| Welcome to Die Hard Baseball. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Do you have the true religion? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 30 2007, 12:23 PM (2,018 Views) | |
| Caulfield | Sep 19 2007, 11:33 AM Post #61 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
Because it makes more sense to me than any other religion out there. I can't get into the idea of some big guy in the sky watching my every move. The Buddha taught "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." And to me, most other religions are full of things that don't agree in the slightest with my own common sense. The fact that so many sects of Christianity are against the teaching of evolution is a part of that. So many religious leaders are against it, but even the Dalai Lama himself has said that if science proves something that Buddhists believe as being wrong, then we MUST abandon that tenet. Do not reject science just because it doesn't go with our theory, but rather look at our theory. |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Sep 20 2007, 03:36 PM Post #62 |
![]()
|
Caulfield... your quote.. The Buddha taught "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Would you agree that basically this reasoning amounts pretty much to the me-ism philosophy that is so prevalent in the world these days? In other words, as long as I like it, as long as I think its ok, or as long as it agree's with my lines of reasonings, as long as it agree's with MY idea of common sense, then everything is ok and that is all I have to be concerned about? And if the Dalai Lama says that you should accept science findings then you should reject any wrong thinking of Buddhist beliefs if they differ from science? Strikes me as a belief in science right from the get go, so what actually does Buddhism really have to offer? Not much by the looks of it, as whatever Buddhists believe can be changed whenever you think that you may have a better idea. Do you have any idea how much the world has suffered because of this sort of philosophy?? I would imagine that this is a pretty easy life to live. No committment to a higher power like an almighty God, no committment to any other person etc. All I need is my own power of reasoning. If I think its good, then it must be? Its no wonder that the bible states that in the last days, that men would be as pointed out in 2 Timothy 3: 1-5... "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away". Certainly fits exactly the idea of me-ism, or whatever they themselves think is right. At least that is the immpression that I got from your post about Buddhism. |
![]() |
|
| Caulfield | Sep 21 2007, 08:47 AM Post #63 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
That's not true at all that there is no commitment to other people. You are in fact committed to the world as a whole. Nor do I believe it lends itself to, as you put it, the "me-ist" philosophy of life that is prevalent; in fact I believe it is just the opposite. Life consists of much suffering for all people of the world. Suffering, as defined by the Buddha and his followers, is pretty vast: really anything that causes pain and stress. If you want a hamburger and can't get one for some reason, that is considered suffering (as minor as it is). The goal of s Buddhist is to remove attachments to things, such as something like really really wanting a damn hamburger, to end suffering. If you want nothing but what you have, and have nothing but that which you want, you will not suffer. How does this in any way contribute to this "me-ist" philosophy? The religion is about common sense, and what functions for you and that you should not attempt to change others' views and beliefs on subjects that are a matter of opinion and/or hypothesis. Only if something can truly be proven wrong should it be abandoned. Which comes to the point about the belief in "science uber alles." Science is based in truth, fact, and proof, while religions are most often based in theory, parable, and faith. No proof is required to start any religion or even make it successful. Proof? Look at how many religions there are out there, who all disagree with each other in some way. While with science, there are concrete laws, there are theories based in fact and research, and there are hypotheses made by looking at the facts that are working their way toward being proven. Even after the earth was proven to revolve around the sun, rather than vice versa, the Church was excommunicating people for talking about it. Evolution is slowly being proven, and numerous religions don't want it taught in schools, sometimes not even if taught side-by-side with creationism. What happens when we die? We don't know, and yet religions all insist on their theory being the indisputable truth. Buddhism knows nothing is permanent. You can't take anything from this life with you to the next one, very few things you have in this life will last all the way through to your death, and it's a concept many people cannot grasp. Theories will be always be both proven and disproven, teachings will change, and nothing that cannot be absolutely proven should be accepted as fact, and there fore accepted as permanent. The world is in a state of constant flux, constant change, and we must accept it and work with it, rather than against it. All of this is Buddhism in a nutshell. It is about as "anti-me-ist" as one can get. |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Sep 23 2007, 02:10 PM Post #64 |
![]()
|
Caulfield.. Sorry about being so long in answering your post. Been a long week of medical tests for me. Your quote: That's not true at all that there is no commitment to other people. You are in fact committed to the world as a whole. As for the Buddhist philosophy that whatever you as an individual wish to do or believe is the correct way, then I have a problem with thinking that me-ism is not involved. I think that is a very self centered way of thinking. How can you be committed to the welfare of the whole world in general, when you take it upon yourself to believe that whatever YOU think is well and good and suits yourself while at the same time hundreds of millions of other people have their own preferences. How can that possibly result in the overall good and create blissful harmony? It obviously cannot. It can only cause divisions. Hitler’s me-ism ideas didn’t benefit the world much. I assume he thought that his thinking would be good for mankind. For instance. Let’s just consider this. IF Buddists were the only people alive in the world, all of them thinking the way that you mentioned.. would this create harmony and be good for everyone? Not at all. All we have to do is look at the results in times past. Many Buddhists have killed many other Buddhists in the various wars large and small. Just a coincidence, but here is an excerpt from a news story today… YANGON, Myanmar - Riot police and barbed wire barricades blocked hundreds of monks and anti-government demonstrators from approaching the home of the detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi on Sunday, in a new show of force against a rising protest movement. Led by Buddhist monks, some 20,000 people protested against the junta Sunday and shouted their support for Suu Kyi, who made her first public appearance in four years Saturday when a crowd of monks and sympathizers was permitted to pass her house. Does this REALLY sound to you like a peaceful, live in harmony, type of involvement? How very easily this sort of mob protest can lead to killings etc.. No, the answer has to be that something is drastically wrong here with Buddhist type of thinking. But don’t feel bad. You are not alone… You mentioned “ evolution is slowly being proven”.. Please give us some examples of this.. |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Sep 23 2007, 02:20 PM Post #65 |
![]()
|
Your quote: Which comes to the point about the belief in "science uber alles." Science is based in truth, fact, and proof. That would be very nice IF it was entirely true. Just a point to show that this is not necessarily the case. While at the same time “science” has produced the most fearful weapons of war that man has ever used against others. We all know what those are. Here is an article that is interesting although somewhat long. Sorry. Fraud in Science: A Look Behind the Scenes PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw. “Eureka!” he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made. That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of science. Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment. Remember the great heroes in science’s hall of fame? Men like Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific achievements but also for their virtues—objectivity, dedication, honesty, humility, and so forth. The impression was that by the sheer force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front of them. In reality, however, things are not quite that simple. In most cases, scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories, struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even contradictory. Idealistically, one might expect that the dedicated scientist would press forward undaunted until the truth is found. But the fact of the matter is that generally we know very little about what goes on behind closed laboratory doors. Is there reason to believe that those engaged in scientific pursuits are less influenced by the baser human characteristics such as prejudice, rivalry, ambition and greed? “Personal preferences and human emotions are said to be suppressed by the scientist in the interest of securing truth,” wrote Michael Mahoney in Psychology Today. “However, the annals of both early and contemporary science suggest that this portrayal is less than accurate.” In a similar vein, columnist Alan Lightman wrote in the magazine Science 83: “The history of science is replete with personal prejudices, misleading philosophical themes, miscast players. . . . I suspect all scientists have been guilty of prejudice at times in their research.” Do these comments surprise you? Have they at least tainted, if not shaken, the image you had of science and scientists? Recent study on the subject has revealed that even scientific luminaries of the past were not above using unethical methods to advance their own ideas or theories. Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), was strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives. Writing in Science, Richard S. Westfall asserted that, to strengthen his position, Newton made some “adjustments” in the Principia so that his calculations and measurements would more closely support his theory, making it more convincing. In one example, accuracy of one part in 3,000 was claimed, and in another his computations were carried to seven decimal places, something quite unheard of in those days. “If the Principia established the quantitative pattern of modern science,” wrote Westfall, “it equally suggested a less sublime truth—that no one can manipulate the fudge factor so effectively as the master mathematician himself.” Newton allowed himself to be drawn into another controversy that eventually got the better of him. To claim priority over Leibniz for the invention of calculus, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Newton, as president of the esteemed Royal Society, “appointed an ‘impartial’ committee [made up mostly of his adherents] to investigate the issue, secretly wrote the report officially published by the society, and reviewed it anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions,” thus crediting himself with the honor. That a man of Newton’s stature would resort to such tactics is indeed a paradox. It clearly shows that conscientious and honorable though a scientist, or anyone, may be in other things, when his own reputation or interest is at stake, he can become quite dogmatic, irrational, even reckless, or take a shortcut. “It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly, honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert in some fields, but not in many,” writes consultant Roy Herbert in New Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world of science, he adds, “I find no difficulty in accepting that.” What, though, about the supposedly close-knit, self-correcting and self-policing structure of science—the processes of review, refereeing and replication? In the wake of the widely publicized recent series of frauds in prestigious research institutes, the Association of American Medical Colleges issued a report setting out guidelines on how to deal with fraud in research. The report, in essence, maintained that “the overwhelming probability that fraudulent data will be detected soon after their presentation” is a safeguard against unethical practices. This assessment, however, did not sit well with many others, both inside and outside the scientific community. For example, a New York Times editorial, calling the report “a shallow diagnosis of science fraud,” pointed out that “none of the frauds was originally brought to light through the standard mechanisms by which scientists check each other’s work.” In fact, a member of the report committee, Dr. Arnold S. Relman, who is also an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, likewise disagreed with the report’s conclusion. “What kind of protection against fraud does peer review offer?” he asked. “Little or none.” To back up his argument, Relman continued: “Fraudulent work was published in peer-reviewed journals, some with very exacting standards. In the case of the two papers we published, no suggestion of dishonesty was raised by any of the referees or editors.” As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today’s highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone else has done. Even if a scientist’s work is based on an experiment done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the same form. The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes called salami science. Some researchers deliberately ‘slice up’ their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the number of publishable works. This “affords an opportunity for dishonesty,” says a Harvard committee, “because such reports are less likely to be verified by others.” Researchers well know that unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of all published papers are “unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even unread.” This does not mean, however, that science, as an institution, is failing or is not working. Quite to the contrary, a great deal of important research is being done, and many useful discoveries are being made. All of this is a credit to what is essentially an honor system—the ideal that scientific advancement is based on mutual trust and the sharing of knowledge within the scientific community. What the recent cases of fraud in research have demonstrated is the simple fact that this ideal has its limitations and that not all members of the scientific community are equally ready to abide by it. The facts show that within the self-policing and self-correcting mechanism of science there are enough loopholes that anyone bent on beating the system and who knows his way around it could do it. As in everything else, economics plays a large role in the world of science. The days of the self-supporting, inventive tinkerers are apparently over. Scientific research today is big money, and much of it is funded by government, industry or other foundations and institutions. Yet the economic crunch and budget cuts have made grants harder and harder to get. According to the National Institutes of Health, which funds some 40 percent of all biomedical research done in the United States on a yearly budget of about $4 billion, only about 30 percent of applicants for NIH grants receive them, whereas in the 1950’s the figure was about 70 percent. What this means for the researchers is that the emphasis has been shifted from quality to quantity—the ‘publish or perish’ mentality. Even established scientists often find themselves more occupied with raising funds to keep their expensive laboratories going than with working in them. This was what led to the downfall of a doctor who was receiving over half a million dollars in grants. This man was given a paper to check that was sent to his busy supervisor for prepublication review. The paper happened to deal with a subject on which he was also working. Rather than giving an honest appraisal of the paper and taking the risk of losing his claim to priority, and perhaps the grant along with it, the doctor hurriedly touched up his experiment, plagiarized some material from the other paper and submitted his own work for publication. Actually the pressure to succeed is felt early along in the life of aspiring scientists, especially those in the medical field. “Stories of cheating among premedical students are common,” said Robert Ebert, former dean of Harvard Medical School, “and the race for high grades so as to insure admission to medical school is hardly designed to encourage ethical and humanitarian behavior.” This early conditioning is easily carried over into the professional career where the pressure is even more intense. “In an environment which can ever permit success to become a more coveted commodity than ethical conduct, even the angels may fall,” lamented Ebert. The current situation was well summarized by Stephen Toulmin of the University of Chicago, when he said: “You can’t change something into a highly paid, highly competitive, highly structured activity without creating occasions for people to do things they never would do in the earlier, amateur stage.” Our brief excursion into the world of scientific research has provided us with a glimpse of the scientist at work. We have seen that, despite their training, scientists are just as much subject to human frailties as they are imbued with virtues. Donning the white lab coat does little to change the picture. In fact, if anything, the pressures and competition in today’s world of science may well make it all the more tempting to seek out the shady shortcuts. The phenomenon of fraud in science is a reminder to all of us that science, too, has its skeletons in the closet. Though they are usually kept well out of sight, they are there, nonetheless. Their occasional exposure ought to make us realize that though science and scientists are often put on a pedestal, their place on it should be carefully reevaluated. The article goes on to point out these three things when it comes to the accuracy and integrity of modern science. “Trimming,” wherein irregularities were smoothed out to make the data look extremely accurate and precise. “Cooking,” wherein only those results that best suited one’s theory were selected and the rest discarded. “Forging,” the worst of all, wherein some or all of the data, in experiments one might or might not have performed, was fabricated. I am sorry for the long article, I simply wanted to show that it is not wise to put our faith blindly into scientific “achievements”. At the same time, there have been some marvelous achievements in science, but one should never feel that science is always based on truth, fact or proof. One more point. IN SPITE of the good that science has done for the world, we still have mass starvation, weapons of destruction that kill, turmoil, horrific diseases, wars, an ever increasing climate of fear because of crime etc and it has NOT changed man’s thinking for the good as might be supposed if one accepts science as always being good for mankind. |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Sep 23 2007, 02:49 PM Post #66 |
![]()
|
Caulfield: Your quote: Look at how many religions there are out there, who all disagree with each other in some way. You are absolutely correct in this statement. Consider so called Christianity as an example, referred to overall as Christendom. But all other forms of religion can be included. It’s what the bible calls “Babylon the Great”. The world empire of false religions. Meddling in governments, political affairs, oftentimes dictating to governments, siding on one side or another in times of war, such as the churches, especially but not limited by any means, to the Catholic church who sided heavily on Hitlers side, while at the same time people of the same faith backing and blessing the soldiers and weapons on the side of the allies. Again I have to reiterate. JW’s do not meddle in politics, government affairs, or take one side over the other in conflicts, do not kill etc, but rather live a life that YOU might call a Buddhist philosophy, that is, all JW’s are united world wide, in the same thinking and purpose. Having intense love for one another, whether in the USA, or deepest Africa. That is, to support fully and inform people of God’s kingdom, His government under the direction of Christ, that will end all the woes of the world and bring in a peaceful paradise like environment, with, as the bible says, evildoers being “cut off”. Certainly not a worthless endeavor to discuss with mankind the world over, as many honest hearted individuals are coming to a knowledge of God and Christ, and God’s purposes for the earth. Blind faith? Wishful thinking? Not at all. The fulfillment of bible prophecies is one way to prove the bible to be the way to live by, but not that alone. By the unification in peace and love world wide of people who come to an accurate knowledge and live by bible principles. As one studies God’s word, not thinking of what I like or want, but what does Jehovah God want, then you cannot help but realize it truly is the word of God, His letter of instructions to mankind. As opposed to man’s philosophies and personal preferences, God’s word is, RIGHT NOW, as we speak, proving to be the way to live, in peace and harmony with others. Seven million JW’s are living this way now and many thousands more as every year passes. Jesus said that by “their fruits you will know them”, and his disciples would show themselves by having love for one another. John 17:3.. Think about it. Do the members of ANY OTHER religion, have this intense love and unity amongst themselves? By no means... Not even close.. The proof is in the pudding as they say.. |
![]() |
|
| Caulfield | Sep 24 2007, 12:03 PM Post #67 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
In response to the "Buddhist on Buddhist crime" portion, that's not true at all. The military junta that the monks are protesting against is not led by other Buddhists. Nothing in that article says what sort of a protest this was by the Buddhists. It was likely a peaceful protest and it is not their fault if those suppressing them choose to make it violent. The world is not in a state of peace and harmony. It never has been, but Buddhists are doing what we can do within our beliefs to make it so. Nonviolent protest has been a part of Buddhist (and Hindu, the precursor to Buddhism) forever. As for the response to my "science uber alles" point, I agree, the science industry is no perfect. There are many things influenced by money (the study that resulted in fluoride in toothpaste, for example, was funded by the steel industry so they would have an easy way to get rid of their fluoride waste), but overall I believe it has done more good than bad. While yes, science has brought out contuining deadlier weapons, not everything you've mentioned is an issue of science, but rather of economics, human greed (something Buddhists are against, as I said with the "want only what you have and have only what you want" belief). Science has done a lot of work to eliminate diseases (smallpox is gone, polio is being prevented, and how often do we see people dying from plagues?), though once again, through mutations and evolution, diseases can and will get stronger. I never said science is always good: nowhere have I made that argument. Science does a LOT of good, but it is not entirely good. In response to evolution, how far have we come on proving that many species evolve and change over time? Even the possibility that humans came from apes is only lacking "the missing link" to tie it all together (frankly, I think Zechariah Sitchin may be onto something with his belief that is is a combination of evolution and intelligent design that got us to where we are now). Species have died out over time, and some have changed in order that they may stay alive: I don't see how anyone can deny this. The theory of human evolution is showing to be harder to prove, something I will easily admit. I will admit to not knowing much about the JW's: everywhere I have lived they have definitely been a religious minority. Frankly, I wish more religions (especially the far-right Christian religions) could be more like them in staying out of governmental affairs. Buddhists are similar. While Buddhists can and do vote, there are few of them in positions of governmental power, with the deposed Dalai Lama being one of the few, if not the only one. And the only reason he became a government official is because of the inhumane actions of the Chinese government taking over Tibet and attempting to kill him. The line is constantly being blurred between religious power and governmental power almost everywhere. Looking at it now, I can see where you think Buddhism is a "me-ist" religion, as I wasn't clear on my previous points. More than anything, Buddhists are concerned with the world at large. The individual comes second. Eliminating pain and suffering for all is the main goal, and where is the best place to start but with yourself, while also working with others in mind. While eliminating suffering for yourself, you must also make sure not to add to anyone else's suffering, and it is better to experience suffering for yourself than to pass it in to another person. That's about as simply as I can sum it up. While your nown reason is key in Buddhism, you must primarily work with others in mind. It is similar to the "Golden Rule" of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Dalai Lama has said "Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." But at the same time. according to the Buddha, you must not expect to be treated in the way you want to be treated: this is an attachment, and we try to break attachments. You can only control your own behavior, not that of anyone else. |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Sep 24 2007, 02:26 PM Post #68 |
![]()
|
Caulfield.. Interesting post which I will reply to later on. Meanwhile you may find this link interesting. A brief insight into JW's approach to things. I hope it works http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/News/...Y&pageId=3.10.1 |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Sep 27 2007, 08:12 PM Post #69 |
![]()
|
Caulfield.. Sorry to be so long in replying to your interesting post. I am busy making telegraph units for the fellas on the North American telegraph circuit and members of the Morse Telegraph Club. At the same time I am having numerous tests on health problems and soon I will be taking treatments every day for several weeks, but I do intend to reply. Thank |
![]() |
|
| Caulfield | Sep 28 2007, 08:23 AM Post #70 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
Quite alright, I know things come up. I'm actually a tad busy myself, as I got free tickets to an NHL game last night and have to announce two NAHL games on the radio and internet this weekend. And the NHL and first of the two NAHL games are a two-hour drive for my friends and me. All of this while battling allergies and sinus problems that have plugged up my ears and nose really nice. Good luck with the health issues. |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Sep 29 2007, 06:53 PM Post #71 |
![]()
|
Caulfield.. I only have a few minutes here but I want to question you on a couple of things for now. Your quote above you say that Buddhism makes the most sense to you and that you can't see how there can be a big guy in the sky watching everything, meaning of course that you don’t believe in a Almighty God as the creator, and at the same time you believe in evolution and also Buddhism believes in reincarnation, that is, after you die your “soul” is reincarnated into another living body of one kind or another. At least that is the gist of it as I understand Buddhism’s thinking. I know there is more to it but just to set the tone for reasoning here. If you cannot believe in a Almighty God, a creator, how is it that you can believe in a supernatural happening like a soul leaving your current body at death, and then actually transmigrating into another life form? I mean, where did a “soul” get the supernatural ability to do this? From a piece of slime that crawled out of the ocean countless eons ago and eventually became a man or any other type of creature? The reality of it is, that man and animals and fish ARE souls, they do not have a soul that is distinct from the body and leaves the body and goes anywhere. And you mentioned that evolution is being proven more and more as time goes on, which of course is not correct. There is nothing that I know of that is getting better as time goes on, which would have to be correct if evolution is correct. The more that I see about Buddhism, the more that I feel it is incredible that anyone can believe all the supernatural things that Buddhists do believe to be true, and yet at the same time they feel that it could not be that we have a Almighty Creator. That is too farfetched for them. Tell me how you rationalize these supernatural happenings, and yet a creator doesn’t make any sense to you. Thanks |
![]() |
|
| Caulfield | Sep 30 2007, 10:10 AM Post #72 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
Reincarnation comes more from the Hindus than the Buddhists. Many Buddhists, including myself, do not believe in a soul or true self. A soul is an idea relating to permanence, something many Buddhists reject. The doctrine of reincarnation is not to be taken literally, but rather as a parable on why not to act with selfish, animalistic interests. Where are you reading about these "supernatural happenings" in Buddhism? Many of these are ways of describing in a simpler form, and not to be taken literally, much like how most scholars say the Bible is not to be taken 100% literally. If you take all religious teaching as being literal, then that is the main issue. I think all of it is parable. As for evolution, quoting a short essay on the topic, "If all living creatures must have a living parent, and if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates)." When you go down through fossils at lower sediment layers, there are no humans. There are no animals that we see today. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then why do we not find all the animals, all the plants, and humans all together at every fossil layer? If the Bible is taken figuratively, in that the seven days of creation in Genesis are, similar to the Buddha's teachings, just put into story form to make it more easily understandable, then it makes more sense than just. as Robin Williams said, "Nope, God just went click." It's much easier to explain in 60 seconds that a divine being did something rather than having to take a few hours/days/weeks to explain everything behind the evolution of the Earth over billions of years. Frankly, I think the seven days of Genesis are just a parable to represent the billions of years it has taken the Earth to come to what we know now. And besides, look at the evolution of technology, and how humans have changed the world around them and adapted to changes. Going by scientific record, humans have been around for 30,000 years. Even if we go by the Biblical record, it's roughly 6,000 years. Over the first 5,900 to 29,900 years, humans didn't have much of what we have now. Agriculture has gone through many changes from the early hunter-gatherers to the factory farms we have now. Technology has changed rapidly in just the last 50 years alone. We as humans are constantly evolving in what we can do. Take a look at our DNA. About 90% of it is the same as gorillas, an interesting correlation. Evolution is still just a theory, and scientists are taught to try to disprove a theory. There is still nothing concrete to disprove it. It is said that 99% of the species that once lived are now extinct. This is how evolution happens: the survival of the fittest. You must adapt to changes in your environment in order to survive. Modern whales have hip bones in their flesh that they do not use because they do not walk. But looking at it objectively, it would seem they probably evolved from mammals that did walk. Paleontologists have found a fossil whale called the Pakicetus that has more developed rear legs. Now my logic says that if a whale has a hip bone that is unused now, and an older species of whale had more devloped legs, then the whale must have evolved from a walking creature. Makes sense, does it not? This is not proof by any means, but it is certainly some major evidence toward proving evolution. |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Oct 5 2007, 12:11 PM Post #73 |
![]()
|
Hi there Caulfield.. Been tied up with radiation treatments every day but def going to reply. You have some interesting points. |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | Oct 6 2007, 12:27 AM Post #74 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Telegraph-Operator...This is off-topic, but just want to let you know I'll keep you in my prayers. I know a bit about radiation treatments - my mom underwent radiation years ago - but I also know the power of God and the power of prayer. You stay strong. |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Oct 6 2007, 04:27 PM Post #75 |
![]()
|
Thank you KY.. I take a radiation treatment every day now for 7 weeks for the cancer, and on top of all that I am slated for more tests to determine if I need open heart or just stents put in. The whole thing is made more complicated by diabetes. I appreciate your thoughts. |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Oct 7 2007, 07:08 PM Post #76 |
![]()
|
Caulfield.. Your post was quite long so if you don’t mind I would like to pick out a few items of interest here and there and respond to them. Your quote… “Reincarnation comes more from the Hindus than the Buddhists. Many Buddhists, including myself, do not believe in a soul or true self. A soul is an idea relating to permanence, something many Buddhists reject. The doctrine of reincarnation is not to be taken literally, but rather as a parable on why not to act with selfish, animalistic interests”. Originally reincarnation came from false religious ideas in early Babylon as did all the other false religious teachings of the churches of Christendom in particular and others as well. Things like the Trinity, immortality of the soul, hell fire for sinners, going to heaven when you die, and all the others. But I know what you are saying as far as Buddhists are concerned. Siddhârtha Gautama, was the founder of Buddhism and he lived in northern India as you know doubt are aware. And as well when he died there were no writings put down in written form but rather his teachings were handed down by word of mouth and it wasn’t until quite some time later that the Buddhism teachings were finally committed to paper. This likely accounts for at least some of the great variances in the Buddhist teachings of today. Gautama, who became Buddha at that time definitely believed in reincarnation of the soul of a person, who upon dying, became inhabited in another living creature. This was due to the bad things this person had done in his/her lifetime, and Buddha believed that if you sat and meditated on these things long enough and hard enough and concentrated on doing good things, then you may be able to escape this reincarnation experience when you died. How he came to be born is a story all by itself as it is rife with stories of supernatural happenings. Your quote… “Where are you reading about these "supernatural happenings" in Buddhism”? Supernatural happenings that I have referred to include many of the things that many Buddhists believe. For instance, IF a person has a soul that departs the body after death, how could it move on and inhabit another living being without some supernatural event taking place? Spirits have supernatural powers in comparison to humans who do not. And what of the living being that this soul wants to inhabit? What does the soul of the new host think about another soul moving in? And too, how did a piece of slime crawling out of the water ever manage to give all living beings a "soul" as well as a physical body? Then too there are the events that supposedly happened when Buddha’s mother conceived him and later bore him? IF those events were even CLOSE to being possible, it would certainly have had to be via supernatural powers. Those events are too long to include in this post but I may post them later. Your quote….(Re evolution)… “When you go down through fossils at lower sediment layers, there are no humans. There are no animals that we see today. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then why do we not find all the animals, all the plants, and humans all together at every fossil layer?” The answer to that in simple terms is that according to the bible, animals, plants, humans etc were created in different time periods. A logical conclusion would be that many of the animals and plants became extinct before man was put on the earth. By the way. MUCH of the bible is written symbolically and can not be taken literally at all times as some may believe. There is no question of that. Your quote…. “If the Bible is taken figuratively, in that the seven days of creation in Genesis are, similar to the Buddha's teachings, just put into story form to make it more easily understandable, then it makes more sense than just. as Robin Williams said, "Nope, God just went click." It's much easier to explain in 60 seconds that a divine being did something rather than having to take a few hours/days/weeks to explain everything behind the evolution of the Earth over billions of years. Frankly, I think the seven days of Genesis are just a parable to represent the billions of years it has taken the Earth to come to what we know now”. If one rejects the idea of a “Creator” then it may be easy to dismiss the events of creation as parables as you mention. However the bible gives ample authority to the idea that the seven creative days were not simply seven 24 hour days as we know them. Actually it is much more truthful to state that each creative day had to have been a very long period of time. Check out some previous posts on this board about the “creative days”. Your quote… “Take a look at our DNA. About 90% of it is the same as gorillas, an interesting correlation. Evolution is still just a theory, and scientists are taught to try to disprove a theory. There is still nothing concrete to disprove it”. I haven’t checked out the accuracy of your statement as to the 90%. However, since it is not 100% then a gorilla is still not a man and only speculation could lead one to the thought that it could ever become a man. If you look at the DNA of many creatures or plant life, I am sure you will see some similarities. I read somewhere that a mouse's blood is similar in many ways to a man's, even more so than a gorilla's. The bottom line is a man is still a man, a gorilla is still a gorilla and a mouse is still a mouse. One comment about the enormous amount of differing beliefs amongst Buddhists of today as compared to way back when, and there are many. Does this lead to harmony and peace within the Buddhist faith, or does it lead to disharmony? Personally I do not know of any organization that I can think of that would have peace and harmony within its ranks if various groups had much different ideas than the others. That is one of the HUGE reasons why we have so much trouble in the world today. People want to do their own thing, without any accountability to others. In the bible book of 2 Timothy verses 1-5 there is given a good insight into why the world is in such a mess. It states concerning the “last days” of this system that these would be some of the prevailing conditions. “But know this, that IN THE LAST DAYS critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away”. No one could seriously attempt to say that these conditions are not true. I apologize if I missed any of your points that I should have responded to. |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Oct 7 2007, 07:18 PM Post #77 |
![]()
|
Caulfield... Here is a bit of information as to why I use the term "supernatural". At the same time you mentioned that you would have a hard time believing in a all powerful God, a creator. I think the following is a bit far fetched in comparison. Consider the following excerpts from Jataka, part of the Pali canon, and Buddha-charita, a second-century C.E. Sanskrit text on the life of the Buddha. First, the account of how the Buddha’s mother, Queen Maha-Maya, came to conceive him in a dream. “The four guardian angels came and lifted her up, together with her couch, and took her away to the Himalaya Mountains. . . . Then came the wives of these guardian angels, and conducted her to Anotatta Lake, and bathed her, to remove every human stain. . . . Not far off was Silver Hill, and in it a golden mansion. There they spread a divine couch with its head towards the east, and laid her down upon it. Now the future Buddha had become a superb white elephant . . . He ascended Silver Hill, and . . . three times he walked round his mother’s couch, with his right side towards it, and striking her on her right side, he seemed to enter her womb. Thus the conception took place in the midsummer festival.” When the queen told the dream to her husband, the king, he summoned 64 eminent Hindu priests, fed and clothed them, and asked for an interpretation. This was their answer: “Be not anxious, great king! . . . You will have a son. And he, if he continue to live the household life, will become a universal monarch; but if he leave the household life and retire from the world, he will become a Buddha, and roll back the clouds of sin and folly of this world.” Thereafter, 32 miracles were said to have occurred: “All the ten thousand worlds suddenly quaked, quivered, and shook. . . . The fires went out in all the hells; . . . diseases ceased among men; . . . all musical instruments gave forth their notes without being played upon; . . . in the mighty ocean the water became sweet; . . . the whole ten thousand worlds became one mass of garlands of the utmost possible magnificence.” Then came the unusual birth of the Buddha in a garden of sal trees called Lumbini Grove. When the queen wanted to take hold of a branch of the tallest sal tree in the grove, the tree obliged by bending down to within her reach. Holding on to the branch and standing, she gave birth. “He issued from his mother’s womb like a preacher descending from his preaching-seat, or a man coming down a stair, stretching out both hands and both feet, unsmeared by any impurity from his mother’s womb. . . . ” “As soon as he is born, the [future Buddha] firmly plants both feet flat on the ground, takes seven strides to the north, with a white canopy carried above his head, and surveys each quarter of the world, exclaiming in peerless tones: In all the world I am chief, best and foremost; this is my last birth; I shall never be born again.” This is the sort of thing that could be termed as hard to believe, not the idea of an Almighty God. Just one look into one cell of a human would remove all doubt as to the existance of a intelligent designer and creator. |
![]() |
|
| Caulfield | Oct 10 2007, 01:12 PM Post #78 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
As long as you're in agreement that the Bible is figurative and not literal (at least in Genesis), then we're on the same footing in some places. But at the same time, one has to ask when did creation end? Is it still going on? If creation is continuing, how do we know it isn't just evolution? And if creation has ended, how can we be sure? Going by science, this planet has been in existence for 4.5 billion years, and the universe as a whole for 13.7 billion years. Life has existed in single-celled form for over 3.5 billion years. Fungi for 1.7 billion years. Plants for about 700 million years. Animals for 530 million years. One hundred years is a long time for us to think of. And look at the changes that can take place in that time frame! One million is even more and unfathomable to our minds. Imagine the changes that can take place in that time. Imagine how things change. How things are formed, changed, even destroyed. I think in 3.5 billion years of life, that is more than enough time for chance occurrences to happen to bring together life in many forms. What will things look like 3.5 billion years from now? We may be the highest form of life now, but what could happen billions of years from now? Think of it this way: if you take 500 ordinary 6-sided dice and roll them, how often will they come out with all 500 showing 6? Rarely. But it can happen. If you take a deck of cards and shuffle them, how often will they come out in a repeating order? Once in 8.06581752 × 10^67. It's rare. But it is physically possible. I think of creation as being the same way. You may go through the same combinations of dice rolls multiple times before getting to those 500 dice coming up all sixes. You may go through all sorts of combinations of shuffles in a deck of cards before it comes out in that one right combination of 8.06581752 × 10^67 shuffles. But it is possible. And in 13.7 years of universe, 4.5 billion years of earth, and 3.5 billion years of life, I think it is entirely possible that everything came down to chance occurrences. Metaphors are the same with the teachings of the Buddha. It is said that the Buddha did not believe in reincarnation, but it was something that the Hindu majority would understand and he could use it as a metaphor. Talking about coming back in a future life as a dog, a flea, a rock, or whatever if they were bad was an easy way to convince the people to be good. Similar to the "hellfire and damnation" speeches in some Christian sects. No one wants to burn for all eternity so they'll avoid it in any way they can. While Siddharta did not believe in it happening (and, as I previously stated, he was a believer in "Anatman," or lack of a soul), his followers would likely believe it and understand what he was saying. A bit misleading, I know, but he had to do whatever he could to get the people to follow along with his teachings. As I stated before, I personally do not believe in reincarnation. As for harmony and disharmony among Buddhists, most I know are accepting that not everyone will see things the same way. I don't think universal agreement on such things are integral to peace, harmony, unity, and success, as long as everyone can be respectful of others' differences. But this is a small part of the Buddhist beliefs. The main thing uniting Buddhists is our belief in self-improvement while not harming others, but rather hoping to aid in others' improvement as well. Views of the afterlife and such are not as important to us as our views of how to live our current life. We may not be accountable to a central deity, but we are accountable to the world as a whole. We strive to do good just for sake of doing good, similar to the views in Sikhism of doing good works with no expectation of reward now or in the future. Obviously this is a hard concept for humanity at large to accept and follow: quite obvious with the suffering seen throughout the world around us. Humans are obviously a highly advanced creature, able to determine right from wrong and other such decisions that other sentient beings cannot do. However, we are still animals, and far too often people appeal to their lower animal instincts, what George Carlin calls the "Gimme it, it's mine!" view of life. A Buddhist knows that humans have the ability to not only tell right from wrong, but to actually do so. Causing suffering to anyone is wrong to us, and so we work to end suffering for all beings when we can, but we must know we will not likely get anything in return. As for the conception and birth of the Buddha being hard to believe, it is similar to the story of Christ's birth from the Virgin Mary. The Buddha was self-conceived in a dream, Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, a part of the Trinity. The Buddha's mother was cleansed free of the stains of humanity, the Virgin Mary was born free of original sin. At the announcement of the impending birth of the Buddha, the Earth became perfect. The second coming of Christ is supposed to bring the rapture and entrance by the righteous into a land of perfection. But once again I ask, is this all to be taken literally? Frankly, I think very little in religion is literal, that it is primarily a shortened form of history and a guidebook with stories on how to live life. In that simplistic form, all religions are based on the same sort of principles. As the Dalai Lama has said, "Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." My apologies for yet another verbose post in here, once I get started on this stuff, I can go on for weeks sometimes. And best of luck with the radiation treatments as well. Keep fighting. |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| T-O | Oct 14 2007, 03:51 PM Post #79 |
![]()
|
Hi Caulfield.. Sorry for the delay. I have been a mite tied up lately. Your quote… As long as you're in agreement that the Bible is figurative and not literal (at least in Genesis), then we're on the same footing in some places. But at the same time, one has to ask when did creation end? Is it still going on? If creation is continuing, how do we know it isn't just evolution? And if creation has ended, how can we be sure? Going by science, this planet has been in existence for 4.5 billion years, and the universe as a whole for 13.7 billion years. Life has existed in single-celled form for over 3.5 billion years. Fungi for 1.7 billion years. Plants for about 700 million years. Animals for 530 million years. My reply… Yes it is obvious that the bible is not a completely literal book. Some parts are obviously figurative while others obviously literal. In other things, one has to examine the bible context as a whole to get the understanding. For instance things like the parable that Jesus gave about the rich man and Lazarus. Or the book of Revelation that states at the outset that it was given from “God” to Jesus Christ who sent an angel to give it to the apostle John “in signs”. Trinitarians miss this completely as they miss all the other multitudes of references in the bible as to God (Jehovah), Jesus and holy spirit not being all wrapped up as one “God”. As for how long things have been around like all the billions of years you mentioned, I have a hard time accepting or using things like 13.7 billion, 3.5 billion etc. Certainly leaves much room for error wouldn’t you agree? And at the same time, there is much context in the bible that indicates that creation did not happen in 24 literal hours as we reckon time. Does God have to rely on man’s thinking as to time periods? Not at all. But as for guessing about how long it did take, it really is immaterial. The obvious answer, considering the bible and scientific findings is that it must have been quite a long time. One way or another, its not understanding exactly how long creation took, rather what will really benefit our everlasting welfare is what Jesus said at John 17:3… This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. Again no trinity here also. Your quote… Metaphors are the same with the teachings of the Buddha. It is said that the Buddha did not believe in reincarnation, but it was something that the Hindu majority would understand and he could use it as a metaphor. Talking about coming back in a future life as a dog, a flea, a rock, or whatever if they were bad was an easy way to convince the people to be good. Similar to the "hellfire and damnation" speeches in some Christian sects. No one wants to burn for all eternity so they'll avoid it in any way they can. While Siddharta did not believe in it happening (and, as I previously stated, he was a believer in "Anatman," or lack of a soul), his followers would likely believe it and understand what he was saying. A bit misleading, I know, but he had to do whatever he could to get the people to follow along with his teachings. As I stated before, I personally do not believe in reincarnation. My reply.. Many times in the bible the expressions used are mostly something that the people at that time, and today, can relate to. If the bible was written in mysterious languages with all its references it would not be very easily understood. From what I have read about Buddha, it seems that he did believe in reincarnation, but it he did not, and yet preached in the way you mentioned, then I believe that would be the wrong approach. I cannot conceive of Christ ever doing anything like that as he always spoke the truth, and to the point. Let me ask you. What really has Buddhism accomplished in the world as a whole as far as creating peace and harmony within its followers? From what I have seen, they really have not had an impact at all, being involved in political strife the way they are with many being injured and even killed. And I am sure that there are many times that Buddhist has killed Buddhist in times of war etc. This is all the more likely now that Buddhist’s are living in so many countries now, countries that often fight each other. You mentioned Buddha trying to show the Indian people how to live, that is a good life, good to others etc. How has this actually affected the Indian nation? It is a country that is riddled with strife amongst themselves and their neighbors. As a contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses are a worldwide united brotherhood, in all aspects of the word. We believe the same things, teach the same things, live the same way and all this because we are living by bible principles of love of God, neighbor and our brotherhood. Now understand, this is NOT a boasting arrangement. Rather we have this peace and harmony amongst ourselves because we live by the truth that the bible has to offer. You mentioned the so called “Christian” teaching of hellfire and brimstone. This is just ONE of the false teachings of the churches of Christendom. One of many. No wonder God has stated in Revelation 16 verse 4.. “ And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind”. Christendom and all other false religions are described in Revelation as a harlot who is committing fornication with, and riding on the back of the political beast who will soon turn on her, completely destroying her. Excuse my bluntness, but it IS what the bible says. Your quote… As for the conception and birth of the Buddha being hard to believe, it is similar to the story of Christ's birth from the Virgin Mary. The Buddha was self-conceived in a dream, Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, a part of the Trinity. The Buddha's mother was cleansed free of the stains of humanity, the Virgin Mary was born free of original sin. At the announcement of the impending birth of the Buddha, the Earth became perfect. The second coming of Christ is supposed to bring the rapture and entrance by the righteous into a land of perfection. But once again I ask, is this all to be taken literally? Frankly, I think very little in religion is literal, that it is primarily a shortened form of history and a guidebook with stories on how to live life. In that simplistic form, all religions are based on the same sort of principles. As the Dalai Lama has said, "Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." My reply.. This is getting long so I will try and keep my answer short. As for the second coming of Christ, this is NOT what the bible teaches in a literal sense. Rather it is a “presence” which can be shown by the original Greek in which it was written. That “presence” is here right now since 1914 when he was given the kingship of God’s heavenly kingdom and which he is now directing earthwide to bring to a conclusion this system of things and sanctify God’s name Jehovah in all the earth. That conclusion is very close now according to bible prophecy and context. Not JW’s idea as we do not twist things to our line of reasoning, it IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. And you are probably correct. Most religions do preach goodness, kindness, justice, love, etc. BUT, and again I stress BUT… the bible says that by “their fruits you will know them” As the fruit of a tree identifies it, so the results of human actions identify what kind of people are producing them. Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity, pointed this out. He said: “A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.”—Matthew 7:18, 20. And further at John 13:35.. “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves”. Have the religions of Christendom and others produced these kinds of “fruits”?? Hardly. To put it mildly. Thanks for your reply and thoughts and thank you also for your kind wishes re the state of my constitution… |
![]() |
|
| Caulfield | Oct 16 2007, 11:52 AM Post #80 |
![]()
Master of the Sardonic Arts
![]()
|
While yes, there is some immense room for error in those huge numbers dealing with time, how much difference does is make in terms of the age of the universe being something like 13.7 billion years or as little as 6 billion, or even as many as 20 billion? Either way, to me, this would be enough time for many chance happenings to occur, possibly resulting in our creation. Going on the section about the Buddha's teachings re: reincarnation being misleading, something else I thought of was perhaps he did say that it was just a metaphor and the words could have been changed over the years. A follower, spreading the teachings, could have left it out and said reincarnation really is a belief, perhaps in order to more easily convert the Hindus, similar to the placement of the celebrations of Christ's birth near Saturnalia in order to more easily convert the Romans, when he was more likely born in either September or February. As you said before, the Buddha's teachings went by word of mouth for a long time, and by that tradition, some things can be slightly changed and reworded over time. Same thing has happened with the numerous translations of the Bible, and the major editing that the Catholic Church did to it for about 1000 years. As for what the religion has done for peace and harmony, we have promoted non-violence for centuries. Any conflicts involving Buddhists and those who follow the Buddha School of thought (Hindus are similar to this, and Falun Gong practicioners in China take a lot from the Buddha and Tao schools of thought) have been one-sided. Similar to Jesus' teachings of turning the other cheek, Buddhists are taught to not fight back in a physical manner against anything. Fighting is a cause of suffering, something we aim to cease. Imagine what chaos the southeast and China could be in if Buddhists did not believe in non-violence. China would never have taken Tibet. Islam might not have taken over Indonesia and the Philippines. There would be no more fighting in Myanmar. But the fighting would be colossal and it would go against all of our beliefs. We believe in all things in moderation, unlike the conspicuous consumption shown by much of the west for the past 300+ years. We are tolerant of others and their views. Granted, these are small things, but we can't really be faulted for that. For an effective peace to happen, all parties must agree to it, and with the attitudes of some branches of Islam, Christendom, and Judaism, it seems it may never happen. But we Buddhists are doing our part as best we can. We do not actively pursue political strife in any way, but for the most part Buddhists have been silenced by other governments: the Chinese dictatorship is the main one, as well as the military junta in Myanmar/Burma. Buddhism has taken root in some very rough areas, so it has been hard to succeed, especially over the past hundred years. Among our followers, simply put, we just have respect for all views. We do not feel we have to think exactly alike in order to walk together. The Buddha's teachings have not heavily affected India as much as other areas. India has a billion people, 90% of whom are Hindu. The religion has its roots there, but has not largely been accepted by the people of India or its immediate neighbors in Pakistan, but was picked up by Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh, and other countruies further away in Japan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar. Similar to how Christianity may have started in the Middle East, but the majority of the people there are Muslim or Jewish. The teachings of non-violence certainly helped the Indian Subcontinent in the past, in defeating the British, but since the 1940's, I would be in agreement that the teachings have largely been pushed aside and done nothing. But once again, we won't go forcing our views on to anyone. The beliefs have been put out there to be found. And you're right on the hellfire and brimstone being false in the Bible, actually. I believe those weren't used as descriptions of Hell by anyone until Dante's Inferno was written. It's something used by the mainstream Christian sects that is not in the Bible, but few realize it or bother to look into it. I'm totally stealing this from Family Guy, but frankly I think hell, if it exists, is more like being stuck in a series on UPN: you know there's better, you could have had better, and now you're stuck where no one cares. "Have the religions of Christendom and others produced these kinds of fruits'?? Hardly. To put it mildly." Agreed, agreed, agreed! As Mohandas Gandhi said about the Western world, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Thanks for your responses, I know I'm getting a lot out of this, and I'm sure others here are as well. It's seems so rare that people can actually discuss these things and keep it completely 100% civil. |
| "To be a man you must have honor; honor and a peeeeeeeeeeeeenis!" | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |











7:50 PM Jul 10