Why must that be seen as a negative?

One thing I dislike about Buddhism (though this is not universal) is asceticism. Interestingly or not, the ascetic ideal exists in Christianity as well. (Yes, it also exists in every other major religion, even Judaism to some degree, but seldom to the degree of virtue that it's held in Buddhism and in Christianity).

The problem with asceticism is that it eschews anything having to do with our flesh. And because of this, it's grossly inauthentic -- it denies the inescapable reality that (at least) for our lives, we are 100% indivisible from our bodies -- and our bodies in Western religions are a creation of God.

So the only theological justification for seeing our needs negatively would be to interpret our bodies as nothing but a cruel test by God.

And I have to reject that argument. I think the physical world, including our bodies, are best interpreted as a creation and even a gift from God. And to reject our needs and our wants would be to live in denial.

life is a gift, but the base of it, I believe it is negative, in that we are in NEED, from birth, and NEED to me is negative.

If you believe in God, then the greatest gift would be in eternal flux with him (or whatever suits your faith's fancy), not here on earth surrounded by evil.

I can see want as a negative (though I personally don't)... But I cannot see need as a negative any more than I can see birds and trees as a negative.

I don't think everyone who believes in God would accept that. I mean can't you entertain that being here on earth is a gift that allows you to help others?

To want to be in eternal flux with God seems escapist to me -- it seems to express a desire to be static, and with no needs there can be no responsibility.

Now, surely we can meet somewhere.

Probably not in that I don't believe in God, and I certainly don't believe in heaven and afterlives. Religion is a cultural practice, and in my mind it's most productive to think of God and the afterlife as allegorical and not literal.

And speaking as someone who HAS gone and helped children in Africa on three separate medical trips, I see the good in this as an end in itself, and I believe that because I value the lives of those people.

I don't do it to impress God -- the problem with pleasing God as a motivation is that it requires an individualistic interpretation of what God wants. And it's not just Mother Theresa who has had a say in this matter -- it's also been people who bomb abortion clinics, suicide bombers, crusaders who have led pogroms against jews, etc.

We don't KNOW what God wants. But we know what humans want and need. And attending to human needs must be a good unto itself.

As Albert Camus said in The Plague, "Who would dare assert that eternal happiness can compensate for a single moment of human suffering?"

You assume God is absolutely moral and acts with the most precise reason, hence so you live your life under a moral structure construct to fit those certain attributes.

And, I'm glad to hear you went over and helped, however not everyone has the money or time to do that, congrats :whistling:....

The problem with asceticism is that it eschews anything having to do with our flesh. And because of this, it's grossly inauthentic -- it denies the inescapable reality that (at least) for our lives, we are 100% indivisible from our bodies -- and our bodies in Western religions are a creation of God.

And I have to reject that argument. I think the physical world, including our bodies, are best interpreted as a creation and even a gift from God. And to reject our needs and our wants would be to live in denial.

I disagree with your take on Buddhist asceticism. Remember, the Buddha rejected the extreme asceticism of his youth in favor of a moderate path.

The Buddhist asceticism isn't a denial of anything having to do with our flesh, but is instead a practice of abstaining from unnecessary indulgence.

This is why extreme asceticism is not typically promoted by Buddhism because those practices are harmful to the flesh; better to stay healthy and keep up your practice than starve yourself.

Some traditions within Buddhism are predominantly ascetic, though. Take a trip to Kyoto and you'll see several hundred temples in which this is overt, especially in the Zen temples. And Theravada Buddhism (the most "ancestral" of modern Buddhist traditions) is also heavily ascetic.

But that is also true of the monastic tradition in Christianity. The theology seems to have more to do with temptation than with flesh.

I still think that if it's not inauthentic, it's at the least contrived to manufacture a very artificial lifestyle to avoid the bare reality of how we live and relate to each other.

The ethical philosophy of moderation, as Aristotle might champion, does not condone asceticism (and I don't mean extreme asceticism).

It condones judgement.

Isn't that precisely what the Buddhist/Christian asceticism amounts to, though, judgment?

Military discipline is contrived to produce a killing machine whereas Buddhist/Christian asceticism is contrived to produce a compassionate and thoughtful individual.

According to many eastern religions, life is suffering. I want, with all of your help as well, to examine an idea I had that I just kind of slipped into through an impulse, so I decided to share, therefore it might not be worth your while. Fair warning.

Now, our life begins, we are essentially given life. That is a positive, however for life to sustain itself, it needs many things. Shelter, food, water, interaction, etc. So the human born, is essentially, in the negative, in the sense that we discard all assumptions of interaction from parents and etc... So in doing this we find that the human is in the negative because it cannot sustain life without the positives that are, through human nature or not, brought into their life.

Now in expanding this, humans also to be healthy need other humans, another positive gain. They need some sense of purpose to do things, even if it is simply sustainability. And as we all know, nowadays especially, we require much much more. So in adding all these positives in our lives all the time, we replace negatives that naturally exist with us in life, perhaps our creator or nature, sure, may have intended parents or other humans to take care of a new born, but by ourselves, we are essentially in the negative at birth.

Therefore, once these people may leave our lives or if we just age, we of course become individuals with more complex psychological needs. If we are always supplementing ourselves positives to suppress the negative, we can come to the conclusion that life itself is suffering, from that which we must create our own comfort. Through whatever that may be. I would suggest that primarily having purposeful things in your life that cannot be taken from you by nature, to avoid or combat the suffering. Perhaps, as the Buddhists believe, you should experience within yourself, your ego's death, and without the ego's oppression, you then can become content.

Thoughts?

There is suffering becuase suffering is necessary

We could not enjoy sitting in front of a warm fire if there were no cold,we could never know love without its opposite hate, how could we appreciate the light of day, if there were no night?, how could we comprehend being pain free in we never experience pain?,

Or the sexual orgasm , if we had no other human pleasure to relate it to.

Suffering is the school to wisdom. Suffering allows humans to evolve and become higher more evolved entities

Indeed I think evolution is a process of overcoming suffering

I agree that through suffering you can learn more appreciation for the things that please you. Suffering can be transformed into something positive. However, I disagree with the belief that happiness entails suffering. You don't need hate to appreciate love. A human child can appreciate love without ever experiencing hatred. Even saying that we couldn't appreciate the light of day without the darkness of night doesn't seem to be grounded in truth. This is all very rhetorical, but I'm not sure that it's grounded in facts.