CookiesNCream
Badass
So what else is new?
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 478
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Mar 5, 2017 20:53:59 GMT
Christian
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 5, 2017 21:20:20 GMT
Yeah you're not Hitchens. You're too much of a pansy. I never said I was Hitchens, but I am surprised you've ever been sober long enough to know who that is.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 5, 2017 21:22:49 GMT
I never said I was Hitchens, but I am surprised you've ever been sober long enough to know who that is. I'm clearly better educated (and smarter) than you Skippy.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 5, 2017 21:24:24 GMT
I never said I was Hitchens, but I am surprised you've ever been sober long enough to know who that is. I'm clearly better educated (and smarter) than you Skippy. Could have fooled me and everyone else who's ever had the misfortune of interacting with you.
|
|
|
Post by unfunnyhamster on Mar 5, 2017 22:35:27 GMT
I'm a Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Mar 7, 2017 10:06:16 GMT
Catholic.
Ps. I believe some people should really pick up good books about Buddhism to realize it's not what we Westerners think of it. We have to thank hippies from the 70's (and bad translations and movies) for this bullshit of tolerance, peace, no-killing policy etc that we think represents Buddhist history of belief.
|
|
wendy
New Member
Posts: 231
Likes: 145
|
Post by wendy on Mar 7, 2017 13:52:00 GMT
The Church of Whoopi Goldberg
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Mar 7, 2017 19:12:39 GMT
The Church of Whoopi Goldberg I think I've found my true calling. <3
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Mar 8, 2017 0:03:07 GMT
for this bullshit of tolerance, peace, no-killing policy etc that we think represents Buddhist history of belief. Buddhism is all about compasion (not too dissimilar from tolerance which I would rather link to christianity) and non-violence (which is not necesarily equal to no killing although killing is generally rejected) and it is indeed about finding inner peace (Nirvana). Among major relgions it is among the most consistent about this stuff because there isn't that much ambivalence in the basic teachings. Christianity is more dogmatic about no-killing, it's very hard to get any justification for killing out of the new testament. Killing in the name of buddhism has never really been a thing though, killing despite buddhism has always been a thing and in fact much buddhist violence is rather political, nationalistic, ethnic or pragmatic, not spiritual. It has relatively little to do with buddhism itself, even though the Dalai Lama himself does not fully reject killing (although in almost all instances). The buddhist east obviously has an extremely bloody past (like all parts of the world safe for Antarctica) with battle monks, samurai's, kamikaze fighter-pilots and all that shit but most of that is kind of hard to justify if you go completely by buddhist beliefs because there are only so many compassionate killings you can make (obviously warlords still incorporated buddhism into their society though, like the Japanese Emperor in WW II). Buddhism isn't particularly ambivalent about that but obviously there are many different schools, some of them lunatics. It's similar with christianity: Hard to justify killing or immense violence without looking ridiculous, people still did it, even the popes. However if you go to the roots of the religion both Jesus and Buddha (Gautama) stood for rather similar things, lived in a similar way and both thoroughly rejected killing (justifications for that would mostly be from later sources), not like Moses (and his angry god) or Muhammad who both had a rather ambivalence stance towards it (I guess they would call it a necesary evil for the greater good).
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Mar 8, 2017 11:22:44 GMT
for this bullshit of tolerance, peace, no-killing policy etc that we think represents Buddhist history of belief. Buddhism is all about compasion (not too dissimilar from tolerance which I would rather link to christianity) and non-violence (which is not necesarily equal to no killing although killing is generally rejected) and it is indeed about finding inner peace (Nirvana). Among major relgions it is among the most consistent about this stuff because there isn't that much ambivalence in the basic teachings. Christianity is more dogmatic about no-killing, it's very hard to get any justification for killing out of the new testament. Killing in the name of buddhism has never really been a thing though, killing despite buddhism has always been a thing and in fact much buddhist violence is rather political, nationalistic, ethnic or pragmatic, not spiritual. It has relatively little to do with buddhism itself, even though the Dalai Lama himself does not fully reject killing (although in almost all instances). The buddhist east obviously has an extremely bloody past (like all parts of the world safe for Antarctica) with battle monks, samurai's, kamikaze fighter-pilots and all that shit but most of that is kind of hard to justify if you go completely by buddhist beliefs because there are only so many compassionate killings you can make (obviously warlords still incorporated buddhism into their society though, like the Japanese Emperor in WW II). Buddhism isn't particularly ambivalent about that but obviously there are many different schools, some of them lunatics. There are numerous examples of how Buddhism was not tolerant towards other religions or cults it bumped into his path right from its origin, from Tibet to Japan (Honji suijaku/Kojiki), from Sri Lanka to Cambodia, their religious history was full of symbolic violence. Buddhism has always found a way to supress and incorporate other religions. Talking about "tolerance". Buddhist killings were only political, ethnic etc? Let's talk about the rebellions in Sri Lanka (where Sinhalas were citing Mahavamsa for legitimate a "holy war" towards the Tamils), let's talk about the endless wars for lineages in Tibet (Sakyapa-Nyingmapa-Karma Kagyu-Gelugpa-Drigungpa etc). For sure power played a great part in all this (Tibet), but Buddhism querrels and sides were the basic causes of division and endorsement by warlords. In Buddhism there's also the notion of "compassionate murder" and in the majority of its history violence and killings ritual always existed, from India to Tibet and China through Japan. Plus, when you wrote about Japanese WWII you made so many mistakes and inaccuracies. Do know what Kokka Shinto is? what Shinbutsu shugo is? During the Emperor the Buddhism was already totally separated from Shinto (It was done in the Meiji period). What maybe you were trying to say is that Buddhist schools and priest gave their approval to war but Buddhism was never incorporated in the Emperor religion and stuff. Plus the samurai and warlord believed in the Pure Land Buddhism, which has nothing to do with what you say. When I watched Seven Years in Tibet and saw the scene in which monks stop builing because they don't want to kill worms I started laughing because it is ridiculous (and at the same time very clever) how Buddhism was able to be seen by us Westerners as the ultimate belief of peace, compassion and self-empowerment (when in Buddhism the self does NOT exist).
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Mar 8, 2017 14:25:46 GMT
There are numerous examples of how Buddhism was not tolerant towards other religions or cults it bumped into his path right from its origin, from Tibet to Japan (Honji suijaku/Kojiki), from Sri Lanka to Cambodia, their religious history was full of symbolic violence. Buddhism has always found a way to supress and incorporate other religions. Talking about "tolerance". Buddhist killings were only political, ethnic etc? Let's talk about the rebellions in Sri Lanka (where Sinhalas were citing Mahavamsa for legitimate a "holy war" towards the Tamils), let's talk about the endless wars for lineages in Tibet (Sakyapa-Nyingmapa-Karma Kagyu-Gelugpa-Drigungpa etc). For sure power played a great part in all this (Tibet), but Buddhism querrels and sides were the basic causes of division and endorsement by warlords. In Buddhism there's also the notion of "compassionate murder" and in the majority of its history violence and killings ritual always existed, from India to Tibet and China through Japan. Plus, when you wrote about Japanese WWII you made so many mistakes and inaccuracies. Do know what Kokka Shinto is? what Shinbutsu shugo is? During the Emperor the Buddhism was already totally separated from Shinto (It was done in the Meiji period). What maybe you were trying to say is that Buddhist schools and priest gave their approval to war but Buddhism was never incorporated in the Emperor religion and stuff. Plus the samurai and warlord believed in the Pure Land Buddhism, which has nothing to do with what you say. When I watched Seven Years in Tibet and saw the scene in which monks stop builing because they don't want to kill worms I started laughing because it is ridiculous (and at the same time very clever) how Buddhism was able to be seen by us Westerners as the ultimate belief of peace, compassion and self-empowerment (when in Buddhism the self does NOT exist). I don't really see how any of this goes against what I said to be honest. I didn't say that buddhism is void of violence or anything, only than non-violence is a general doctrin. I also didn't say that conflicts were only political or ethnic etc but that they often were. Concerning the emperor and the samurai: I didn't necesarily mean that they directly drew from buddhism but that it is inherently connected to buddhism because it happened in a buddhist society (even though the government was "somewhat secular"). I also said that there are tons of different schools in buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism is obviously not non-violent. However in the end my thesis was that buddhism and violence don't go well together from the most general buddhist teachings. You can always find tons of examples proving the contrary, just like you could find tons of examples in favor of that thesis. Obviously buddhism isn't like it's commonly portraied in the west but still the points that you said it is not ("tolerance, peace, no-killing policy etc") are more or less general doctrines. Obviously tons of people have subverted this for their own needs over time and lots of violence has occured despite it but it has little to do with the basic teachings. This isn't even to say I agree with buddhism, I prefer Jesus over Buddha at least.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Mar 8, 2017 21:08:34 GMT
There are numerous examples of how Buddhism was not tolerant towards other religions or cults it bumped into his path right from its origin, from Tibet to Japan (Honji suijaku/Kojiki), from Sri Lanka to Cambodia, their religious history was full of symbolic violence. Buddhism has always found a way to supress and incorporate other religions. Talking about "tolerance". Buddhist killings were only political, ethnic etc? Let's talk about the rebellions in Sri Lanka (where Sinhalas were citing Mahavamsa for legitimate a "holy war" towards the Tamils), let's talk about the endless wars for lineages in Tibet (Sakyapa-Nyingmapa-Karma Kagyu-Gelugpa-Drigungpa etc). For sure power played a great part in all this (Tibet), but Buddhism querrels and sides were the basic causes of division and endorsement by warlords. In Buddhism there's also the notion of "compassionate murder" and in the majority of its history violence and killings ritual always existed, from India to Tibet and China through Japan. Plus, when you wrote about Japanese WWII you made so many mistakes and inaccuracies. Do know what Kokka Shinto is? what Shinbutsu shugo is? During the Emperor the Buddhism was already totally separated from Shinto (It was done in the Meiji period). What maybe you were trying to say is that Buddhist schools and priest gave their approval to war but Buddhism was never incorporated in the Emperor religion and stuff. Plus the samurai and warlord believed in the Pure Land Buddhism, which has nothing to do with what you say. When I watched Seven Years in Tibet and saw the scene in which monks stop builing because they don't want to kill worms I started laughing because it is ridiculous (and at the same time very clever) how Buddhism was able to be seen by us Westerners as the ultimate belief of peace, compassion and self-empowerment (when in Buddhism the self does NOT exist). I don't really see how any of this goes against what I said to be honest. I didn't say that buddhism is void of violence or anything, only than non-violence is a general doctrin. I also didn't say that conflicts were only political or ethnic etc but that they often were. Concerning the emperor and the samurai: I didn't necesarily mean that they directly drew from buddhism but that it is inherently connected to buddhism because it happened in a buddhist society (even though the government was "somewhat secular"). I also said that there are tons of different schools in buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism is obviously not non-violent. However in the end my thesis was that buddhism and violence don't go well together from the most general buddhist teachings. You can always find tons of examples proving the contrary, just like you could find tons of examples in favor of that thesis. Obviously buddhism isn't like it's commonly portraied in the west but still the points that you said it is not ("tolerance, peace, no-killing policy etc") are more or less general doctrines. Obviously tons of people have subverted this for their own needs over time and lots of violence has occured despite it but it has little to do with the basic teachings. This isn't even to say I agree with buddhism, I prefer Jesus over Buddha at least. In fact my examples are there in order to point out that Buddhism is not a perfect religion which was just from time to time wrongly interpreted by people interested in power. As a religion, Buddhism has a history of intolerance and violence, because of certain texts or because of the nature of the religion itself, like any other. I basically fight -and I believe we agree on this- against how Westerners portray Buddhism as being the "better" religion among the others, bringing into the discussion tolerance (which is historically proved never existed), [Mahayanan] compassion (which, being a passion, must be eradicated from the sentient being) or peace (lol).
|
|
|
Post by cornnetto on Mar 8, 2017 21:20:23 GMT
for this bullshit of tolerance, peace, no-killing policy etc that we think represents Buddhist history of belief. Christianity is more dogmatic about no-killing, it's very hard to get any justification for killing out of the new testament. That how Chivalry started, having all your elites going to hell was not very stable, a code to killing correctly was implemented. It is not too hard to find any justification for many type of killing in Christianity, Thou shalt not kill came with a small list of acceptable exceptions, it is unlawful killing that must not be done. in the old testament it is clearly ok to kill under: 1) After a just trial that lead to the death penalty 2) Killing enemy during war 3) A intruder in your home, during night at any circumstance or self-defense in general. this exception for example in the bible: If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshedIs litteraly the law in texas, that give stuff like this: www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975It is legal to kill a prostitute walking away without any threat to your life, if she didn't do the service you paid her for, if it is before the sunrise if it was in the goal or retrieving property. state residents are permitted "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."
I don't think those exception changed much with the new testaments and it is usually how Christian legally kills people.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Mar 8, 2017 22:23:26 GMT
Christianity is more dogmatic about no-killing, it's very hard to get any justification for killing out of the new testament. That how Chivalry started, having all your elites going to hell was not very stable, a code to killing correctly was implemented. It is not too hard to find any justification for many type of killing in Christianity, Thou shalt not kill came with a small list of acceptable exceptions, it is unlawful killing that must not be done. in the old testament it is clearly ok to kill under: 1) After a just trial that lead to the death penalty 2) Killing enemy during war 3) A intruder in your home, during night at any circumstance or self-defense in general. this exception for example in the bible: If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshedIs litteraly the law in texas, that give stuff like this: www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975It is legal to kill a prostitute walking away without any threat to your life, if she did do the service you paid her for, if it is before the sunrise if it was in the goal or retrieving property. state residents are permitted "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."
I don't think those exception changed much with the new testaments and it is usually how Christian legally kills people. Actually it did change quite a bit with the new testament. There is the famous Sermon on the Mount which directly adresses passages from the old testament (most importantly from The Ten Commandemnts) and reinterprets them. It is in that sermon that Jesus said that you should love your enemy like your neighbour, while the general notion from the old testament is that you should love your neighbour and hate your enemy. It also fully rejects the idea of an eye for any eye (which is in the old testament after all). Atheists often seem to put more emphasis on this than christian's though (for instance Kurt Vonnegurt and Pier Paolo Passolini both admired the sermon). I don't think it's a secret that a lot of religious people have double standards about their religion, legally killing someone would not have been something Jesus would have endorsed and it doesn't take an expert to see that, I mean Jesus himself was killed legally, double standards anyone?
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Mar 8, 2017 22:45:52 GMT
We all know what is right and wrong inside.
I don't believe in anything, but though I was never religious myself, or brought up to believe at all (despite being Christened Catholic, my Mum having been taught by Nuns and many of my (2 decades or so older) cousins having been to Catholic schools and through Holy Communion and so on) there was a time when I really questioned what I believed in (if anything at all.) I sometimes wonder how many people have really questioned what they believe? I did so as a teenager, after my Dad died. And a large part of me wanted to come to the conclusion that there was something beyond just this in all honesty, because it is not an easy thing, especially when you have lost someone so much a part of you to say to yourself that this is definitely all there is. But it was my conclusion.
I don't understand how people say "agnostic" as a religion as surely its definition is a lack of position? But I cannot pretend to have any knowledge in the area, of course.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 24, 2022 16:24:10 GMT
How is there a 3 page thread for 5 1/2 years on this that I didn't post in ......and this is my thing because I judge you, God how I judge you all.......um.......though I keep you all in my thoughts and prayers daily too .......you're welcome Lapsed Christian / Generous Capitalist......thx.......but I try....I never understood atheism but that's just me and it's just more room in the afterlife ammirite?..... Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Aug 24, 2022 16:34:27 GMT
I was raised catholic. Nowadays , I consider myself as an optimistic agnostic.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Aug 24, 2022 17:08:03 GMT
Fat asses.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Aug 24, 2022 17:09:38 GMT
Religion Judeo-Christian Roman Catholic Apostolic, Thinking like a Judeo-Christian Roman Catholic Atheist.-
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 2,136
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 24, 2022 17:52:36 GMT
Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Aug 24, 2022 18:29:45 GMT
Atheist.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,716
Likes: 4,403
|
Post by Archie on Aug 24, 2022 18:37:50 GMT
There's nothing I despise more in the world than religion.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Aug 24, 2022 18:42:10 GMT
There's nothing I despise more in the world than religion. Preach. lol.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Aug 25, 2022 0:16:25 GMT
Probably already posted in this thread, but can't be assed scrolling through.
Christian (which is fun to say after the last couple of posts)
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 2,845
|
Post by LaraQ on Aug 26, 2022 19:39:36 GMT
Church of England.Although I'm not religious at all.
|
|