Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

1. Jesus taught a hell of a lot of hateful things... The bible says enough of this.
2. Ditto with Muhammed. Except he actually did the things he said. Muhammed explicitly detailed doctrines that restricted women, made them the property of men and permitted as well as endorsed honour killings. Organized religion doesn't affect the scale of the violence when the violence is what the religion is based on

And, as the general note, Buddhism isn't a singular thing anymore, and never really has been. There's sects and offshoots that are explicitly theistic, some of them fairly major. There are a lot of different flavors of Buddhism, yeah.

Mmhhmm, for the couple dozens of centuries it's existed it's certainly divulged. The thing is, Buddhism doesn't care about deities, if you want to believe in them, then go for it. That's resulted in different branches of Buddhist beliefs based around local ones. The main thing about it is that every single branch respects each other, and they don't even say one is right or one is wrong - they're all in the same wheel. It's the model religions should be based on - culturally accepting, no restrictive doctrines (or even any rules at all). It's basically one guy saying try not to go on extreme spectrums of life, and people agreeing.

[Gatleos]

1. Jesus taught a hell of a lot of hateful things... The bible says enough of this.
2. Ditto with Muhammed. Except he actually did the things he said. Muhammed explicitly detailed doctrines that restricted women, made them the property of men and permitted as well as endorsed honour killings. Organized religion doesn't affect the scale of the violence when the violence is what the religion is based on

Did you know Jesus and Muhammad personally? Or are you just basing those assumptions off some ancient scrolls written mostly by other people, fragmented over centuries and translated dozens of times by people with ulterior motives and different personal beliefs? You know, like the rest of the world?

Whether you think modern religions are perversions of the teachings of these prophets (some of which might have been the same guy for all we know) or not, you have nothing to back it up but inaccurate, contradictory and heavily metaphorical texts like the Bible and Qur'an. Refrain from assuming.

[Loud Whispers]

Refrain from assuming.

Then how on Earth do you assume to expect people to follow what their holy icons have taught, when they have to discount what they wrote? Especially if said books are taken as fact by the followers?

Whether you think modern religions are perversions of the teachings of these prophets (some of which might have been the same guy for all we know) or not, you have nothing to back it up but inaccurate, contradictory and heavily metaphorical texts like the Bible and Qur'an. Refrain from assuming.

Nope, it's never simple or clear cut when it comes to Abrahamic religions. And if you're talking about the teachings of said prophets, the argument was that they both taught anti-hate ideas, and specifically Muhammed didn't like the idea of honour killings at all. In both religions, their scriptures are considered the word of God. The thing is, Muslims follow what's detailed in the Qu'ran, and Christians do not follow what's in the bible. And when they do...

Meh. Do a google search or something. I started out in this discussion talking about how Buddhism was a cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything, I don't want to be a part of religionspam :|

[nenjin]

Yeah while part of me does feel like 'talkin bout some religion, this will go firmly off the rail of the raeg thread. I'm just as much as fault here as anyone for it. So I'm going to ask people who want to continue this conversation to start a new thread. (Or take it a religion thread that hasn't been locked )

[Gatleos]

I'm not telling anyone to do anything, nor am I siding with anyone in this argument. I'm just saying any argument about any religion that uses that religion's "word of God" as evidence is inherently flawed, because all of those books have been torn apart, rearranged, and altered by corrupt individuals to get the oblivious masses to do what they wanted in the name of "God's Word".

But nenjin's right. I won't say any more.

[scriver]

But there are no doctrines in Buddhism. It's basically what *coughs* Mainiac, mainiac. Read Muz's post again. Pay especial attention to the first mini-paragraph, and the rest of the stuff in that last one.

I about had the same reaction, honestly, but then I looked a little more carefully

E: ... at least I hope Muz was talking about the simulation. Otherwise, carry-on. would happen if Atheism became a religion. And I'd be more worried if most people actually followed what their religious/holy leaders said or did... Imagine everyone getting killed for working on Sundays. Or disrespecting parents. And yes, people can do bad things because of religion. Islam isn't generally considered to be overtly violent, it just is. Honour killings?

Honour killings, or rather honour custom, isn't a religious thing, it's cultural, and something people do in the Middle East regardless of whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any other religion. It's also pretty common in India, it I remember correctly.

[RedKing]

No offense, Loud Whispers, but I think you're talking about some kind of Westernized New Age-y Buddhism. Because the real deal....yeah, there's deities. There's evil spirits, there's doctrines, there's Hells (plural), there's evil, there's a whole metric fuck-ton of theistic elements to it.

There have been Buddhist fundamentalists, there's schisms, there's Buddhist "televangelists" and megachurches (see: Soka Gakkai in Japan), etc. Just sayin...it's not a problem with Abrahamic religions, it's a problem with organized religion in general.

[ChairmanPoo]

Weren't there some fundamentalist buddhist uprisings in Japan in the 16th century?

[Euld]

Sheesh find a room you guys    Make a new religion thread and take this debate there.  Let's avoid getting this thread locked, shall we?

[Loud Whispers]

No offense, Loud Whispers, but I think you're talking about some kind of Westernized New Age-y Buddhism. Because the real deal....yeah, there's deities. There's evil spirits, there's doctrines, there's Hells (plural), there's evil, there's a whole metric fuck-ton of theistic elements to it.

The Asuryas and the god realm? Hungry ghosts and the hell? They're really not what you think they are, when I said Buddhists are all in the same wheel, I meant they were in the same wheel

And I'm really confused as to the doctrine part. Still, the Soka Gakkai thing looks pretty interesting...

Ohgodisthisstillalive :d

[SalmonGod]

I studied Buddhism a bit in school under a guy who went to school and was personal friends with Sogyal Rinpoche, IIRC.  One of the very first things I was taught is that Buddhism doesn't believe in absolutes, which right there contradicts what I normally think of as religious doctrine.  There are spirits, but none that are worshipped in the sense that they are in other religions.  There are also no beings considered directly responsible for creating the universe.  I came away from it with the idea that the Buddha himself isn't worshipped, but he's a point of focus.  The goal is to reach enlightenment, and the Buddha represents enlightenment, so they spend a lot of time focusing their thoughts on him the same way an aspiring sports player will channel thoughts about their most admired athlete.  They also believe that everyone eventually reaches enlightenment.  It's only a matter of time.  Therefore, everyone is equal to Buddha.  So even if you consider him a deity, it's hardly in the same sense as in the Abrahamic religions.  There's also no dire moral imperative to convert people.  It's seen as incredibly important, but if someone doesn't seek enlightment in THIS lifetime, they'll get more opportunities.  There are many different spiritual states of being and afterlives, some hell-like and some heaven-like, but none are permanent.  I'm no expert, though.  This is all from a single class I took many years ago.  It did make a huge impression on me.  I loved the field trips we took.  The atmosphere when chanting with a group of zen monks was amazing.

Anyway, I came here to rage about The Walking Dead tv show.  I feel like they're completely shitting all over one of my favorite comics.  Pisses me off.  My wife watches it, and I don't want to ever see or hear about it again.

[nenjin]

Anyway, I came here to rage about The Walking Dead tv show.  I feel like they're completely shitting all over one of my favorite comics.  Pisses me off.  My wife watches it, and I don't want to ever see or hear about it again.

A friend and I (a huge WD comic fan) gave it about 3 seasons. Frankly, I could not take one more episode of Rick looking at nothing all angsty, saying stuff like "I have to protect these people" "We mustn't give up!" "Dear black guy I met in the first episode....."

The show to me demonstrates everything that is good and redundant about AMC programs. It's so heavy on the inter-personal drama. Some of it is great. Some of it gets recycled every fucking show. There are only a few characters I like anymore, an even they seem at odds with where the show has gone. Daryl and Dale are the only two characters I even care about anymore, and BOTH of them have weird things thrust on them in the name of drama. (Dale having a pathological need to get into everyone else's business, and Daryl basically saying nothing half of most episodes and just picking up the pieces of everyone else's fuck ups.)

So yeah, I quit watching a while ago. The best thing that could happen for that series is if the whole group gets disbanded and they try a single-character approach for a season. The whole group dynamic started out good but the emphasis on inter-group relationships has come at the cost of the fucking zombies and anything having to do with the Apocalypse.

PS- We're done on religion in here, please and thank you.

[Darvi]

Has flushing toilets become socially unacceptable in the new decade or what?

[Ultimuh]

Has flushing toilets become socially unacceptable in the new decade or what?

It would seem that way, at least amongst the male relatives I live with at the moment.

[Dutchling]

Has flushing toilets become socially unacceptable in the new decade or what?

It would seem that way, at least amongst the male relatives I live with at the moment.

My little sister thinks she'll wake everyone in the house if she flushes the toilet in the middle of the night.
Which makes me glad my dad usually gets up before I do. Piss (even more) stinks if it has been in the toilet for hours.