http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lai-lama-tibet
I read this editorial and, I have to say, I was a bit shocked by the cheek of it.
I'll leave you to read it yourselves, but I thought the final sentence was particualrly trite and also vicious.
Printable View
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lai-lama-tibet
I read this editorial and, I have to say, I was a bit shocked by the cheek of it.
I'll leave you to read it yourselves, but I thought the final sentence was particualrly trite and also vicious.
My impression is "average".
I don't really understand where you found shock and cheek...
Primarily in the part where they laud him for being a cultural and religious symbol for a culture and religion they then pour scorn upon.
Well, Buddhist Tibet pretty much was a caste-based theocracy in which the majority of power was held by a religious elite.
Indeed. I don't see how it's an attack on Dalai Lama to state the obvious....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I really, really have no idea what to make of it. Allthough he's well-known internationally he has practically no influence in Tibet itself for the simple reason that China doesn't allow his views to be published there. And if by "nation" he means "a cultural grouping", he's probably right. But the Chinese are pretty succesful so far in watering it down; both by demographic influxes of Han chinese and by repressing their culture and language generally.Quote:
In the process, he has established that Tibet is no longer merely a country, still less a region of China. It now seems more like a nation. The difference is that a country can be annihilated in a single battle or written out of existence in an afternoon at a conference table. Nations are very much harder to extinguish.
I was more mindful of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
and:Quote:
Much of what he believes and teaches is absurd to modern ears. But he is still a world figure: a man who stands for nonviolence and the disinterested pursuit of truth in a way that no other religious leader manages to do.
From which I take:Quote:
Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion, for which he deserves to be honoured in St Paul's Cathedral this afternoon.
"Look, I know he's a wiedo but he's basically a nice guy and after he dies the Tibetan diaspora will probably be all secular - like us!"
I call that more than a little offensive, and infantile.
The article also goes so far as to say that we only think Buddhism is less corrupt because we don't understand it and it's exotic.
If such things were said about any major Western religious leader or politician they would not be published in a mainstream newspaper, not under the cloak of flattery at any rate.
Wasn't the current Pope's Hitler youth membership in newspapers?
Child molestation rings attributed to Catholic priests and nuns? That the Catholic church has actively covers it up and not assisted authorities until secular authorities had reams of damming proof? Haven't all this been published?
Add to it all the press coverage Islam gets.
Then all the kool aid drinkers, hate preachers, anti-abortionists who murder doctors etc etc
And you think Buddhism is being singled out by pointing out factual information? Or is it the snide my system is better then your system remarks that reek of colonial supremacy that is annoying?
It's the snide remarks, especially the one I quoted, not the factual bits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The guy who wrote that also mentions that the Dalai Lama espouses all sorts of odd beliefs. I think his point was that the current Dalai Lama has done so much for the "Free/Autonomous Tibet cause" that any successor will pale in comparison. So from his perspective, the next Dalai Lama will simply be another cleric, albeit the highest one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What puzzles me is is the writer seems to praise him for his achievements. From what I know the Dalai Lama is a good guy, but basically never managed to achieve anything for his own people. Tibet's sinification proceeds as we speak. In contrast, a person like Nelson Mandela was a good guy and managed to influence things for the better for his own country.
I mean, seriously:
Quote:
The Dalai Lama himself has managed the very difficult transition of Tibetan exile politics from a theocracy towards something very much like a proper democracy.
i guess the cheek is in this comment:
Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion
Big hitter, the Lama.
Besides, the institute of the Dalai Lama isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by Mongol rulers in order to offset the influence of other tribal groups in Tibet. So there.
Similarly the institute of the "So there" isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by the way seeking mind in order to offset the one-upmanship of other tribal groups in an online discussion. So here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
This space intentionally left shunyata.
So quoth the master.
Kanjizai bosatsu gyou jin hannya haramita ji shouken gon kai ku...
I am lost in my own thread.
It's like discovering some twonk has hidden your car keys.
Kurando resurrected the thread by taking issue with the term "so there" and is taking the piss. No idea what Hax is saying.
Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Nope it's a religion. Philosophy's don't have monastaries priests and monks. Or belief in spiritual evolution and divination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
Please refrain from assuming. It's probably the other way around, it's a religion with a lot of philosophical aspects.Quote:
Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Name one buddhist god.
They have priests?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Seneca rings a bell? Proficientes and such. Unless you mean reincarnation, then you should probably look to Plato.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Actually Buddhist Gods are the same as Hindu Gods. If viewed in today's context, Buddha was what one would call a Hindu, before he received enlightenment/true knowledge and started preaching his ideas and it took shape of a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
Buddhism is more like a....offshoot of Hinduism (although that's putting it very...loosely) as far as I've always understood it. Over the years customs and practices changed and got moulded according to region.
Edit:
Another similar religion is Sikhism. They have no deities of their own. Only ten gurus who preached their own ideas.
Look upthe word "etnocentric", and please reconsider your statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
Religious concepts are different in the west and in the east. Buddhism(and confusianism, taoism, etc) is of course a religion, but it is different from the abrahamists religions(and the extinc euro religions as well). Not just in preaching, morals and rituals, but the very concepts are different.
I suggest you look up "ethnocentric" yourself. Buddhism does not conform to the defition of a "religion" and slapping a Latin word on it simply serves to obscure its alienness.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The closest you could come to describing it would be to say it is between a philosophy and a belief system - but that does not make it a "religion". For one thing, it is not about the individual's relationships half so much as about the sense of self and if I recall the Buddha himself was distainful of those who clung to such primitive concepts as "Gods".
I am not surprised that it does not conform to *your* definition of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Why are you trying to put a Western lable on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It doesn't need one.
Edit:
Come to think of it, I have no idea what you mean. I can think of at least three possible meanings, and so I can't respond.
Calling Buddhism a "religion" is innapropriate, because it has almost none of the peculiar charactaristics of a "religion" as it is understood in the West and Near East - insisting on calling it a religion is an attempt to fit it into a mental catagory which is anachronistic.
Calling it a "philosophy" is also wrong - because a philosophy is a way to find truth, and Buddhism is clearly more than that.
Using it to bait me RE: "*your* definition of religion" is pointless.
Buddhism is not a religion - I do not say that to cheapen it as a way of thinking or a belief system, but merely as a recognition that it is unlike anything we generally call a religion.
Well, okay: Ebisu, Daikokuten, Benzaiten, Hotei, Fukurukoju, Jurojin, Bishamonten, Kichijioten, Shojo, Marishiten, Sanmen Daikoku.Quote:
Name one buddhist god.
Any other questions?
Buddhism is as much a religion as Hinduism - not saying they are similar, just emphasizing on the broad meaning of the term "religion".:shrug:
How many of those did the Buddha reconise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by atheotes
Do you think Buddha preached those gods or that, when Buddhism spread, those who accepted it retained their local gods as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Actually I just googled it Shojo has 5 meanings. Depending on the emphases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Shōjo: Young girl (7-18)
Shōjō: Sea spirit with a fondness for booze and covered in red hair, also Orangutan
Shojo: Female virgin
Shojō: Letter or message
Also there is a Buddhist temple in Japan called Shōjō-ji. So no Japanese god called Shojo. Also I picked up from the Simpson's (when Lisa converted to Buddhism) that it accepts all forms of belief in so far as they line up with Buddhist beliefs. And Buddhism talks of beings who are god like compared to humans but not necessarily wiser. So really there are potentially dozens of Buddhist gods. Whom are local gods that the local sect has pick-up over the centuries.
Yes they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
Really? What do they do?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Which Buddha? Siddharta Gautama, or Gautama Buddha?Quote:
How many of those did the Buddha reconise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?
These seven Gods I mentioned weren't picked from the sky. They are the Seven Lucky Gods, who have characteristics that are typical of Japanese Buddhism, some with Japanese origins, some with Indian origins and some with Chinese origins.Quote:
Do you think Buddha preached those gods or that, when Buddhism spread, those who accepted it retained their local gods as well?
Run temples, perform ceremonies and exorcisms, mostly; it's pretty cool stuff.Quote:
Really? What do they do?
I don't get it. Why the squabble over a term.
Religion might refer to something more specific in the West. Out here Buddhism is a religion. Who says that a religion requires its own deities or that they need to be immortal Gods?? Buddhists probably don't believe in deities, but they believe in a higher state of being. They believe in Buddha.
But did Buddha preach those gods?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
That may be so, the article writer didn't make such a distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
Ah, but what Buddha?
Because the term "religion" means something in the Western mind which does not, really, include the beliefs held by the majority of Buddhists.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
If you look at Western Religions you have Christianity and Judaism (and now Islam) on one side and the various folk-traditions on the other but they all have something in common; sooner or later you get back to the Creator God, be he YHWH, Yule, the Allfather or whatever the Wiccans are calling their chief God these days. Another thing they all have in common is a beginning and an end. A God created the world and a God will destroy it when the time comes.
By contrast Buddhism doesn't do "God" in anything like the same sense - in so far as there are "Gods" they are being on a higher plane of existence, NOT the creators of this plane and time is cyclical, as is life.
It's a completely different way of thinking about the world, and if a European labels it a "religion" what he is trying to do it fit it into his existing schema rather than expand his conceptions.
It's very easy, for example, for HoreTore to label Buddhism a "religion" because to him it's just as much rubbish as Christianity and in the same way labeling it a "religion" serves the agenda of Christian etc. leaders because then they can call the Dali Lama His Holiness and group him with the Pope even though the two offices have more to seperate them than unite them.
But then, if I've understood correctly, the debate should be about how does one define religion.
The page on Wikipedia IMO, gives a satisfactory definition.
I read it - I think it's anachronistic - I'm particularly suspicious of their etymology of "religion" as I happen to know that during the middle ages "religion" meant a "rule men live by", i.e. a Monastic order - as opposed to the "secular" which were ordinary priests.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
In any case, that page is very Western in outlook - just because it groups every system of belief under "religion" doesn't mean they have much in common at all.
Wrong thread!
The first line -
I found it fitting.Quote:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
Now I agree with what you're saying here. The various religions of the world don't have much in common aside from some fundamental similarities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
IMO though, it's those basic morals and values, that every layman can understand himself, that count, and not what other 'learned' men interpret them as, or derive from them.
Anyhow, I do believe I'm derailing the discussion. So I'll stop.
The sense of holiness is enough for me to label something a religion. That means buddhism is a religion. I see absolutely no need whatsoever for the "beginning and end"-stuff.
On that note, it also means that I don't regard scientology as a religion. But whatever, who cares abiut the loonies.
I do find it funny that the one who has previously called things like socialism and football "a religion", doesn't want to call buddhism a religion. In PVC's mind, everyone has a religion. Except buddhists, it seems...
Define "holiness"Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No, I don't believe I have.Quote:
I do find it funny that the one who has previously called things like socialism and football "a religion", doesn't want to call buddhism a religion. In PVC's mind, everyone has a religion. Except buddhists, it seems...
I may have said that Socialism is "like a Religion" in that it offers a promise of a better future, and then criticised it for trying to change people to create that future on Earth.
Football - I can't recall anything I have ever said about football, except for the one time I mentioned a study which showed that men became tribalistic about football in the absense of any other "manly" outlet.
I think you are conflating me with other posters.
Even if I perhaps did at some point write "socialism is a religion" it would have been a term of scorn and derision, like saying "American Idol is a religion" - so your criticism rings hollow regardless, as I actually have respect for Buddhist beliefs, but not Socialist ones.
I can't define holinessm as it's not something I experience.
But I hear tell you religious folks are doing it. Including buddhists.
Is it the same thing - in a Christian context "holiness" would be a oneness with the will of God, i.e. a willing and diligent obedience. His Holyness the Dali Lama is actually a higher being, which is why he can choose whether or not to reincarnate (he has decided not to). Basically, he has more in common, metaphysically, with Jesus than the Pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Thank Mother Church I have religion that believes in incusivism so I don't have to walk around looking at people and thinking in my mind they go to hell.
There's a great series of talks by translator John Peacock called "Buddhism Before Theravada" which get to the root of what Buddha was doing and why, and how it became what it is today.
http://www.audiodharma.org/series/207/talk/2602/
It's 5 hours of lectures, but time very well spent for anyone who is interesed. Without a doubt Peacock is one of the few westeners who is actually qualified to make such interpretations. The long and short of what he says is this:
The word "Buddhism" does not exist in any texts; it's a much later invention, and if it was to be translated it would be best translated as "wake up ism"
Buddhists in the countries which follow the older Pali texts: Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, are basically 100% practicing thru the lense of the Visuddhimagga, a massive treatise on Buddhism which was written in the 5th Century by a guy named Buddhaghosa. Peacock maintains that Buddhaghosa was not privy to the social and political climate that Buddhism was originally formed in, and thus there were a great number of finner points of the Buddha Dharma that Buddhaghosa misinterpreted or simply did not understand.
Peacock also maintains that over the course of many centuries Buddhism (especially in the countries not following the Pali cannon) has basically become re-infectied with a type of Brahmanism; this gradual shift has allowed various deities and rituals to creep into the original form of Buddhism which was formed largely as a satire of Brahmanism and contained no trace of worshiping deities, but instead placed deities in the same (but more refined) situation as humans and all other life forms which are trapped on the wheel of samsara.
Peacock also states that the Buddhism which is practiced in China, Korea, and Japan came about as sort of merging of Buddha Dharma and Taoism.
That's about the size of it, atleast according to Peacock. I'll take is word for it; compaired to myself or anyone else here his credentials are hopelessly impeccable...
The only critism I'd make of the lectures is that I don't think Peacock touches enough upon the huge influence that Greece had upon earily Buddhism. As far as I understand it, the entire idea of representing Buddha as statues, in tapestries and in other art forms 100% came from the Greeks. Before the Greeks came into the picture there are no records whatsoever of any physical representations of the Buddha. And the influence went both directions: it has also been said that Buddhist monks sent emissaries to the west during that era and that the Greek word "therapeutic" actually is attributated to the Theraputa (Theravada Monks) who visited Greece during the Ashoka period and apparently made quite an impression.
Was that an "I'm so awsome" post or are you having a dig at someone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
If the latter, I'm not sure who.
Not everything is an insult Phillips. It is something that when I look at my faith I'm truly happyQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
About. Religions that believe in inclusivity or predestination seems horrible to me
On this board, things generally are an insult, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Still you're contradicting yourself, you said you were glad to believe in an "inclusive religion" - now you find such religions horrible?
In any case, that doesn't add anything to the topic at hand.
That fact that you like your religion is not surprising - I quite like mine as it happens, and one presumes that Hax enjoys his (whether it actually is a religion, or not).
I think he might mean exclusivity.
To be honest, the last couple of months I've drifted away further and further from spirituality as a whole. I don't know.Quote:
That fact that you like your religion is not surprising - I quite like mine as it happens, and one presumes that Hax enjoys his (whether it actually is a religion, or not).
Oh dear - so you are not happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
If you were a Christian I would call this an episode of "Dark night of the soul".
Buddhism is termed a religion in Australia.
A lot of Christians like to say Christianity is not a religion "It's a personal relationship with God."
End of the day:
Faith
Temples
Charity
Tithes
Rituals
Robes
Belief
Beautiful Artwork
Etc
Ah yes thank you Hax I meant exclusivism I don't k ow why I said inclusivism. Yeah I thank the church for that much at least. It just seems the world would be much sadder if you had inclusivism beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Sorry - I think you're confused again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
"Exclusivism" would be where you exclude people outside your religion from getting into heaven.
I think this is an issue of idiocy on my Part. And to think I just wrote a term paper for my
Theology class on this sort of thing. Regardless you understand my point, I'm a catholic everyone gets into heaven through inclusivism etc. and that it legitimately seems it would be hard to have exclusivism principles in day to say life.
Wrap up- meant Exclusivism in the earlier post and then meant that I Ollie a church which supports inclusivism
You shouldn't listen to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well, that settles it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
*nods eagerly*Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Extra ecclesiam...
:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.
It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.
No it isn't - it's just impossible for you. Hence your loss of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
It is a great act of hubris to believe that your generation or its experiences are somehow different.
Litterally millions upon millions of words have been expended on the agony Christians feel in trying to determine who will and who won't go to hell, and how to deal with being incapable to tell while they are alive.
I have had multiple arguments on these boards to prove that the Catholic Church does not believe in exclusivism, one of which Phillips may remember. First of all inclusivism and the quote you use as your argument "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" are not incompatible. Inclusivism says that all salvation comes from Jesus Christ and that the Catholic Church follows the true path but that all faiths in conjunction with a holy life can lead to everlasting paradise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
But really, I do not need to dispute or explain since Church Doctrine can change.
This always cracks me up. The mentally weak proclaiming their inability to hold faith as some sort of intellectual superiority. The Church in no way forces me to question my beliefs at any point and only people who have a very weak understanding of the Catholic church would be able to claim otherwise. Where exactly in my faith am I forced to choose between it and science?Quote:
This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.
It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.
Why not they are all Christians and it is their beliefs to defineQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
FYI Australia straddles between Western and Eastern ideas. Being a Westminister country with mainly Asian trading partners. We have large communities of Buddhists within Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
I don't see how being in our geographical position we could not know anything about Asian religions.
Considering the suburb I live in has about 25% Hindis and a large temple. Likewise I was at Nan Tien Temple last weekend I have some personal exposure to religions other then my parents.
That is an advantage here that I did not get in NZ.
Well yes, all the more reason to assume there is no higher power. I do not claim to be in an advanced mental state nor do I hold peoples faith against them but to continue to believe in the Juedo-Christian concept of God seems far reaching to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Not I hold intellectual superioirty of you becuase you still bow to a king in Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
If you were a protestant, I would simply disagree with your concept of God.
Thursday morning, my Grandfather died, I was not in a good frame of mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
A convoluted sequence of events placed me in front of a particular friend of mine and when she asked, "are you alright" I opened up to her in a way that I would not open up to most people and she and some other of my friends sat with me for an hour and a half while I gabbled incoherently. The chain of events, happenstance, miscomunication and every thing else which began nearly a weak earlier that got me to that moment is mindboggling. The point is, it got me there.
Stuff like that happens - which is why I don't believe in coincidence.
You say you find the "Juedo-Christian" concept of God "far reaching", by which I assume you mean unlikely, but that utterence indicates that you have never interogated what that concept is.
People say "Juedo-Christian", but that's an oxymoronic construction that comes out of "New" theology designed to be polite to Jews, who think Christians are fools at best. Nobody ever talks about the "Juedo-Islamic" or "Christo-Islamic" God because despite the similarities the concept is acknowledged as absurd. In fact, what people consider likely or unlikely is entirely dependent on experience. You at some point suffered a losss of faith; partly because the strctures of your native religion conflicts with your own thought processes and partly because you have not accessed the mystical experience that religion promises.
Despite that - other people do not find the belief system as poor a fit and have accessed the mystical side of the religion.
I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?
My condolencesQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So by eschewing coincidence you can only logically come to the conclusion that there is a higher power? Not only is there a higher power, but he is the one you believe in.Quote:
A convoluted sequence of events placed me in front of a particular friend of mine and when she asked, "are you alright" I opened up to her in a way that I would not open up to most people and she and some other of my friends sat with me for an hour and a half while I gabbled incoherently. The chain of events, happenstance, miscomunication and every thing else which began nearly a weak earlier that got me to that moment is mindboggling. The point is, it got me there.
Stuff like that happens - which is why I don't believe in coincidence.
Would Abrhamic suffice? I could name all the religons of all the world, none of which I find a kinder word for but far reaching, but that would take up the page.Quote:
You say you find the "Juedo-Christian" concept of God "far reaching", by which I assume you mean unlikely, but that utterence indicates that you have never interogated what that concept is.
You say you don't subscribe to coicidence yet the bolded sentence is percisely why I hold the oppisite view. If you were born anywhere else, your view only religion would be entirely different. Unless you subscribe to predestinantion I don't understand how you could find that view logically consistent. Your think your religon is right only becuase it is yours, not becuase it is right.Quote:
People say "Juedo-Christian", but that's an oxymoronic construction that comes out of "New" theology designed to be polite to Jews, who think Christians are fools at best. Nobody ever talks about the "Juedo-Islamic" or "Christo-Islamic" God because despite the similarities the concept is acknowledged as absurd. In fact, what people consider likely or unlikely is entirely dependent on experience. You at some point suffered a losss of faith; partly because the strctures of your native religion conflicts with your own thought processes and partly because you have not accessed the mystical experience that religion promises.
So I have been led astray by my church elders and I have not prayed hard enough? Losing my faith was a very hard thing to do, more reflection only stiffens my resolve in the other direction.
So it all comes down to a matter of feeling then?Quote:
Despite that - other people do not find the belief system as poor a fit and have accessed the mystical side of the religion.
I would say you have a decidely smaller viewQuote:
I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?
First of all I very much question the "cohesiveness" you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Secondly, your world does not include my world. In my world science, the universe and nature trumps what the very vast majority of the worlds society consider to be imaginary beings.
Thank you, he was 99 and 11 months (almost to the day), so it was not a very great surprise,Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well, yes, to be honest. I consider the Christian conception of God to be most likely, because he is the most forgiving - he's welcome to correct me at any time, and I shall be extremely sorry if it turns out that, in fact, I should have been worshipping Odin, but there you go.Quote:
So by eschewing coincidence you can only logically come to the conclusion that there is a higher power? Not only is there a higher power, but he is the one you believe in.
If you can't get behind God, just say so, don't hide behind a pingeon hole, it implies you might be able to believe in, say, Mithras or Sol Invictus - but from what you have said that is no easier for you than believing in YHWH.Quote:
Would Abrhamic suffice? I could name all the religons of all the world, none of which I find a kinder word for but far reaching, but that would take up the page.
If it's just the theistic bit, you could try being a Deist.
Someone said something similar to Archbishop Temple, his response?Quote:
You say you don't subscribe to coicidence yet the bolded sentence is percisely why I hold the oppisite view. If you were born anywhere else, your view only religion would be entirely different. Unless you subscribe to predestinantion I don't understand how you could find that view logically consistent. Your think your religon is right only becuase it is yours, not becuase it is right.
"You only believe that because of your upbringing."
I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.
If you think preyer improves faith then I'd say someone has let you down.Quote:
So I have been led astray by my church elders and I have not prayed hard enough? Losing my faith was a very hard thing to do, more reflection only stiffens my resolve in the other direction.
Yes, and absolutely not.Quote:
So it all comes down to a matter of feeling then?
What is a feeling? Have you ever tried to describe one to someone else without comparing it to another sensatio0n?
It's like describing colours to a blind man, it doesn't mean anything, you're just describing how the colours make you feel, not what they look like - because the blind man can't see them.
You have no reason to say that other than being afraid of what I'm saying.Quote:
I would say you have a decidely smaller view
I may be mad, but my breadth of experience is broader than your because I am talking about something you obviously can't comprehend, because it is so far beyond your pale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Let me rephrase that slightly - my world includes all the "stuff yours does" - beer, women, sunlight, small children. I have all that "physical stuff" and then I have "other stuff".
Yes, my way of understanding might be "different" instead of "bigger", but my worldview definately includes more stuff than yours, because I'll believe in anything you do in the physical world, and all the non-physical stuff you don't believe in.
My condolences, forgot to say :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Anyway: Beer, women, sunlight and small children is of course part of both our worlds. Would you not accept that you wouldn't be able to post here (you'd be locked away a long time ago), so I'll give you no kudos points for it.
However, for me the interesting question is not that this physical stuff exists, for me the interesting thing is WHY it exists, and how it came to be.
I see a galaxy with beautiful mathematics, supernovas, stardust turning into sentient beings and a whole lot of things our best brains and deepest efforts have yet to understand...
You see a world where there is a set God who makes stuff happen for unknown reasons.
"Your" world only includes "more stuff" if you also agree that someone believing in the tooth fairy has a richer world than someone who doesn't.
But please do not claim that your world includes all the stuff my world does.
My condolances as well.
Strike's point still stands, though. Despite being raised without it, you were open to christianity - but if you had been born in a village in Tibet you would have viewed christianity as a western idiosyncracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
Which ties in with my dislike for the Calvinists' idea of predestination. Someone born in Europe, the America's or other predominately christian areas would likely be born a christian. Some people convert later, such as you.
Now, someone born in Lhasa or Shanghai or whatever probably would at least have heard of christianity. But it's not a religion that is well established in his or her society, so he/she would probably not seriously consider it. People born in non-christian countries are statistically less likely to be born as christian, and less likely to make the conversion.
All of this would make sense in a universe where God exists and salvastion is predestined. If you ask me, admittedly an atheist, fairness would demand that every individual has an equal chance of "making it".
Whether Strike has a point depends on whether we are talking about the fact that I have faith, or the form that it takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Yes, Calvinism sucks.
That's alright - you're easily forgiven for the lapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
You say you're interested in the "why" - but there is no "why" in science, just the machine and the "how".
You think I don't see galaxey star dust....
I do, I appreciate all those processes - but the difference between you and me is that I see the purpose of that order as a fulfillment of a Divine Paln, where for you it just "is".
So, in that case I would have more "why" too.
I do not agree. There is a "why" in science, but people who believe in science think you need to sort out the "how" to understand the "why".Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Neither do I agree that science at large, or me, claim that anything just "is".
I claim that the difference between you and me is not in the questions asked, but in the tools used to answer the questions.
I put my belief in humanity at large's best efforts and sharpest brains.
You put your belief in a very criticized collection of books written by a desert living people some ~2000 years ago.
Things has evolved since you know... You do agree with evolution? ;)
So, well, I totally do not see how your world view is in any way bigger or richer, unless, as I said before, you also think that someone believing in the tooth fairy live in a bigger and richer world than someone who don't.
He is the most forgiving that you have bothered to hear of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Sorry for the semantics error.Quote:
If you can't get behind God, just say so, don't hide behind a pingeon hole, it implies you might be able to believe in, say, Mithras or Sol Invictus - but from what you have said that is no easier for you than believing in YHWH.
I do not wish to try my philosiphies as if they were clothes. I hope to find a semblance of truth and rationality somewhereQuote:
If it's just the theistic bit, you could try being a Deist.
And christianty was the dominant religion and has been for more than a century now, rather convienent, no?Quote:
Someone said something similar to Archbishop Temple, his response?
"You only believe that because of your upbringing."
I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.
I can speak directly to God, why pray if not to soldify bonds? I do not expect all my prayers to be answered nor do I ever ask for wordly comforts but you imply prayer does not improve the faith. why?Quote:
If you think preyer improves faith then I'd say someone has let you down.
Casting pearls before swine? You can do much better than this. I sat in the pew, heard the stories, and when I was baptized I truly belivied Jesus was in my heart. Now I do not and all evidence points that same direction. I wish I still had my faith but I do notQuote:
Yes, and absolutely not.
What is a feeling? Have you ever tried to describe one to someone else without comparing it to another sensatio0n?
It's like describing colours to a blind man, it doesn't mean anything, you're just describing how the colours make you feel, not what they look like - because the blind man can't see them.
You have no reason to say that other than being afraid of what I'm saying.
I may be mad, but my breadth of experience is broader than your because I am talking about something you obviously can't comprehend, because it is so far beyond your pale.
Hrm, a religion discussion. Fun, fun, fun.
I was raised catholic, I turned passive-agressive militant athiest at about 13, I stopped caring and turned agnostic at 16 or so.
Now, I'm not really concerned with it, at all, though I still identify myself as catholic and the ideals appeal.
You have to be more specific: Which ideals appeals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The no sex before you have a metallic band around a finger thing?
The anti-condom campaigns in the worlds most AIDS-infected countries?
Crusading in the holy lands?
That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain.
Well I can tell which side of the fence your on.
Love they neigbour, causing harm is a sin, dont steal. etc Basically I like the stuff that is belived and applied by the majority of the sane christians.Quote:
Which ideals appeals?
Well I found politics, hobbies, family and real life more important to me than religion. I've got enought to worry about right now than what some bearded guy in the sky thinks about me and I didnt find my tenure as an athiest particually made my life better or worse because of it so I dont feel like its all that necissary.Quote:
That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain.
Hey, don't knock the Crusades!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
They were the only time European soldiers really looked cool!