and in the ability to feel pain and suffer among living beings, and so, the greater that ability exists in a being, the more care we should take to avoid causing harm to it.

Although our diet depends entirely on plants, we do strive to minimize the harm we commit to them. For instance, we refrain from eating root vegetables because they sustain the lives of an abundance of micro-organisms in the soil and uprooting them would not only cause harm to those organisms, but kill the plants themselves.

I think the Jain belief that the universe is uncreated, and that we must deal with it as we find it without the influence of any supernatural beings or forces, inspires a great deal of this emphasis on non-violence. The general view is that we find ourselves in a world rife with pain and suffering, so, as creatures who are able to think critically and take responsibility for our actions, we should try to do all we can to reduce the harm that takes place while we live.

Kevin_Scharp · 2 months

I would suggest that when you discuss religion, you should try to include the philosophies of other religions apart from the Abrahamic ones.

For instance, I grew up in a religion, Jainism, which holds that the universe was not created and is without beginning or end. It undergoes cycles of expansion and contraction. In this view, the Big Bang marked the beginning of the present cycle.

There are significant and ancient religions such as Buddhism and Jainism in which the concept of a god has no relevance or is absent. Jainism is sometimes categorized as 'nontheistic' by Western academics. Early Jain philosophical texts argued stridently against the claim, put forward by contemporary Hindu philosophers, that the universe was created by a supernatural being.

ttnorac · 3 months

There are some parallels in the narrative you describe here in the life of Mahavira, the last of the Jain Tirthankaras or enlightened teachers.

Mahavira lived nearly two and a half thousand years ago, a period in which Indian society was rife with violence, ritual sacrifice, and inequalities brought upon by the caste system. Mahavira was born to a family of repute and wealth, but he forsake all of his possessions, took up the life of an ascetic, and traveled the land preaching a philosophy of non-violence, compassion, and forgiveness. He spent much of his time among the most neglected and afflicted people in society, such as women and the 'untouchable' outcastes.

He taught his followers to love and treat with reverence every living being, whether it is a fellow human or a diminutive insect. He entreated us to forgive harm done to us and avoid violence even in self-defense.

There are a few important differences in these narratives, however. Mahavira did not claim special abilities or provenance. He actually argued against the claim that there is a supreme supernatural being. He cast himself as an ordinary human being preaching an extraordinary philosophy, not as an incarnation of God to whom one had to submit to achieve salvation. He left an indelible impact on the history of the Indian subcontinent, however. His teachings on the philosophy of ahimsa (compassionate non-violence) brought that principle to the fore of Indian moral philosophy, and influenced both Hinduism and Buddhism.

Many people have the stereotypical image of a devout Jain as someone practicing rigorous pacifism or a Jain monk carrying a soft brush to sweep insects and other small beings from his path to avoid harming them; hopefully this post sheds a little light on the history and philosophy behind our practices.

thexavier · 3 months

I get tired of Christians saying all athiests are going to Hell.

Just curious, do you think atheists or non-Christians will face punishment for their disbelief in the afterlife?

xr71bb · 3 months

From the Jain sutras:

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self."

"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated."

lludson · 5 months

Not every post in r/atheism is meant to be an argument for atheism. This is more than anything a community where people come and post for different reasons: some to argue and discuss, others for humour, and yet others to share their experiences and feelings and find company. Many here share an appreciation for science and skepticism which perhaps contributed to, and even supersedes, their atheism.

YourSpoonIsTooSmall · 5 months

Most atheists don't subscribe to a belief in deities because they haven't been presented with convincing evidence or reasoning to support the various theistic claims. Our disbelief is, more often than not, the result of a sincere intellectual process, of questioning whether we have good evidence to accept the claim that there are supernatural beings, and not the result of grudges or 'resentment', as you say.

I am a Jain, and a somewhat devout one at that. Jainism is a non-theistic religion, just like many traditions within Buddhism. We don't believe in God, but our religion has sustained our culture for thousands of years and inspires our lives even today - we fast, we meditate, we reflect on the deep questions of life that intrigue us all, we strive to care for our families and help the afflicted; we gather in our temples to celebrate life and strengthen the bonds of community.

I am happy that believing in the existence of a deity has produced contentment in your life, but I assure you that those of us who lack such a belief do not, as a result, live less than fulfilled lives. But, of course, if it brings you comfort to hold these shortsighted generalizations about atheists, please continue to do so.

DevilYouKnow · 5 months

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean here. Why would you redefine God as the quest for knowledge and enlightenment? The latter is a process entirely rooted in and a product of the natural world. It is the result of a choice we as individuals make, if we choose to take it as a worthwhile path. How the 'quest' is shaped and how it turns out depends on how we act - are you saying that we create and shape God in some way, as we do with the 'quest'?

This doesn't seem like a definition of God that any religion puts forward, or that most people would recognize or agree with.

DevilYouKnow · 5 months

I'm a Jain, and I just want to point out that the claim of a supernatural being is not a part of every religion. There are significant and ancient religions such as Buddhism and Jainism in which the concept of a god has no relevance or is absent. Jainism is sometimes categorized as 'nontheistic' by Western academics. Early Jain texts argued stridently against the claim of creation that was put forward by contemporary Hindu philosophers.

Jainism mostly concerns itself with the question of how to live an ethical life. The answer to that question in our religion rests on the principle of ahimsa (or compassionate non-violence), and an extensive and rigorous ethical system founded on it. Ultimately, the founders of Jainism saw no need or evidence to invoke a creator deity.

I certainly agree with the other parts of your question.

devtesla · 5 months

It is not minimizing slavery (in fact, it kind of does the opposite) or the problems faced by African Americans in the US. It is a response to claims of persecution by conservative Christians (and more specifically, the recent ad by presidential candidate Rick Perry) who claim that there is a war on religion underway because the religious underpinnings of Christmas are not being emphasized enough.

In this context, that post acknowledges the immense suffering of slavery and shows how ridiculous claims of persecution by American conservative Christians are in comparison.

I agree with you that this meme in general is not funny and can even be harmful when used to diminish pressing problems of discrimination faced by African Americans today.

devtesla · 5 months

This might seem trivial to some, but I think it's important to point out that not all skinheads are racists. In fact, the commenter you've quoted identifies himself as a SHARP skinhead, which is an activist movement that actually fights against racism and fascism (especially such elements in the larger skinhead culture).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinheads_Against_Racial_Prejudice

As a white SHARP Skinhead atheist, this is STILL relevant to my sense of humor. (Also to clear it up for anyone that may not be framiliar with our particular brand of skinhead-ism, Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice (SHARP) are anti-racist skinheads who oppose neo-Nazis and other political racists, particularly if those racists identify themselves as skinheads.)

3pict3tus · 5 months

In Jain philosophy, we conceive of the universe as an uncreated entity that is constituted of two broadly construed categories of substances - jiva (living, conscious substances) and ajiva (non-living substances). Within these categories, there is further differentiation.

Ajiva, for example, is differentiated as follows:

"Pudgala (Matter) - Matter is classified as solid, liquid, gaseous, energy, fine Karmic materials and extra-fine matter i.e. ultimate particles. Paramāṇu or ultimate particle (atoms) is the basic building block of all matter. One of the qualities of the Paramāṇu and Pudgala is that of permanence and indestructibility. It combines and changes its modes but its basic qualities remain the same. According to Jainism, it cannot be created nor destroyed.

Dharma-tattva (Medium of Motion) and Adharma-tattva (Medium of Rest) - Dharmastikāya and Adharmastikāya are distinctly peculiar to Jaina system of thought depicting the principles of Motion and Rest. They are said to pervade the entire universe. Dharma and Adharma are by itself not motion or rest but mediate motion and rest in other bodies. Without Dharmastikāya motion is not possible and without Adharmastikāya rest is not possible in universe.

Ākāśa (Space) - Space is a substance that accommodates the living souls, the matter, the principle of motion, the principle of rest and time. It is all-pervading, infinite and made of infinite space-points.

Kāla (Time) - Kāla is a real entity according to Jainism and all activities, changes or modifications can be achieved only through the progress of time.

These uncreated constituents of the universe impart dynamics upon the universe by interacting with each other."

These constituents behave according to natural, self-contained principles without interference from external, supernatural entities (Gods as posited by other religions).

3pict3tus · 5 months

I am a Jain. Jainism holds that the universe was not created and is without beginning or end. It undergoes cycles of expansion and contraction. In this view, the Big Bang marked the expansionary spark of the present cycle. We conceive of the universe and time itself in a cyclical way. To ask when the first expansionary period occurred or if there will be a final contraction is akin to asking where a sphere begins and where it ends.

cjmalloy · 6 months

There aren't multiple universes. There is one universe that undergoes cycles of expansion and contraction corresponding to the progression and regression of human spirituality.

We think of the life of the universe and time itself in a cyclical way. You can imagine it as a circle or a sphere. To ask when the first Big Bang occurred or if there will be a final one is like asking where a sphere begins and where it ends.

This is why we see no need for a creator or a God in our religion. Jain philosophy deals with cosmology extensively, but the bulk of it is concerned with the question of how to live a good and moral life. Ultimately, the answer to that question in our religion rests on the principle of ahimsa (or compassionate non-violence). But that is an entirely different topic.

However, I do understand that some ancient cultures and tribes, particularly those in the Middle East, may have looked at the world differently. I just wanted to relate one way of thinking about it that does not require a Creator. Our religion hasn't suffered as a result of lacking one, incidentally. We have been around for three to four thousand years, and we're just chugging along quietly even though there are almost as many of us as there are Jews.

cjmalloy · 6 months

I can also explain to you why I do not believe the universe is not self-existent, but I would like to point out that this a separate topic.

I am interested in hearing your reasoning for why the universe is not self-existent. I am a Jain. Jainism holds that the universe was not created and is without beginning or end. It undergoes cycles of expansion and contraction. In this view, the Big Bang marked the beginning of the present cycle.

shramana

TROPHY CASE

shramana

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login