What's your religion?

[Jeffster]

coke or pepsi?

Pepsi.

See, I can answer a question. Can you?

 

[Riva]

Buddhism is certainly an organised religion in Sri Lanka

When i said Buddhism is not a religion what i meant was that it was not Buddha's intention to make his teachings to be followed as a religion.

The present day Buddhists have turned his teachings into a religion. therefor i guess you are right. Buddhism is a religion. but that was not Buddha's intention.

His teachings were a way of life to achieve NIRVANA. He did not say that if you do not follow his teaching that you would BURN IN HELL.
But he did say that his teachings were the ultimate path to NIRVANA(enlightenment).

But he also said that YOU (anyone) could on their own could find the path to ENLIGHTENMENT.

ANYONE!

 

[lowtech redneck]

coke or pepsi?

Coke; I keep praying to that which is "It" that those poor heathen pepsi drinkers will see the light. At least they're not as bad as those depraved Diet Coke heretics, however.

 

[ptgatsby]

Anyway my point is - Buddhism is not a religion.

Yes, it is, and has been for a very long time. Even fractured as it was throughout history, including the belief in gods, etc. it has had the core elements of religion for a very long time.

The only "religion" that I can think of that isn't really a religion, that exists in the semi-present day, is Confucianism... and I still consider that a semi-institutionalized belief system, hence a religion, but it's not clear. It wouldn't be much different than calling the belief in democracy a religion.

 

[Riva]

Yes, it is, and has been for a very long time.

When i said Buddhism is not a religion what i meant was that it was not Buddha's intention to make his teachings to be followed as a religion.

The present day Buddhists have turned his teachings into a religion. therefor i guess you are right. Buddhism is a religion. but that was not Buddha's intention.

there you go.

 

[simulatedworld]

Your point is? Let us consider that your highly questionable statement is true. So what?

Don't bother. He openly admits that he doesn't intend to be logical in his posts, so don't expect any consistency of ideas.

 

[Shaula]

coke or pepsi?

Pepsi please. Coke god can suck it.

 

[Mole]

He openly admits that he doesn't intend to be logical in his posts...

It must be obvious from my posts that I am highly logical.

My formal position is this -

Logic requires something to work with. It does not work just by itself. You apply logic to something.

I am interested in applying logic to images, to the unconscious and to the imagination.

But first you must let an image arise; or listen to the unconscious; or allow the imagination to play.

Once you have done that, it is appropriate, good and useful to apply logic to the results.

 

[Sniffles]

It must be obvious from my posts that I am highly logical.

You're delusional.

 

[Mole]

When i said Buddhism is not a religion what i meant was that it was not Buddha's intention to make his teachings to be followed as a religion.

The present day Buddhists have turned his teachings into a religion.

I hear you say that present day Buddhists are not true Buddhists.

This is a logical fallacy called, "The no true Scotsman fallacy".

You can read about the, "no true Scotsman fallacy", by clicking on -

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mole]

You're delusional.

You have told me in public that you hate me.

And it has become plain you can't resist insulting me in print in public.

 

[Sniffles]

You have told me in public that you hate me.

And it has become plain you can't resist insulting me in print in public.

Excuse me, not too long ago you referred to me as a soft porn peddler.

 

[Feops]

I am always amazed that Humanism is considered anti-religion when humanism grew out of the Renaissance.

Humanism generally rejects the supernatural which is mutually exclusive with most religions. This is why I'm uncertain if one could consider it a religion in the true sense of the word. I don't quite understand Christian Humanism as it seems very contrary, but I could see Buddhist Humanism as still being mostly applicable.

Just as the Abolition of Slavery, the Emancipation of Women, the prosecution of child sexual abuse, Free Speech and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all owe their origins to Christianity.

Disagree, but that would be for another thread.

 

[Mole]

I don't quite understand Christian Humanism as it seems very contrary, but I could see Buddhist Humanism as still being mostly applicable.

I think you are applying logic to words and I am applying logic to history. So naturally we can expect to differ.

 

[Tigerlily]

Why would you let the people who surround you determine what you believe yourself?

If i did what you're suggesting i do then I'd be serving coffee and donuts at the church up the street.

I know a lot of non religious people who have way better morals and ethics than the crackpots I encounter on a daily basis. Hypocrisy looms large in these parts.

Wanna know what I can't stand? It's the way a lot of religious folks spin things to justify their own fears and shortcomings. "Oh, I'm a perv but God will forgive me because it says (blah blah blah) in the Bible." Or let people who are "different" know that if they're not exactly like the rest of the congregation, they don't belong under the same roof as them.

Nope, not buying into that crap. and that's just what it is. a stinking vile hateful pile of dung.

Oh and in addition to the choices pepsi (Episcopalian) or coke (Presbyterian) I'd like to add,

dr pepper (muslim), cheerwine (baptist) and so on (feel free to add your own).

religion just very well may be a fear tactic that was introduced to try and keep people in line. something to cling to so that we don't feel "alone".

 

[wolfy]

Oh and in addition to the choices pepsi (Episcopalian) or coke (Presbyterian) I'd like to add,

dr pepper (muslim), cheerwine (baptist) and so on (feel free to add your own).

Vinegar...

To Confucius (left), life seemed rather sour.
He believed that the present was out of step with the past and that the world would be a much better place if there were strict rules.
Confucius emphasized a strict order which ruled the affairs of all in his land.
Anything that did not fit into the established order was considered bad.

The second figure (middle) in the painting - Buddha - considered life on earth to be bitter.
He saw this world to be filled with attachments and desires that led to suffering; a setter of traps, a generator of illusions and a revolving wheel of endless pain.
In order to find peace, Buddha maintained that it was necessary to transcend this world.
The Buddhist sees the path to happiness constantly being interrupted by the bitterness of this world.

Lao Tzu is the third man (right) in the painting.
According to Lao Tzu, the world was governed by the laws of nature, not by those of men.
He maintained that the more man interfered with the natural order of things, the more out of balance the world became.
As things became unbalanced, trouble followed.

Lao Tzu is smiling because sourness and bitterness comes from the interfering and unappreciative mind.
Life itself, when understood and utilized for what it is, is sweet.
That is the message of The Vinegar Tasters

I really like this story. This is the closest I've got to religious beliefs.
Zen Buddhism comes closest. A mix of the second and third points of view in this story.

 

[Jeffster]

If i did what you're suggesting i do then I'd be serving coffee and donuts at the church up the street.

I didn't suggest you do anything, I simply asked a question. And the rest of your post still doesn't answer it. What do the actions or beliefs you detest in others have to do with your own personal beliefs?

I guess maybe this is the wrong topic for this. The question "What is your religion?" asks for a label, if the question was "What is your faith?" or "What are your beliefs?", it would make for more interesting answers I think. And I would love to know your answers, Jen. Because if it truly is "athiest because the people around me are poopyheads", then I actually would have a suggestion, and that would be to shift your focus.

 

[Tigerlily]

Why would you let the people who surround you determine what you believe yourself?

I didn't suggest you do anything, I simply asked a question. And the rest of your post still doesn't answer it. What do the actions or beliefs you detest in others have to do with your own personal beliefs?

I guess maybe this is the wrong topic for this. The question "What is your religion?" asks for a label, if the question was "What is your faith?" or "What are your beliefs?", it would make for more interesting answers I think. And I would love to know your answers, Jen. Because if it truly is "athiest because the people around me are poopyheads", then I actually would have a suggestion, and that would be to shift your focus.

so this would be more like an assumption?

i know you're religious so it's no surprise that you might possibly find anything doubting Christ irritating and I'm down with that. I believe in live and let live as long as no one gets hurt, most things in moderation, ect. no point in going round and round because I've had this discussion with many Christians and there's only one that I know who is able to think outside the box and she doesn't post here anymore.

also you wouldn't love to know my answers, you're just being argumentative

 

[Jeffster]

so this would be more like an assumption?

True, but when you give reasons for stating you are an athiest, or lean towards athiest, and all of your reasons are about how you don't like the actions of "religious" people around you, then it seems a pretty valid assumption.

i know you're religious so it's no surprise that you might possibly find anything doubting Christ irritating and I'm down with that.

You make a much larger assumption here. We weren't even talking about Christ, we were talking about your personal beliefs being based on other people around you. Or at least I was. You keep changing the subject.

I believe in live and let live as long as no one gets hurt, most things in moderation, ect.

Okay, that's the first thing that's actually a personal belief that you've posted. It's quite vague, but at least you put forth a belief not based on how much other people suck.

no point in going round and round because I've had this discussion with many Christians and there's only one that I know who is able to think outside the box and she doesn't post here anymore.

It's a shame that you feel the need to close off discussions based on a very limited past experience. I suspect these "many Christians" would still be a very tiny sample of people compared to how many different perspectives there are in the world. And nothing I have said here is specific to Christianity, I was intrigued by your basing your personal beliefs on the "Everybody around me is religious and they have glazed over looks on their face" situation.

also you wouldn't love to know my answers, you're just being argumentative

False. You're confusing me with an isTp. I don't actually like arguments, I like discussions.

 

[Litvyak]

Victor: I don't understand what you're trying to prove. I never disregarded the huge impact of Christianity on the european culture or on humanity as a whole, I was only pointing out that most intellectuals in the 21st century don't need God anymore. As I'm sure you know, there is a strong correlation between scientific evolution and the change of moral and existential views in modern societies - democracy is based on the aspect that every individual has the possibility (and the ability!) to freely adapt or create values without external oppression. This stepping stone (naturally inseparable from the ideas of 18th century thinkers and later darwinism) severely weakened the influence of the Church - simply because people became more independent in their thoughts and visions. I don't help the poor 'cause Jesus Christ won't take me to heaven, I help because of the guidance of my 'internal compass' (which is, without a doubt, at least partially influenced by the christian culture I was raised in).

Religious concepts and Christianity were very important for the West - now, it's nothing more than a setback; we should conserve its 'gifts' and advance without losing sight of our roots, but it's not necessary for "defending our civilization" (lolwut?). You seem to confuse freedom and free speech with christian spirituality somehow...

(sry people, Captain Obvious intruded - I promise it won't happen again )