
Originally Posted by
lukku cairi
CG, you know that people use deities to explain things that are beyond their understanding or control - and then the religious dogma gets entrenched in the cultural psyche and becomes terribly difficult to dislodge. Humans are control freaks, and we don't like the idea that things exist over which we have no influence whatsoever - so we turn it over to a deity whom we might be able to appease - whether or not that deity was the cause of the phenomenon. This argument could be expanded but I want to move on to other points - the first of which being:
Ironically, if the present rising intensity of the hurricane season has anything to do with global warming (as many climatologists think it does) we DO have a certain amount of power over our own weather - we've just been abusing that power by pouring millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and now we're hoist by our own petard, so to speak.
As I've quoted elsewhere, the American Indians have a proverb: "I asked God for strength, so he sent me troubles to make me strong." To play the devil's advocate (no pun intended) might a deity not put His creation through various trials to see what stuff it's made of? IMHO, (to operate within the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition) if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we'd still be in the Garden of Eden, but we wouldn't be HUMAN.
Since human beings are, and always will be, encompassed by the universe (and therefore are a subset of the universe), we will never truly have control over everything that happens to us. Buddhism, I suspect, is a good way to deal with this fact - although I'm not a Buddhist, so I wouldn't know. Another proverb, this time from the Russians: "If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans."
A third proverb: "Pray to God but row for shore." You could argue (once again, within the J/C/M tradition) that the "fall" in the Garden of Eden - when humans gained the ability to create and develop their own knowledge base - has ultimately enabled us to develop the technologies you described. I have heard it argued that God always intended humans to eat from that tree, and that it was just that we couldn't understand His motivations at the time. After all, if you have a child, do you want the kid to grow up and be able to look after himself, or would you prefer him to remain locked in time, sitting in a high chair and eating baby food?
A good point, but (semantically) I'd argue that by this definition nature is not capable of being cruel. Human motivation is required for cruelty. The people who killed all those children in that school in Russia are cruel - they even denied their captives water. That's cruel. If you argue that nature simply functions, then nature itself must only be indifferent.
That's a mean-spirited question, for a Buddhist. Christians pray because it's in their belief system to pray, and it helps them because they believe it helps others. The question of whether God hears Christian prayers, cares, or even exists, is beside the point. You chant because it is in your belief system to chant, and it helps you because you believe it helps others. Would you feel wrong if you didn't chant for the people in distress? So Christians will feel if they don't pray. You are a good person, CG, and you don't like others to suffer. What should matter is not the particulars of religion, but whether the individual practitioner has the human qualities of kindness, practical reliability and concern for others. Any person - Christian or Buddhist - who lacks these qualities, is lacking in humanity.
Bookmarks