Buddhists...what have they ever done for us?

Asherman wrote:

We are in fundamental disagreement over the reality of dualism. Fundamental Reality is indivisible and infinite. Sorry, but I have to go and attend to the illusion of low blood sugar. LOL

Thanks Asherman

I will give your sentiments some serious thought I assure you...

Peace with God.

0 Replies

All loving religions offer something/media lacks depth
Dear Rex,

I see by your latest post maybe I judged too quickly - I based it on your opening comment that I felt was unduly harsh - although I also pointed out it was likely shock value often based on desire to spur debate.

I treat all the religions in our group with the same vigor in trying to find places to post their story.

Some of our religions have a small membership and others have thousands of members - but all deserve the same coverage - not always an easy thing to accomplish. That's how I stumbled across this website - I was doing a search for Buddhist media.

Having said that - I have never claimed to be a religious scholar or expert.

I am strictly a volunteer media advisor doing my best to spread the word about positive work. In fact - except for the basics - I know little about the backgrounds or ideology of most religions. It's obvious to me that you and the rest of the people reacting to you opening post have a more knowledgable religion background.

My background is mainly "street news" and civil rights reporting in Georgia, investigative reporting, cops and courts reporting. Having worked at dozens of different media outlets I do consider myself knowledgable on the way some news is being watered down - or not reported - over the past 30 years.

I have written many articles that were killed in exchange for advertising dollars but also the private promise to fix the problems.

Especially in areas with less than 100,000 population - the media is barely surviving financially so they trade critical news for advertising. The media in larger cities are cutting back staff - so that has the same effect - the news doesn't get reported.

I could give numerous examples but one is:
wrote a seven part series on hospital board of directors abuses that was killed for a doubling of the advertising budget. The paper made the hospital folks promise to fix the problems but not expose them to the public - so at least something got accomplished.
Within the next year both of the founders of the hospital network retired and new rules were designed for board members that do business with their hospital - many board members were enriching themselves on hospital contracts without reporting the transactions as required by 501(c)3 IRS regulations. There were about a dozen other issues that were addressed internally (some problems fixed) but never reported to the public.

I have worked at numerous papers and TV stations whose editorial policy wasn't based on their own true opinion but rather the desire to shock the readers into responding. I think that's a misuse of an editorial because the editorial is meant to be the paper (of TV stations) opinion not just writing some nonsense designed to trigger readers into reacting.

I love debate but writing something you don't truly believe is not the way to spark debate. I have told many people not to react to an editors opinion seems based on shock value. They love people to answers for their own ego - rather the best way to battle an editor with a bizarre editorial is to ignore it. There's nothing a publisher/editorial board hates more than being ignored.

I have many strong feelings about the lack of depth in the media and what I called "McNugget news." Well, I could go on and on but this post is already lengthy.

Rex - thanks for welcoming me - and forgive me if I judge too quickly because while I disagree with you opening post I believe you have more background in religion than I.

The only "religions" I don't like are those who preach hate and violence. But they are not really religious people just hiding under the cloak of religion.

I truly believe the world's religions have more in common than they realize - and I think - are ALL praying to the same God. Just one reporter's opinion.

0 Replies

One of the things that always strikes me with Christianity which I think is interesting (compared with Buddhism say, as per the general topic here) is something already mentioned...

Quote:

Salvation is by grace not works.

Firstly, in some ways, the very idea of salvation implies and is inextricably linked to a saver/rescuer, for such salvation to be so universal, it needs to involve some god, just for the idea to work. I prefer to think in broader terms though, salvation as a moment to moment well being. In my eyes, this salvation could only be through works, our works include our thoughts, our thoughts determine our world. Kindness as it's own reward. I guess it depends on where you draw the line for the ending of a story, whether it is this world, can be, the right world or whether this world, is forever lost and destined to need external help, man cannot free himself etc. That we need to be saved from ourselves.

This is a problem for me as I interpret it as limiting, absolute boundaries/goals limit our vision sometimes. If nobody minds me saying also, it seems to be a short term and brittle solution, compelling people to accept a salvation via another, with each new generation needing to do the same. We need to create a world that involves inhabitants who naturally and effortlessly, free from the chains of expectation, promote a well-being in those around them, whatever situations may arise. I say brittle because I'm not sure about the idea of blanketing everyone under one truth when perceptions and reality rarely match up so easily.

I guess this gets back to a preference of the infinite over the finite. A major issue or situation that needs recognition though, is the very many people I know who are not in the least bit religious who, never the less, are some of the warmest and most kind/decent people I know. I see people like this as effectively setting up a ripple effect, the external salvation begins to look like one step that is wholly unnecessary. Again though, it is whether you think people can be united under a truth or whether true unity is through awareness of difference etc.

EDIT: Also, a statement like, "Man must be saved from himself", can, in my opinion, only be made by an individual, in reference to said individual, not of the collective. Even if God is seen as the ultimate judge, scriptures in reference to the words or judgements of such a god are somewhat meaningless here if the belief is not there to breathe life into the words.

0 Replies

Re: All loving religions offer something/media lacks depth

YOOPERNEWSMAN wrote:

Dear Rex,

I see by your latest post maybe I judged too quickly - I based it on your opening comment that I felt was unduly harsh - although I also pointed out it was likely shock value often based on desire to spur debate.

I treat all the religions in our group with the same vigor in trying to find places to post their story.

Some of our religions have a small membership and others have thousands of members - but all deserve the same coverage - not always an easy thing to accomplish. That's how I stumbled across this website - I was doing a search for Buddhist media.

Having said that - I have never claimed to be a religious scholar or expert.

I am strictly a volunteer media advisor doing my best to spread the word about positive work. In fact - except for the basics - I know little about the backgrounds or ideology of most religions. It's obvious to me that you and the rest of the people reacting to you opening post have a more knowledgable religion background.

My background is mainly "street news" and civil rights reporting in Georgia, investigative reporting, cops and courts reporting. Having worked at dozens of different media outlets I do consider myself knowledgable on the way some news is being watered down - or not reported - over the past 30 years.

I have written many articles that were killed in exchange for advertising dollars but also the private promise to fix the problems.

Especially in areas with less than 100,000 population - the media is barely surviving financially so they trade critical news for advertising. The media in larger cities are cutting back staff - so that has the same effect - the news doesn't get reported.

I could give numerous examples but one is:
wrote a seven part series on hospital board of directors abuses that was killed for a doubling of the advertising budget. The paper made the hospital folks promise to fix the problems but not expose them to the public - so at least something got accomplished.
Within the next year both of the founders of the hospital network retired and new rules were designed for board members that do business with their hospital - many board members were enriching themselves on hospital contracts without reporting the transactions as required by 501(c)3 IRS regulations. There were about a dozen other issues that were addressed internally (some problems fixed) but never reported to the public.

I have worked at numerous papers and TV stations whose editorial policy wasn't based on their own true opinion but rather the desire to shock the readers into responding. I think that's a misuse of an editorial because the editorial is meant to be the paper (of TV stations) opinion not just writing some nonsense designed to trigger readers into reacting.

I love debate but writing something you don't truly believe is not the way to spark debate. I have told many people not to react to an editors opinion seems based on shock value. They love people to answers for their own ego - rather the best way to battle an editor with a bizarre editorial is to ignore it. There's nothing a publisher/editorial board hates more than being ignored.

I have many strong feelings about the lack of depth in the media and what I called "McNugget news." Well, I could go on and on but this post is already lengthy.

Rex - thanks for welcoming me - and forgive me if I judge too quickly because while I disagree with you opening post I believe you have more background in religion than I.

The only "religions" I don't like are those who preach hate and violence. But they are not really religious people just hiding under the cloak of religion.

I truly believe the world's religions have more in common than they realize - and I think - are ALL praying to the same God. Just one reporter's opinion.

Well I actually didn't welcome you but I apologize and certainly do now, I am really embarrassed that I did not even acknowledge you as a new member. I noticed it but did not respond to my own instinct. I wish I could become more tender in my way with people. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake and I get caught up too easily in the moment. Please don't take it personally I guess I have no real excuse other than I can be a bit unobservant at times and miss the most important things. To just love people unconditionally.

It is nice to have a real journalist on this forum. (If there are others I am sorry for not picking up on that.)

I certainly value your input into the discussions here on A2K. It is nice you take the time to write here when you must see words all day at work. It shows your real appreciation for all things literate.

Sometimes I am coarse and I yank on people chains just to watch them stumble a bit and see how they employ their protective mechanisms.

I give you and A+. Don't let the others on this forum get under your skin because that is their exact intention. They really don't even have a point other than to try and bait you into making a fool of yourself.

P.S. Asherman I am not done with you!!!

Hehe...

I thought up some more things that make Christianity superior to Buddhism. Smile

I got to go run a few laps at the gym and I will be back to turn this ant hill into a mountain!

LOL

Again, Welcome Yooper...

I am glad you stumbled into the A2K forum.

0 Replies

Welcome to the forum, YOOPER.

One of the things I do not understand about Buddhism is the purpose of these:

http://www.buddhanet.net/bhutan-gallery/images/Bodhi%2520Gaya%25202005%2520069.jpg

If not to some god, where do these large prayers go?

0 Replies

It would seem Buddha's followers perverted his religion just as the church after the first century perverted Christianity and Mohamed's followers perverted his simple love of God and Christ.

0 Replies

I wouldn't use the word "perverted" for the doctrinal drift for either Christianity or Buddhism. The fundamental structures remain intact, though the doctrine evolves in step with religious thought and the effort to accommodate popular folk belief within the fundamental teachings. Individual understanding will outgrow in time those accommodations. In the meantime, cultural traditions also evolve in directions compatible with the underlying fundamentals of the religion. When a religion no longer is compatible with the People's world view, it becomes increasingly marginal until finally it is as dead as the worship of Zeus. Most of todays religions are only three thousand years old, giver or take a thousand. It is not possible for us to accurately guess what form religion will take a thousand years, or more from today. However, we can be pretty sure that religon will be quite different than what we have today.

It doesn't really matter, we have all the time in the world because time is only an other illusion tying us to perceptual reality.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

If not to some god, where do these large prayers go?

Buddha is NOT a god. I'm certainly not very knowledgable about the religion as a whole, but I remember hearing a part of the prayer ritual described by the Dalai Lama (they don't come any more knowledgable than him). He said that when people pray before the image of the Buddha, they are not praying to a deity, but rather the image represents a reflection of the inner self. He represents the aim, to attain the enlightenment that he possessed. He certainly is not some angry omnipotent being in the sky, ready to smite all those who don't believe in him into an eternity in the angry pits of hell.

0 Replies

Asherman, I have a few things for you to mull over and hopefully respond on.

If you have read any of my other posts I have said before that my "mantra" is body, soul and spirit.

The Christian church (in my opinion) has confused soul with spirit and some confuse body with soul.

LOGICALLY speaking... the body would go back to the earth which is only as eternal as the physical world exists. Science seems to think the physical world which started at the big bang will some day fall into total chaos and dark energy will someday consume all matter.

So the body is only as eternal as the physical world. The soul which should not be confused with the spirit will return to "the air" because it is breath life... Just as breathing is an important part of meditation.

John 20:22 And when he [Jesus] had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Comment:Jesus was instructing them of a future event because the holy spirit had not yet come yet. The SPIRIT did not come until the day of Pentecost.

So the soul at death returns to the air as the body returns to dust.

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Comment: So the last element of my "mantra" is the spirit... If it is the "holy" spirit gift from God it will return to God at the return of Christ to the earth on "the Gathering day". So the spirit sleeps in the grave until Christ gathers the church and rewards us (As opposed to the judgment evil spirits will receive.)

So Asherman my query is, don't the modern Buddhists also confuse the soul (breath life) and the spirit (eternal life)?

1Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Comment: Soul and spirit cannot mean the same thing if they are used in the same sentence here as they are. Just as God formed the body(from the dust of the ground), made the soul(breathed into Adam's nostrils and made man a living soul) and created the spirit (created man in his own image which the image of God is spirit).

Isaiah 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Comment: Just as body soul and spirit because they are used in the same sentence mean different things so do formed, made and created mean different thing by the same reasoning. Wouldn't the Biblical logic be superior simply because it reveals truths that have been obscured by other so called faiths?

0 Replies

wilso wrote:

He said that when people pray before the image of the Buddha, they are not praying to a deity, but rather the image represents a reflection of the inner self.

when we feel like going out and having fun we put on rock music, dance and laugh and talk.
when I'm tired and want to relax I put on something easy and melodious.
Isn't that the same principle?
I want to get in touch with my true self, I need something to help it manifest where I can percieve it...

0 Replies

Asherman, you wouldn't call "Jihad" a perversion?

0 Replies

It is an example of the sort of chauvinism that humans are prone to. It is the same intensity of belief in the righteousness of one's religion that you display when you demean all other religions. It is an attempt for the imagined Self to expand itself to encompass the All. It is ultimately one of the most terrible tools for increasing the suffering of all sentient beings on the planet.

On a larger and more meaningful level, Jihad is empty and useless. Ultimate Reality has no preference for any artificial division apparent in the perceptual world.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

It is an example of the sort of chauvinism that humans are prone to. It is the same intensity of belief in the righteousness of one's religion that you display when you demean all other religions. It is an attempt for the imagined Self to expand itself to encompass the All. It is ultimately one of the most terrible tools for increasing the suffering of all sentient beings on the planet.

On a larger and more meaningful level, Jihad is empty and useless. Ultimate Reality has no preference for any artificial division apparent in the perceptual world.

Other religions do not need me to demean them they demean themselves. I am just pointing it out...

Not all faith is truth you should know that. Or God would be well, YIN YANG... THERE IS NO DARKNESS IN GOD...

1John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Comment:God is not made in our image but us in his image.

Should I just ignore body, soul and spirit and the LOGIC that it reveals for the mishmash you call Buddhism today?

I am in general a pacifist I will bet I fall more center when it comes to faith than you do. After all it was you coming in with both guns blazing against Christians.

At least I differentiate between faith and people. Where your attack was toward me personally and not my ideology. Same with Set and Dys... They attack people rather than their beliefs...

CHRISTIANITY HAS TAUGHT ME THE DIFFERENCE... where Buddhism has failed you in this regard.

Is that what Buddhism has taught you? Or rather Buddhism has not taught you that ideologies are NOT people. I have drawn the line between ideologies and people for may years and I can spot it in an instant.

Why? Because the mind is not the spirit. My mind cannot corrupt God in me... Just as radical Islam attacks people rather than ideologies. Where free governments prefer to change the ideologies rather than just attacking people. When someone attacks a person rather than their ideology this is because their own ideology is inferior in their own mind.

Buddhism is so confused on body, soul and spirit that I doubt much can be learned from Buddhism when body, soul and spirit are the foundation which Buddhism seems to (today) completely lack. Just as modern Christianity has lost this very same truth (so they can worship their trinity in idolatry)... I don't say Buddhism has always lacked this understanding but it most certainly does today.

You are an example as one who claims to know so much about Buddhism but you fall short of the mark. I am pointing this out because I care... I already have the truth (body, soul and spirit/formed, made and created...) why should I care? But I do... Another Christian virtue in action. I learned it from the Bible not Buddhists...

Maybe years ago the eastern people understood body, soul and spirit but today it is lost and thus the profit of Buddhism is rendered scant.

0 Replies

Asherman,

Actually I am sorry for sometimes seeming boastful.

My intention is truly not to elevate "myself" with this knowledge but to enlighten others.

1Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Comment: For I already have peace with God and it is wrong for me use the truth to demean others no matter how much they protest. For I must remember the time when I did not know the love of God and my life was a TOTAL wreak. You are all mild compared to the anger I had toward God. We must all "remember from whence thou comest"...

I was worse than all of you at a very young age (I assure you). I guess this is why God came into my life early because my need was so intensely great. For I had drifted so far away from the truth. This is why the truth means so much to me now. The Christian God had become my worst fear. Yet loving Christians who knew the truth taught me and not exactly in the very same manner I have reciprocated. They overlooked my faults believing it was the truth itself that would emancipate me. I owe my life and well being to them (and God of course.)

So please forgive me I sill have my old mind to contend with from time to time. I will never be sorry for speaking the truth but I am sorry for the manner in which I do it sometimes...

Ephesians 4:15
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Comment: I just pray you can see through my faults to the message that I have delivered so that it may remove the veil that obstructs the pure loving Christian God of creation that modern Christianity has so obscured.

1Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

1Corinthians 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

To God be the glory...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Should I just ignore body, soul and spirit and the LOGIC that it reveals for the mishmash you call Buddhism today?

I can only assume from that sentence that you simply don't read what you write. LOGIC? Referring to christianity? On which planet?
THERE IS NOTHING LOGICAL ABOUT A BELIEF OF AN OMNIPOTENT GOD. In fact a public declaration in a similar manifestation outside of the major religions would be cause for commital. As for Buddhism a mishmash, that's one of the single most arrogant things you've ever said. Your miniscule knowledge of Buddhism would fit on a postage stamp with room to spare, and yet you can draw this conclusion. This just proves your posses a narrow view and blind ignorance.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Should I just ignore body, soul and spirit and the LOGIC that it reveals for the mishmash you call Buddhism today?

I can only assume from that sentence that you simply don't read what you write. LOGIC? Referring to christianity? On which planet?
THERE IS NOTHING LOGICAL ABOUT A BELIEF OF AN OMNIPOTENT GOD. In fact a public declaration in a similar manifestation outside of the major religions would be cause for commital. As for Buddhism a mishmash, that's one of the single most arrogant things you've ever said. Your miniscule knowledge of Buddhism would fit on a postage stamp with room to spare, and yet you can draw this conclusion. This just proves your posses a narrow view and blind ignorance.

Well enlighten me then, because all you seem to be doing is disagreeing without any substantive relevant debate. Should I accept your opinion on "blind faith"? (which I don't think is even Biblical) I think not... I think your dilemma is you accept modern Christianity without really knowing it is not what the Bible actually teaches.

Like me stating, "YOU ARE WRONG" without saying why... You say, "There is no omnipotent God" but giving no logical reason to back up such a statement.

I have given concrete reasons why I see things the way I do, the ball is in your court. The readers of this post are not that naive (for the most part). I have set the bar pretty high and it is your turn to either put up or hold your peace in all civilized decorum.

Again another attack on me instead of the ideology I have clearly documented "Biblically".

Your argument is with God not me...

0 Replies

I don't have an argument with god because there isn't one. I can't prove a negative. As other people have stated, when you realise why you reject all other gods but your own, you'll understand why I reject yours. You try proving that the world wasn't created by the flying spaghetti monster. Until you do that, you'll just be a deluded psychopath to me. I don't take you seriously because I don't take anyone seriously who expresses belief without being able to prove that what their believing in actually exists. I can deal with buddhism because it doesn't believe in a god with supernatural powers.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

I don't have an argument with god because there isn't one. I can't prove a negative. As other people have stated, when you realise why you reject all other gods but your own, you'll understand why I reject yours. You try proving that the world wasn't created by the flying spaghetti monster. Until you do that, you'll just be a deluded psychopath to me. I don't take you seriously because I don't take anyone seriously who expresses belief without being able to prove that what their believing in actually exists. I can deal with buddhism because it doesn't believe in a god with supernatural powers.

I reject worship of the creation over the creator... Because worship of the creation just leads to worship of self. Kings, despots, caesars, clergy etc who demand to be worshiped as gods... Also, governments who stand ABOVE God with law instead of UNDER God with liberty.

Do you want to bow down and worship men? (as many do to Buddha (in the absence of God), Jesus, Mohamed (who were just men)? etc...) I suggest you follow suit.

God may have many facets but they all are still contained within the Creator aspect of God's kingdom.

You simply by omitting God are inadvertently elevating the creation over the creator and thus the slippery slope that eventually leads to self divinity begins.

By understanding the line drawn between creation and creator one can never fall into the trap of the antichrist/son of perdition. Who is prophesied in the Bible as coming some time in the future. People will worship this MAN as God... He will be followed with signs and LYING wonders...

2Thessalonians 2:4
Who [a man] opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Comment: This will happen on the earth. The reverence of Buddha (and the erroneous Christian trinity) only make the Antichrists rise to power more plausible.

2Thessalonians 2:9
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Romans 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [creation] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Do you want to bow down and worship men? (as many do to Buddha (in the absence of God), Jesus, Mohamed (who were just men)? etc...)

Buddhists DO NOT worship a man. You've once again provided proof positive of not only your massive ignorance, but your hypocrasy, considering that christians do exactly that. I'm sure if you open your mouth a bit wider you'll be able to fit your other foot in there.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Do you want to bow down and worship men? (as many do to Buddha (in the absence of God), Jesus, Mohamed (who were just men)? etc...)

Buddhists DO NOT worship a man. You've once again provided proof positive of not only your massive ignorance, but your hypocrasy, considering that christians do exactly that. I'm sure if you open your mouth a bit wider you'll be able to fit your other foot in there.

Today's Christians do exactly that, they are pagans... They follow "tradition" (of Constantine) rather than the written word of God and the Buddhists and the rest of the world simply believe the error of the Christians because they are too lazy to read the Bible themselves. If they actually read the new testament with their thinking caps on they would realize that the modern Christian doctrine is the opposite of what the new testament teaches.

It is the very doctrine of the trinity that states that once a
man" was GOD. That opens the door for the anti Christ to rise and dominate the minds of the Christian world.. Since Most all other religions inordinately revere man, women and "the son" we need to squeeze that last "God" in too, they will simply fall into the same trap.

It is the word of God that stands in the face of all of this nonsense and states that the creator and creation are two separate things and all people and things are under the INVISIBLE God...

Apparently you have not paid attention to the words in this thread... So I suspect you have paid less attention to the actual Buddhist's way.

Buddha's teeth, his collar bone and his robe are housed in holy places and highly revered by Buddhists "monks" they are considered "holy relics"... Babylon had "monks" also... And the Roman Catholic church has styled itself also after Babylon mystery religion not the Bible. They did the same as the Romans they stole the system from the Greeks and simply attached their own names to the deities...

The Buddhists have taken a page out of paganism and have emulated the Babylonian mystery religion system that ALSO WORSHIPS PEOPLE AS GOD.

The very purpose of Babylonian mystery religion through Ham, Cush and Nimrod was to usurp the throne of God to the extent that God is obscured by the brilliance of other forms of worship.

Creation over creator...

You are digging yourself in deeper.

No one answered Neologist question... "Who are the prayers for if there is no God..."

They appear to omit God so where does the natural human propensity to worship a higher being go? TO THE SELF, OTHERS AND "inanimate objects".

It is human nature to "worship" and if God is removed from the equation then the admonition just turns on the SELF...

One of Buddha's "titles" is "the illuminated one" this is also the very meaning of name LUCIFER.. The illuminated one...

The one who saw his own beauty and committed high treason against God for his OWN glory and God cast Lucifer out of heaven and down to the earth.

Maybe the the Buddhist's prayers are to Lucifer?

0 Replies

Buddhists...what have they ever done for us?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know