Religion and Ethics?

[irosie91]

How so?

try to { desperately } define "bias"

 

[irosie91]

You make it sound like you have heard of him before. I did not say he was criticising Buddhism. I said he was criticising Buddhism having been treated as a religion.

There is a book 'Buddhism without beliefs' by Steven Batchelor. where he goes into this and how it is not helpful.

you should read your literary efforts before
striking the post button. "He goes into this..." is a vague allusion depending on a pronoun "this" that does not allude to anything specific. ..."how it is not helpful..."
also exhibits a vague pronoun "it" and is,
clearly, a negative evaluation of Buddhism

 

[ding]

I don't see all religions as the same though yes you can find similarities in them. I think where the probably overlap is in spirituality and that you probably could equate that to religion in some way. For a very long time I have felt there are many different religions but only one spirituality. The problem there is as far as I am aware not everyone belonging to a religion gets even a taste of the spirituality but instead gets stuck in the dogma.

Sure there are differences but at their core they teach civility, accountability, selflessness, stewardship, etc and that even though we came from matter we are more than just matter. That there is a greater being that created existence and we are his creatures.

With anything there is a risk of it becoming out of balance. Theology, ritual, authority and tradition are important components of religion but when they become overbalanced at the expense of mystery and grace religion becomes fettered and just going through the motions. There's still no need to throw the baby out with the bath water though.

At the end of the day I get peace knowing that everything works for good. God isn't some mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into. When one does that everything falls into place, maybe not always in a straight line or how I think it should, but the way it is meant to.

 

[ding]

try to { desperately } define "bias"

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here or how it applies to what I wrote that you believed was false and intentionally misleading but a good definition for bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

So what did I say that was false and misleading?

 

[irosie91]

"....risk of it becoming out of balance...." could you define
that "risk" in reference to historic FACT?

 

[irosie91]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here or how it applies to what I wrote that you believed was false and intentionally misleading but a good definition for bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

So what did I say that was false and misleading?

easy-----read the kharahan------not a "risk" ----an explicit directive

 

[ding]

easy-----read the kharahan------not a "risk" ----an explicit directive

You mean you can't tell me in plain and simple words what I said that was false and intentionally misleading? Or do you have a different definition of sophistry?

This has gone on three posts too long. If you are going to make accusations you really should be clear and concise in your explanation for why. Not tell someone to go and figure it out on their own.

I didn't provide fallacious information nor was I intentionally misleading. Unlike you I was extremely clear and concise with what I wrote.

 

[ding]

"....risk of it becoming out of balance...." could you define
that "risk" in reference to historic FACT?

I literally provided an example in post #245.

 

[alexa]

Sure there are differences but at their core they teach civility, accountability, selflessness, stewardship, etc and that even though we came from matter we are more than just matter. That there is a greater being that created existence and we are his creatures.

[/QUOTE]

Well that one cuts out Buddhism

With anything there is a risk of it becoming out of balance. Theology, ritual, authority and tradition are important components of religion but when they become overbalanced at the expense of mystery and grace religion becomes fettered and just going through the motions. There's still no need to throw the baby out with the bath water though.

At the end of the day I get peace knowing that everything works for good. God isn't some mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into. When one does that everything falls into place, maybe not always in a straight line or how I think it should, but the way it is meant to.

[/QUOTE]

again this would too. My experience is that the Abrahamic religions do not seem to get into spirituality all that much though I don't know about Judaism. In Christianity I think you need to become a nun or monk before they get a taste though I will admit my Mother's last minister was definitely spiritual and could have got me into his church but I would say he is the exception. ....and when you consider what the nuns in Ireland used to get up to - clearly no taste of the love within spirituality. We had a tv series which looked at different religions. One of them was on a sufi retreat. Without doubt what they were doing was no different to the sort of thing I did except for the language I used. That though gives a big problem to Islam given that we are going through a time of sufis getting murdered for practicing. I remember reading that certainly up until the 2nd world war Middle East Muslims almost always included some Sufi in their practice.

 

[ding]

Well that one cuts out Buddhism

again this would too. My experience is that the Abrahamic religions do not seem to get into spirituality all that much though I don't know about Judaism.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[irosie91]

You mean you can't tell me in plain and simple words what I said that was false and intentionally misleading? Or do you have a different definition of sophistry?

This has gone on three posts too long. If you are going to make accusations you really should be clear and concise in your explanation for why. Not tell someone to go and figure it out on their own.

I didn't provide fallacious information nor was I intentionally misleading. Unlike you I was extremely clear and concise with what I wrote.

ok Your missives suggest that you consider the various religions to have
originated on similar noble principles and at the outset lacking in negative,
malicious intent. IMVO the very early scriptural writings of the various religions
reflect their nascence. An example of a very early scriptural writing is the
"little red book" of MAOISM. It is, BY NO MEANS, lacking in malice. I leave it
to you to evaluate the kharahan

 

[irosie91]

I literally provided an example in post #245.

yes and I fully agree-----Buddhism was founded on a noble intent

 

[lg325]

The world will do well to follow Christian ethics as stated in scripture. Some mistake Rulers doing violence and committing crimes in the name of their religion but study of scripture will show their actions do not jive with scripture.

 

[ding]

ok Your missives suggest that you consider the various religions to have
originated on similar noble principles and at the outset lacking in negative,
malicious intent. IMVO the very early scriptural writings of the various religions
reflect their nascence. An example of a very early scriptural writing is the
"little red book" of MAOISM. It is, BY NO MEANS, lacking in malice. I leave it
to you to evaluate the kharahan

No. The noble principles are an artifact of God; an artifact of intelligence, logic, truth and love. That there are different religions teaching their perception is a logical consequence of man seeking God.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that the noble principles are universal. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

 

[ding]

yes and I fully agree-----Buddhism was founded on a noble intent

Buddhism was founded on Hinduism without the theology, ritual, authority and tradition of Hinduism.

In my humble opinion it's as imbalanced as Siddhārtha Gautama thought Hinduism had become. Rather than restoring mystery and grace to their proper place, they threw out theology, ritual, authority and tradition all together.

 

[irosie91]

No. The noble principles are an artifact of God; an artifact of intelligence, logic, truth and love. That there are different religions teaching their perception is a logical consequence of man seeking God.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that the noble principles are universal. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

OH GAWD-----so true NOBLE PRINCIPLES are UNIVERSAL---but the reality
is-----noble principles do not form the basis of every religion even at outset.
I supplied a very neutral example of an evil personality cult leader----MAO

 

[irosie91]

Buddhism was founded on Hinduism without the theology, ritual, authority and tradition of Hinduism.

In my humble opinion it's as imbalanced as Siddhārtha Gautama thought Hinduism had become. Rather than restoring mystery and grace to their proper place, they threw out theology, ritual, authority and tradition all together.

yes---but still founded on the noblest of principles

 

[ding]

OH GAWD-----so true NOBLE PRINCIPLES are UNIVERSAL---but the reality
is-----noble principles do not form the basis of every religion even at outset.
I supplied a very neutral example of an evil personality cult leader----MAO

Look, if you want to be like Hobelim and Breezewood and be critical of religions not your own who am I to convince you otherwise. I've said all I need to say on this.

 

[Feeding Crows]

The reason for God bless, In God We Trust, One nation under God, is that our Founding Fathers were adamant that this nation would not be a nation ruled by a person--where the highest authority was a person (or people). Our rulers were to recognize and acknowledge the people are governed by a higher authority, one that grants all freedom. The nation will fail because our leaders are failing at recognizing and leading that we are a nation under God.

Who said anyone believes that God only blesses the USA? Nonsense. Abraham Lincoln was once asked if he believed God was on the side of the Union. Lincoln responded, "I think it is more important that we are on the side of God."

So the civil war was another religious war, then?

I never thought about that...

 

[Feeding Crows]

Goes back to the question, Are we on the side of God?

Independent of that, do you see the question as, "Will we suffer?" The true and better question is, "How will we suffer?" And, a question to ourselves, "How do we plan to handle that suffering?"

We brought our current suffering upon ourselves. We elected the wrong people. So now we deal with what we brought upon ourselves.

Apparently, according to Lincoln, the north is on the side of god, and the south is.... i dunno... hell?