Buddhisms similary to Christianity.

I disagree with your sidetrack ... please show your evidence or better still stick to the debate topic I asked you to debate and you turned down. Are you debating? Have you changed your mind?

I didn't "turn down" anything, i questioned your essential honesty in such an endeavor.



This, of course, is not true, as i have already demonstrated by quoting Max's later post. Here is the evidence that you would wish to assert the spiritual superiority of Buddhism:



I will also take this opportunity to note that that claptrap about "hard to understand teachings" being what removes suffering is the same dog and pony show that all religions peddle, and the evidence is otherwise. Little children still die of malnutrition, and you won't cure that by attempting to teach them the tenets alleged to be Gautama's teaching. Women and children are still brutalized by men, and all of your excellent teaching won't change that. Disease still causes people to suffer, and no amount of philosophy or "spirituality" can have any other than a dubious and transitory placebo effect.

You are still avoiding the debate and sidetracking... I asked for a specific debate in keeping with the OP title... you then said no and called my essential honesty into question. Your replies are still attacking people for their actions which are not based on the teachings of the Buddha so Buddhism didn't cause them.

I'm still waiting for your insights into why Buddhism is similar to Christianity in a non-superficial way i.e. not just about advice on day to day living.

Don't try to peddle some "sidetracking" horseshit--you don't own this thead, and even the OP has no such control. That's just a feeble dodge on your part to make it appear that you are resolute and philosophically virtuous, while i am playing the dissembler, and don't possess your noble rhetorical skills. You're a legend in your own mind.

I'm not avoiding the issue, and yes, i am questioning your basic honesty. Either you don't know much about chrisitianity, or you're being dishonest about it. So, for example, this is a crucial tenet of christian belief which is not about day-to-day living (way to sneer, Buddhist Boy):

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (emphasis added, obviously)

Luke, Chapter 17, verses 20 & 21, in the King James Version.

Now, i'm no christian, and in a question of whose preferred confession is spiritually superior, i don't have a dog in that fight. However, based on Max's subsequent statement of why he started this thread, it is relevant to point out that many Buddhists do claim a moral or spiritual superiority, that the actions of Buddhists in general give the lie to that, and that any objections based on dogma are nugatory, because were the stipulated religious confession spiritually superior, it would at the least lessen the venality, cruelty and murderousness of its adherents, if not extirpate it entirely. I know of no religion which can make such a claim.

I don't agree, that's why I'm a cargo cultist.

I asked for a debate on this in keeping with the OP simple as that. If you want to sidetrack go ahead but I'm not the one to post to... just aim your comments at 'All'.

Or show what you have said shows that Buddhism is similar to Christianity in a non-superficial way. I can't see the point you attempt to make in relation to the subject.

Are you saying people act in antisocial ways and so because of that the teachings that they 'don't' follow are wrong?

Once again, the OP made a later post which elucidated his reason for starting the thread, and i responded to that, it's as simple as that. I'm in no way obliged to accept your thread tyranny. It is not "sidetracking" to respond to anyone's post here, least of all the OP, and in a post in which Max was making clear his motive for the thread. What you are indulging here is the kind of quibbling which has lead so many members to view the self-styled philosophers here with contempt. All you're doing is insisting upon a discussion of what you want to discuss, as opposed to an open discussion of what anyone in the thread posts. I suspect that that is because you think you've got a good shot at making your point, so you don't want to talk about anything else.

That you can't see the point of my post in response to Max's post doesn't suprise me. It appears, in this thread at least, you're a one trick pony. I've already made a point when, responding to your silly sneer about "day to day living," i posted a passage of christian scripture in which the putative Jesus calls for an internal examination, stating that the "Kingdom of God" is within, not in extenal, observable things. That's a direct refutation of that slighting remark about day to day living. So, apparently, even if one does respond to you in standard debate fashion, you're just going to ignore it and keep hammering on your childish accusations.

Straw man, i said nothing of the kind, nor is that a valid inference from what i did say. What i have repeatedly said is that were any religious confession spiritually superior, then there ought to be evidence that this is so in its effect on adherents. I'm saying that there is no such evidence.

I disagree. I'll get back to you later... if I can see a way forward in a debate with... Setanta.

You can disagree to your heart's content. I neither stated nor implied that crimes by adherents constitute evidence that the religious confession is "wrong."

You say that because some followers of Buddhism and Christianity behave badly just as some others do that they are the similar… well that’s the same for the world’s population as a whole, for Buddhists it’s just people not following the teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha said he wasn’t sure if anyone would understand his teachings and until asked several times he was determined not to try to explain them. So it’s not surprising that Buddhists find it hard to practise the deepest teachings and continue in many ways to act just like a cross-section of any population you care to name.

At the heart of what the Buddha taught is that reality’s nature cannot be elaborated… that’s it. Christianity claims many things that rely on faith alone. Buddha said reality is not existent, non-existent, both or some other alternative. Christianity unlike Buddhism believes in a creator god, the soul, heaven, hell, devil, angels etc… Buddhism is not similar to Christianity in this respect.

Neither Science nor philosophy has been able to show that reality can be elaborated… each elaboration is eventually refuted. Currently the fact that nothing can go faster than the speed of light has been called into question… so has dark matter etc… etc…

...unless someone can provide us with scientific data demonstrating an anomalous statistical distribution of the crime rates regarding any religion in particular, which obviously they can´t, a certain type of ridiculous claims motivated on a personnel agenda are not to be taken in seriously, they don´t get to deserve the effort of a reply...just imagine how funny would be the pathetic claim that the teachings of engineering are bad and wrong because there are engineers who are murderers and rapists...the nonsense of such anecdotal linear reasoning its all to obvious to give it a go on a Saturday night pub gathering...don´t waste your time IGM...

I know... thanks!

No, i've not said that either. You're just restating what i've said falsely, and more particularly, in a manner convenient to the argument you intend to make. I very explicitly said that were any religion to claim that it offered a superior spirituality, that one would then expect to find that evident in the behavior of it's adherents. First you claim that i said that if people "act in antisocial ways and so [it is] because of that the teachings that they 'don't' follow are wrong"--which i did not say. Now you claim that i've said that because some followers of certain religions behave badly that those religions are similar. I've said neither of those things. I've been very specific in what i am saying, and thatwas that "were the stipulated religious confession spiritually superior, it would at the least lessen the venality, cruelty and murderousness of its adherents, if not extirpate it entirely. I know of no religion which can make such a claim."

This is all germane to the complaint which Max made about Buddhists who claim a moral superiority, and with which i agreed, and to which i objected.

Whether or not Buddhism is identical in its epistemology is not germane to whether or not the adherents of Buddhism are superior, which was my point of departure. Prating about what you allege Guatama said about the nature of reality is sidetracking indeed, in that it does not address the issue of moral superiority. Once again, i am not obliged to address this subject in your terms, which you frame for the convenience of your argument. The issue which i was addressing in response to Max's post was whether or not Buddhists were justified in asserting moral superiority based on the belief set which they choose. The material evidence is that being Buddhist, or residing in a Buddhist dominated area, does not guarantee freedom from want, from fear, from despair. Silly references to the nature of reality, ill-informed comments on the tentative conclusions of an experiment at CERN--none of those address the basic issue of whether or not Buddhists are entitled to claim moral superiority. I know of nothing in either the condition of being Buddhist, nor in the profession of Buddhist dogma which authorizes such a conceit.

You are the one insisting upon a minute examination of dogma, defined in your terms, i suppose in an effort to demonstrate that Buddhism and Christianity are not similar--to what end is anyone's guess. This is why i had no interest in your alleged debate. You insist upon your terms, you lean heavily on ipse dixit, and you describe the two dogmas in terms of profound philosophical excellence (Buddhism) and quotidian shallowness (Christianity). You don't really want to debate the similarity of all spiritual belief sets--you just want to compare brilliantly and painstakingly rendered paintings to a child's line drawing. You want to dismiss Christianity out of hand now on the basis of some specious claims about the nature of reality. There is no point in entering into a debate in which one's interlocutor begs the basic question, and sets terms for discussion which will disallow any rejection of his claim.

In the initial post, Max writes:



On the first page of the thread, Sozobe writes:



Now you want to make a silly, childish examination of dogmatic detail, an area in which no two religions are the same. If that's all you want, then sure, there are not any two similar religions.

Congratulations on the excellence of your grasp of the obvious.

Of course, i've made no claim even remotely resembling that bullshit which Fil posted, because, once again, at no time did i say that evidence of venality or criminality demonstrates that any religion is "wrong."

I have a nice pair of slacks which are called cargo pants, is that what you're on about? I've never experienced any particularly religious feelings while wearing them.

Have you got a bet on about how many times you can use your current bit of Latin you’ve purloined from the internet: ipse dixit?



Show your evidence about the ‘superiority posts’ that you and max are so upset about… even if you can which I doubt I care little about it... it will just show that you can’t understand Buddhism from posts which is what I said in my first post and people say things which are nothing to do with who they claim to represent.

Max in my opinion was disingenuous and you have an acerbic hidden agenda... you are wasted here why not go back to correcting others' spelling errors and belittling them – especially their English as you derive much pleasure from it and don’t forget to use the words ‘ipse dixit’ as much as possible.

The airport is not far, and the planes fly over, I just need to make my altar big enough and I'll get the cargo, not Southampton airport.