Disqus - Latest Comments for jeredb

Re: On religion

stephenmurphy — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:00:13 -0000

lol, i hope not - I hate repetition.

You'll have to excuse my eagerness on the topic, it is a fascination of mine. I also have not found all the answers - but people's decisions on this topic fascinate me and I find myself questioning them not because I don't think they should make the decisions they have but to really find out the 'mindset' of the person making the decision. Most people in the US are very private on the matter (understood) but when someone is open on it, I'm afraid I'm a little over zealous in the search for more knowledge!

What is cool is that you have found yourself more grounded since leaving Catholicism for Buddhism. A peace of mind which I am sure is of great reward! I feel for your family situation though, I can honestly say I know what that's like.

I suppose an interesting question I have would be do you feel that more is owed to leaving Catholicism behind, and the mental grief it gave you, or to what was gained when you started to follow Buddhism? I am from a Catholic family, but am not Catholic (that may not mean much here in the US of A - but believe me where I come from that's a pretty BIG deal).

Re: On religion

jeredb — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:59:55 -0000

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the realm of the metaphysical. Linear versus cyclical perceptions of time, semantic back and forth. This was my explanation of how I got to where I am today. I am willing to admit that I don't have all the answers, but I also have enough fortitude to accept if I'm wrong, I will have an "eternal death". If I'm right, we may be having this discussion again. ;)

Re: On religion

stephenmurphy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:05:17 -0000

I don't find them argumentative, you're just trying to answer some quesitons! Christianity is just a topic that I am fond of debating - and I don't think less of anyone who disagrees with me - most of my family disagree!

__________

In the article you posted there is a line:

"Because of his Nirvana, the Buddha was perfectly moral, perfectly ethical, and ended his suffering forever."

What is perfectly moral and perfectly ethical? I find no definition of these terms in Buddhism. If morality is a matter of opinion and circumstance, then morality simply does not exist.

Buddhism has its deities such as Brahmā Sahampati who appeared to Buddha himself. I'm not sure if all sects within Buddhism give deity status to the Brahma, or if the Buddhism you follow does though.

Interestingly, the Dalai Lama is referred to as "His Holiness the Dalai Lama", like the Papacy. Although holiness in Christianity refers to the characteristic of God and in Buddhism it refers to 'purity'. Again, the definition game arises as I find it difficult to see what a Buddhist definition of 'pure' is. Not purity from sin, as sin is breaking God's law and there is no 'sin'.

"In the religion of Buddhism we don’t have a first cause, instead we have a never ending circle of birth and death."

This definition of eternity is confusing. The universe, as we know it, is made of mortal pieces. They have a beginning and an end. Planets, stars, humans etc. Logically mortality must have had a beginning. All things we see had a start (enter another debate *here* on when that was... :D ). There are repeating patterns, but ultimately the world moves along a linear path.

But eternity is a given, whether you believe that there is a being that inhabits eternity is another story, but time had to begin somewhere by definition. So what is there before time? A previous finite universe? Again, there must be a point where finity begins and 'outside' our finite time must be eternity/infinity.

The beginning of time, when our universe began and the circumstances of this beginning is of utmost importance as it effects everything that follows. Here in a summary is my belief:

As a Christian I believe that God created a perfect world. Man, the 'cherry on top' of the creation breaks God's commandment - this is sin. A rift is created in the relationship between God and man. Previously man communicated with God as with another man. However, God being holy, sin cannot be in His presence and man must live apart from God. Man's sinful state separates him from eternity. Man is cursed with physical and spiritual death. The world is cursed with death and the sicknesses and that lead to it.

Ultimately man's sin must be atoned for spiritually as well as physically. Man, being made in the image of God (which is what separated him from the animals) has a soul - a spirit. "Man, whatever his affinities with the animal realm, is radically distinguished from all other earthly creatures by the fact that he alone has been created in the divine image and is intended by constitution to be a godly creature.''

In His mercy sends His son to take the place of sinners. A perfect person who has done no wrong (and thus has no penalty that must be paid) takes the wages of sin upon Himself (death). Those that accept this unmerited gift from God (grace) are then brought back to life ("born again" - we are already physically born, but this is the point of our spiritual birth). It is by the sacrifice of Jesus that we are brought back into communion with God (forgive the term). It cannot be of our own good works as any sin we have committed must be punished - so it is impossible to earn 'salvation' on your own.

But we still live in a cursed world, where physical death is all around us. Suffering, as a result of sin and what happened 'in the beginning' is still around us. When a person dies, if they have not been spiritually reborn then eternal death awaits, but those who have been reborn live with God. Heaven and Hell. Ultimately this world is finite and will end ($50 awaits whoever guesses the correct date) and will be replaced with a perfect world populated by those who chose to follow God in this life, a people from 'every tribe, tongue and nation'.

-----

Re: On religion

jeredb — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:39:24 -0000

Thanks for responding. While I am by no means an expert, I have written some responses to your comment. I hope you do not find them argumentative, they were not meant to be.

The religion seems to contradict itself, even in its most basic principles. It attempts to alleviate suffering, yet even after 2500 years the countries it is most prevalent in are full of suffering. It offers no solution for suffering, and no explanation as to why the world suffers in the first place.

--
Suffering is different for each person, there is no ultimate solution for suffering. That is for each individual to find the root of their suffering and attempt to eliminate.

Suffering originates attachment. That is plainly stated in the 4 Noble Truths.

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
--

Another hole I saw was that there is no moral compass to guide 'karma'. As it stemmed from Hinduism, Buddhism took a lot of it's world-views from its predecessor. But these views were set by gods, something that some Buddhists (another contradiction) do not believe in.

--
A good explanation of Buddhism and god: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html.
--

So who/what then dictates what is right and wrong? How does one know murder is wrong - does it become a matter of opinion?

--
The right and wrong is always situational. Will murder increase suffering? Yes, for the person who has been killed, for their family, relations. Will murder increase the suffering of the world as a whole? Potentially yes, if that person held the unrealized cure to cancer, the solution to world peace, etc. If suffering can be decreased, that is considered good or right, if suffering is increased, that is considered a bad thing.
--

The rational mind says that the whole universe is governed by laws - a common sense answer is that murder is wrong because it goes against the order of things. But who laid this order out? Where do these laws come from? Where does karma pull its information on what is right/wrong so as to give justice appropriately?

--
Karma is a cumulative tally (poor choice of words, but the only thing that comes to mind at the moment) of a persons actions. Murder in self defense, participating as a soldier in war, and other moral quandaries is mitigated by the fact that is was done with the intention of decreasing suffering. War makes for a tricky scenario, what is "right"? That is why most Buddhists are pacifists and conscientious objectors.
--

Another oddity is that Buddha (if that indeed was his name) rejected the more common idea that man has a soul - yet reincarnation (another hangover from Hinduism) makes no sense if one's being is not soul-bound.

--
Reincarnation is by far the most difficult concept of Buddhism to grasp. Karma is not tied to a soul, merely an extension of "universal energy". If my karma is good when I die, my karma will pass back to the universe and be reborn as a higher being. I, being a relatively new Buddhist, do not have recollection of any previous karma. But those who have achieved enlightenment are able to feel the previous karmic imprint. They do not have direct recollection, or recalled memories.
--

There are almost no absolutes, yet through science we see that the universe is full of absolutes.

--
Really? There are absolutes? We are learning that those things that have been seen as constant (the speed of light, abolute zero) are not quite as absolute as their name would indicate.
--

f one is to attain enlightenment (which in itself is an impossible task) one must dedicate their whole life and being to it. Yet realistically if everyone did this, the world would come to a grinding halt and the human race would be gone within a month. If you don't want to attain enlightenment then there would be no point to the pursuit of a religion that you don't agree with.

--
Enlightenment, as with suffering, is situational. Each person can find enlightentment in their own way. The study of one's self and how one interacts with the universe with deep introspection can lead to enlightenment. This doesn't require the cessation of all other life tasks (work, eating, etc), merely a commitment to this meditiation.
--

One of the major ones being 'is there a god'? There can only be a yes/no response to such a definite question - yet the Buddhist religion does not provide an answer.

--
A good explanation of Buddhism and god: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html.
--

Re: On religion

jeredb — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:14:25 -0000

It is totally acceptable to discuss in the comments. That is why I posted it. :)

Re: 360° Awareness

jeredb — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:07:33 -0000

Why do you think I greet people with "howdy" and say adieu with "adios"? Me and John Wayne, we are tight.

Re: Cube Video

jeredb — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:48:46 -0000

No work, all automated by computers... that is why we are IT

Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skulls

stephenmurphy — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:30:53 -0000

From the Beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/74146...

"But, in the case of the British Museum object, some point the finger of suspicion at a 19th Century French antiquities dealer called Eugene Boban."

Classic.

Ps- seems I double posted. oops. wot a noob.

Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skulls

jeredb — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:57:53 -0000

You you have a link to the crystal skull story? I would love to read it. I guess I fancy myself as a bit of an Indiana Jones / Archeology buff.

I agree whole heartedly about Tarzan, er, Shia LeBouf swinging through the trees. Hard to continue the suspension of disbelief.

Re: Social Network Noise

jeredb — Tue, 20 May 2008 06:13:32 -0000

I had the sliders cranked down and told Facebook that I want to hear less from most of the people who keep showing up in my news feed. I think the news algorithm is designed to give you a certain number of "stories" but do to my restrictive conditions, there are not enough stories by people I want, etc. so it just gives me what feels like a standard news feed.

I'll see if I can get the Greasemonkey script to work with Safari (Creammonkey). I'm holding out on switching back to Firefox until the 3.0 final is Intel optimized.

Re: The Errant Mind

jeredb — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:41:18 -0000

Yes, I am quite happy with that one.

Re: The Errant Mind

jeredb — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:00:06 -0000

Possibly the best use of "that's what she said..." ever. +1 point.

Re: 1… 2… 3 wrist slaps, you’re out!

jeredb — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:40:50 -0000

All I know is that is would / will be nice to work for myself. Just means I need to keep working those side projects...

Re: The Errant Mind

thomas_mackay — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:04:49 -0000

My humps, my humps, my lovely lady lumps...

Re: The Errant Mind

jeredb — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:58:34 -0000

Please never sing anything by the Black-Eyed Peas... at work... ever...

Re: Customer Service = Productivity?

jeredb — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:08:08 -0000

Heidi - Ferriss is a little radical, he gets rid of problem clients. Another thing he does it give his employees discretion to solve a customer problem if it costs less than $150, which is pretty interesting. This dovetails with a Guy Kawasaki article: http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/04/the_art_of_....

Re: Customer Service = Productivity?

jeredb — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:14:43 -0000

Test comment