Gandhi's take on Jesus and orthodox Christianity

[jacknky]

"It makes a lot of sense if the doctor's only function is healing.  But our divine doctor/creator provides us with more than just healing, but with a purpose-driven life.  He provides us with a system of right and wrong.  And in order to understand this moral system properly, we need to understand who God is and why we were created."

You know, Acumen, I really can't argue with that. The problem with what you said for me is that a belief in the existence of God and the belief that the Christian version is the "correct" version of God are both required to live this particular version of a purpose-driven life. Fortunately for me and others, the Christian story is not the only path to living a good life despite the fact that many Christians believe it is.

[jacknky]

"If the world ever got to the point where most people didn't believe in moral absolutes then it would get real ugly real fast."

Again, belief in the existence of a particular supernatural Being is not required to live a moral life, IMHO. If you disagree, please explain why it is needed.

[jacknky]

metis,
"However, I very much agree that religion can indeed very much help in the establishment of morals in a soceity, and I'm happy that it's prevailent in all societies to a greater or lesser degree-- I am by no means anti-religion."

This seems like a "chicken-or-egg" issue. I think that yes, religion affects the morals of society but I think society also affects the morality religion teaches. Government, society and religion are so mixed I find it hard to tell where some morality originates.

As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible about abortion or stem cell research. Yet these are religous moral issues. When I was growing up in segregationist Birmingham, Alabama I was taught in my Southern Baptist church that "God wants" the races to be separate when segregation was clearly a societal issue.

Sometimes I think religion serves as much as a reinforcer of morality as it does an initiator. The problem with religous morality is that harmful beliefs are accepted unquestioningly by many simply because they hear it in church. That was true then with segregation and I think it's true now with homosexual rights, abortion and stem cell research.

[metis]

This seems like a "chicken-or-egg" issue. I think that yes, religion affects the morals of society but I think society also affects the morality religion teaches. Government, society and religion are so mixed I find it hard to tell where some morality originates.

As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible about abortion or stem cell research. Yet these are religous moral issues. When I was growing up in segregationist Birmingham, Alabama I was taught in my Southern Baptist church that "God wants" the races to be separate when segregation was clearly a societal issue.

Sometimes I think religion serves as much as a reinforcer of morality as it does an initiator. The problem with religous morality is that harmful beliefs are accepted unquestioningly by many simply because they hear it in church. That was true then with segregation and I think it's true now with homosexual rights, abortion and stem cell research.

You'll get no arguement from me.  Good post.

[Acumen]

Sometimes I think religion serves as much as a reinforcer of morality as it does an initiator. The problem with religous morality is that harmful beliefs are accepted unquestioningly by many simply because they hear it in church. That was true then with segregation and I think it's true now with homosexual rights, abortion and stem cell research.

How is that any different than morality learned from childhood?

[jacknky]

I grew up in the South so the morality I learned as a child was very much Bible based. I don't really know how to answer your question though.

[Acumen]

My point is that moral convictions based upon the bible are no more dangerous than moral convictions based upon one's upbringing (supposing the two to be different).

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"My point is that moral convictions based upon the bible are no more dangerous than moral convictions based upon one's upbringing (supposing the two to be different)."

I think that depends on which Bible one is basing their morality. If it is the Bible of love, forgiveness and not judging then these universal principles are very good precepts to base our morality upon because it brings us together. If it is the Bible of judgementalness, retribution and condemnation then that morality can be used to divide and separate us.

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"My point is that moral convictions based upon the bible are no more dangerous than moral convictions based upon one's upbringing (supposing the two to be different)."

I think that depends on which Bible one is basing their morality. If it is the Bible of love, forgiveness and not judging then these universal principles are very good precepts to base our morality upon because it brings us together. If it is the Bible of judgementalness, retribution and condemnation then that morality can be used to divide and separate us.

It's never that simple.  People aren't born holding the bible in their hands reading it while sucking on a pacifier.  Moral convictions are formed based upon personal experiences with rules and human interaction.  Those who read the bible and have a particular fondness for the "eye for an eye" passages probably have pre-arranged tendencies toward violence and only use select passages as a rationale for their conduct.     

[jacknky]

Acumen,
I agree totally. Thank you for making my point.

[Acumen]

The Dalai Lama has been asked, since Buddhists do not believe in a creator-god, what then establishes morality for Buddhists?  His response has been that this is one of the very first lessons we learn in life.  As children, we quickly find out that if we're nurtured, loved, and cared for, this feels "good".  But if we're neglected, abused, and unloved, this feels "bad".

Then he takes it to the next step by saying that if we merely remember what we have learned as a child, and apply it to others, this society and this world would be a much better place to live in.  OTOH, if we want a more troubled and turbulent society and world, then the hostilites we may create will have the effect of creating just that.

So The Dalai Lama believes that morality is based upon what feels good?  I'm not too sure I would rely on such a standard for guidance. 

[SquirleyWurley]

No, that would be a misunderstanding.

In Buddhism there are teachings about 'buddha nature' within every conscious thing, an essential aspect of consciousness which is consistent with enlightenment.  A Christian might speak of knowing something of the primordial spirit within which knows something of its creator, of the state before the fall.

When the D.L. speaks about how we learn from experience of pain and pleasure, I think he's going back to primitive learning experiences which form a basis for later judgments, and pointing to them as a way of referring to how we learn some basic realities at a very young age, and then develop ignorant reactions and constructs over time on top of them, but we can disentangle this perhaps by returning to some insight as to what basic happiness really is like.  A Christian may try to make a similar point by saying that we aren't truly happy if we aren't loving and forgiving, and that children intuit this quite well.

[Acumen]

Pleasure and happiness are different concepts.  I believe the quote from the D.L was that of pleasure, not happiness.

[SquirleyWurley]

In Buddhist texts three poisons are often mentioned: attraction, repulsion, confusion.  Sometimes it is said to be desire, fear, ignorance, but the three basic ideas are the mind wanting more of something pleasing, less of something displeasing, or confused about the nature of consciousness and experience, and how this leads to all sorts of needless anguish, clinging to our patterns, etc.

Combined with the notions of 'Buddha mind', it seems to me that the point is that without the three poisons, our basic experience in consciousness, when seen clearly, without overlays of assumptions and confusion, etc., there is the basic desire of sentient beings to experience pleasure, to be happy, and that this serves as a key commonality between sentient beings, leading to discussions about ethics, the development of philosophies to make one's life better/more satisfactory, etc.

[Acumen]

Yes.

[metis]

So The Dalai Lama believes that morality is based upon what feels good?  I'm not too sure I would rely on such a standard for guidance. 

If HHDL and Buddhism only taught that personal happiness was the only thing that really counted, then one could maybe say the above.  But, as what has been mentioned many times before, that ain't the case. 

[metis]

No, that would be a misunderstanding.

In Buddhism there are teachings about 'buddha nature' within every conscious thing, an essential aspect of consciousness which is consistent with enlightenment.  A Christian might speak of knowing something of the primordial spirit within which knows something of its creator, of the state before the fall.

When the D.L. speaks about how we learn from experience of pain and pleasure, I think he's going back to primitive learning experiences which form a basis for later judgments, and pointing to them as a way of referring to how we learn some basic realities at a very young age, and then develop ignorant reactions and constructs over time on top of them, but we can disentangle this perhaps by returning to some insight as to what basic happiness really is like.  A Christian may try to make a similar point by saying that we aren't truly happy if we aren't loving and forgiving, and that children intuit this quite well.

Thanks, SW, for helping to clarify the issue.  Nice posts.

[Acumen]

So The Dalai Lama believes that morality is based upon what feels good?  I'm not too sure I would rely on such a standard for guidance. 

If HHDL and Buddhism only taught that personal happiness was the only thing that really counted, then one could maybe say the above.  But, as what has been mentioned many times before, that ain't the case. 

Buddhism isn't my cup of tea, but I'm trying.   

[jacknky]

Perhaps it would be helpful to use the terms "skillful" and "unskillful" as opposed to "good" and "bad".

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"Buddhism isn't my cup of tea, but I'm trying."

I suggest you sit in meditation an hour or two a day for a few years. That is a better way to learn Buddhism than through words, IMHO.