Discussion:
Atheism IS a religion
(too old to reply)
Joey Gay
2006-06-29 02:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Don't shoot the messenger........

Remember, religions don't have to include an afterlife, or contain a
god or pantheon of gods.

Atheists are always preaching their beliefs and trying to impose their
beliefs on others.

Atheists are always trying to convert others.

Atheists are always trying to crusade and destroy the religions of
other people, replacing those religions with their beliefs, trying to
force others to share their beliefs, because THEIR system of belief is
somehow better.

And above all, atheists have dogma (complete with mantras which they
chant) that they adhere strictly to, and bully other atheists into
adhering to.
wollybird
2006-06-29 03:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Gay
Don't shoot the messenger........
Remember, religions don't have to include an afterlife, or contain a
god or pantheon of gods.
Atheists are always preaching their beliefs and trying to impose their
beliefs on others.
Atheists are always trying to convert others.
Atheists are always trying to crusade and destroy the religions of
other people, replacing those religions with their beliefs, trying to
force others to share their beliefs, because THEIR system of belief is
somehow better.
And above all, atheists have dogma (complete with mantras which they
chant) that they adhere strictly to, and bully other atheists into
adhering to.
Tommy, I'm afraid you are just going to have to lay low until Jackson
runs out of steam, and has to go back into his cave to reload.
Joey Gay
2006-06-29 03:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Tommy, I'm afraid you are just going to have to lay low until Jackson
runs out of steam, and has to go back into his cave to reload.
It's true, I'm no match for Jackson.
Jackson
2006-06-29 03:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Tommy, I'm afraid you are just going to have to lay low until Jackson
runs out of steam, and has to go back into his cave to reload.
hahaha.... I like that. Speaking of caves, I recommend immediately
reading Plato's great Allegory of the Cave.

See this:

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/platoscave.html

Then this:

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

"Anyone who graduates from college or graduate school without a
serious, sympathetic, and genuine reading of Plato has pretty much
wasted his time. He deserves a refund."

-James V. Schall
Jackson
2006-06-29 03:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Gay
Don't shoot the messenger........
Remember, religions don't have to include an afterlife, or contain a
god or pantheon of gods.
Atheists are always preaching their beliefs and trying to impose their
beliefs on others.
Atheists are always trying to convert others.
Atheists are always trying to crusade and destroy the religions of
other people, replacing those religions with their beliefs, trying to
force others to share their beliefs, because THEIR system of belief is
somehow better.
And above all, atheists have dogma (complete with mantras which they
chant) that they adhere strictly to, and bully other atheists into
adhering to.
More accurately, militant atheism is a substitute for religion pursued
with religious fervor.
Charlie
2006-06-29 14:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
More accurately, militant atheism is a substitute for religion pursued
with religious fervor.
Whatever militant atheism is, something you made up? I haven't heard of
atheists going to war and killing in the name of jesus.

Ok jackson, you can go find the obscure case and build your whole bigoted
opinion on it now, and ignore that it is christians and muslims, basically,
who have creeds of hate and repression. I haven't met too many atheists who
want to impose their belief systems on the rest of us, to the point of
killing in the name of their beliefs or getting others to do it in the name
of patriotism. The world has to be saved from christians and muslims, not
atheists. Killing in the name of the prince of peace, what a hoot!

Charlie
Jackson
2006-06-29 20:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie
Post by Jackson
More accurately, militant atheism is a substitute for religion pursued
with religious fervor.
Whatever militant atheism is, something you made up? I haven't heard of
atheists going to war and killing in the name of jesus.
Ok jackson, you can go find the obscure case and build your whole bigoted
opinion on it now, and ignore that it is christians and muslims, basically,
who have creeds of hate and repression. I haven't met too many atheists who
want to impose their belief systems on the rest of us, to the point of
killing in the name of their beliefs or getting others to do it in the name
of patriotism. The world has to be saved from christians and muslims, not
atheists. Killing in the name of the prince of peace, what a hoot!
Charlie
Hello Charlie, here's a bit of militant atheism, hardly obscure, which
has produced a staggering body count far eclipsing the totality of all
religious wars combined throughout history: communism. Atheism is at
the very root of communism. Marx and Lenin were quite explicit about
this: atheism and communism are inseparable. "Our program necessarily
includes the propaganda of atheism." - Lenin

Communism was a new messianism promising to cover the face of the
earth. Here we see its missionary impulse. Its messiah? The
proletariat, from whom would spring redemption and eternal bliss. Its
heaven? An earthly utopia under the guidance of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. Its mysticism? Historical determinism. Its Trinity? Marx,
Lenin, Stalin. Throw Mao in there if you like. And Pol Pot. And Castro.
And Ho Chi Minh. And....

So yes, you have heard of atheists going to war and killing in the name
not of Jesus, but of a perverted form of universal brotherhood rooted
in atheism. Really, has there proven to be a more poisonous idea than
the false utopianism of the perfectibility of man - which sprang (take
special note) from the so-called "Enlightenment"?

But I'm really not inclined to participate any further in this thread.
I'll simply offer you this:

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in
philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

- Francis Bacon

"Beauty is the gift of God."

-Aristotle

"When speaking of divine perfection, we signify that God is just and
true and loving, the author of order, not disorder, of good, not evil.
We signify that he is justice, that he is truth, that he is love, that
he is order, that he is the very progress of which we were speaking;
and that wherever these qualities exist, whether in the human soul or
in the order of nature, there God exists."

-Plato

"To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate
infinite knowledge. Because their declaration is tantamount to saying,
'I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with
infinite knowledge.'"

- Ravi K. Zacharias

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

"Settle it, therefore, in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or
forgotten, that atheism is an inhuman, bloody, ferocious system,
equally hostile to every useful restraint, and to every virtuous
affection; that leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round us to
awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and earth; its first object
is to dethrone God, its next to destroy man."

- Robert Hall


"Those who tell us that they deny the existence of God are merely
substituting one god for another."

-Fulton Sheen

"Atheism is rather in the life than in the heart of man."

- Francis Bacon

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing: we know this
in countless ways. I say that it is natural for the heart to love the
universal being or itself, according to its allegiance, and it hardens
itself against either as it chooses. You have rejected one and kept the
other. Is it reason that makes you love yourself?"

-Pascal

"When men live as if there were no God, it becomes expedient for them
that there should be none; and then they endeavor to persuade
themselves so."

- John Tillotson

"Atheism is the result of ignorance and pride, of strong sense and
feeble reasons, of good eating and ill living."

- Jeremy Collier

"That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I
will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet
would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy."

- Jonathan Swift

"Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully.
Dangers lie in wait for him on every side."

-C.S. Lewis

"And the cause of everything is that which we call God. To know God and
live is the same thing. God is Life."

-Leo Tolstoy

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."

-Plato
John Sloan
2006-06-29 21:24:07 UTC
Permalink
snip appeals to authority for the existence of god <
And now, using the same approach, I will demonstrate the folly of not
believing in Santa Claus:

*************************

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to [not believing in Santa Claus],
but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to [Santa]."

- Francis Bacon

"Beauty is the gift of [Santa Claus]."

-Aristotle

"When speaking of divine perfection, we signify that [Santa Claus] is just
and true and loving, the author of order, not disorder, of good, not evil.
We signify that he is justice, that he is truth, that he is love, that he is
order, that he is the very progress of which we were speaking; and that
wherever these qualities exist, whether in the human soul or
in the order of nature, there [Santa Claus] exists."

-Plato

"To sustain the belief that there is no [Santa Claus], [not believing in
Santa Claus] has to demonstrate infinite knowledge. Because their
declaration is tantamount to saying, 'I have infinite knowledge that there
is no [Santa Claus] in existence with
infinite knowledge.'"

- Ravi K. Zacharias

"Science without [Santa] is lame, [Santa Claus] without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

"Settle it, therefore, in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or
forgotten, that [not believing in Santa Claus] is an inhuman, bloody,
ferocious system, equally hostile to every useful restraint, and to every
virtuous affection; that leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round
us to awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and earth; its first
object
is to dethrone [Santa Claus], its next to destroy man."

- Robert Hall


"Those who tell us that they deny the existence of [Santa Claus] are merely
substituting one [santa] for another."

-Fulton Sheen

"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is rather in the life than in the heart of
man."

- Francis Bacon

"When men live as if there were no [Santa Claus], it becomes expedient for
them that there should be none; and then they endeavor to persuade
themselves so."

- John Tillotson

"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is the result of ignorance and pride, of
strong sense and feeble reasons, of good eating and ill living."

- Jeremy Collier

"That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will
no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall
into a most ingenious treatise of [anti-Santaism]."

- Jonathan Swift

"Really, a young [person who doesn't believe in Santa Claus] cannot guard
his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side."

-C.S. Lewis

"And the cause of everything is that which we call [Santa Claus]. To know
[Santa] and live is the same thing. [Santa Claus] is Life."

-Leo Tolstoy

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy
of life is when men are afraid of [Santa's workshop]."

-Plato

****************

Are you as convinced as I am?

John Sloan
Steven Bornfeld
2006-06-29 21:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Sloan
snip appeals to authority for the existence of god <
And now, using the same approach, I will demonstrate the folly of not
*************************
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to [not believing in Santa Claus],
but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to [Santa]."
- Francis Bacon
"Beauty is the gift of [Santa Claus]."
-Aristotle
"When speaking of divine perfection, we signify that [Santa Claus] is just
and true and loving, the author of order, not disorder, of good, not evil.
We signify that he is justice, that he is truth, that he is love, that he is
order, that he is the very progress of which we were speaking; and that
wherever these qualities exist, whether in the human soul or
in the order of nature, there [Santa Claus] exists."
-Plato
"To sustain the belief that there is no [Santa Claus], [not believing in
Santa Claus] has to demonstrate infinite knowledge. Because their
declaration is tantamount to saying, 'I have infinite knowledge that there
is no [Santa Claus] in existence with
infinite knowledge.'"
- Ravi K. Zacharias
"Science without [Santa] is lame, [Santa Claus] without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
"Settle it, therefore, in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or
forgotten, that [not believing in Santa Claus] is an inhuman, bloody,
ferocious system, equally hostile to every useful restraint, and to every
virtuous affection; that leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round
us to awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and earth; its first
object
is to dethrone [Santa Claus], its next to destroy man."
- Robert Hall
"Those who tell us that they deny the existence of [Santa Claus] are merely
substituting one [santa] for another."
-Fulton Sheen
"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is rather in the life than in the heart of
man."
- Francis Bacon
"When men live as if there were no [Santa Claus], it becomes expedient for
them that there should be none; and then they endeavor to persuade
themselves so."
- John Tillotson
"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is the result of ignorance and pride, of
strong sense and feeble reasons, of good eating and ill living."
- Jeremy Collier
"That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will
no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall
into a most ingenious treatise of [anti-Santaism]."
- Jonathan Swift
"Really, a young [person who doesn't believe in Santa Claus] cannot guard
his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side."
-C.S. Lewis
"And the cause of everything is that which we call [Santa Claus]. To know
[Santa] and live is the same thing. [Santa Claus] is Life."
-Leo Tolstoy
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy
of life is when men are afraid of [Santa's workshop]."
-Plato
****************
Are you as convinced as I am?
John Sloan
And then there was Chico Marx.

Steve
Jackson
2006-06-29 23:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Sloan
snip appeals to authority for the existence of god <
And now, using the same approach, I will demonstrate the folly of not
*************************
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to [not believing in Santa Claus],
but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to [Santa]."
- Francis Bacon
"Beauty is the gift of [Santa Claus]."
-Aristotle
"When speaking of divine perfection, we signify that [Santa Claus] is just
and true and loving, the author of order, not disorder, of good, not evil.
We signify that he is justice, that he is truth, that he is love, that he is
order, that he is the very progress of which we were speaking; and that
wherever these qualities exist, whether in the human soul or
in the order of nature, there [Santa Claus] exists."
-Plato
"To sustain the belief that there is no [Santa Claus], [not believing in
Santa Claus] has to demonstrate infinite knowledge. Because their
declaration is tantamount to saying, 'I have infinite knowledge that there
is no [Santa Claus] in existence with
infinite knowledge.'"
- Ravi K. Zacharias
"Science without [Santa] is lame, [Santa Claus] without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
"Settle it, therefore, in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or
forgotten, that [not believing in Santa Claus] is an inhuman, bloody,
ferocious system, equally hostile to every useful restraint, and to every
virtuous affection; that leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round
us to awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and earth; its first
object
is to dethrone [Santa Claus], its next to destroy man."
- Robert Hall
"Those who tell us that they deny the existence of [Santa Claus] are merely
substituting one [santa] for another."
-Fulton Sheen
"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is rather in the life than in the heart of
man."
- Francis Bacon
"When men live as if there were no [Santa Claus], it becomes expedient for
them that there should be none; and then they endeavor to persuade
themselves so."
- John Tillotson
"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is the result of ignorance and pride, of
strong sense and feeble reasons, of good eating and ill living."
- Jeremy Collier
"That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will
no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall
into a most ingenious treatise of [anti-Santaism]."
- Jonathan Swift
"Really, a young [person who doesn't believe in Santa Claus] cannot guard
his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side."
-C.S. Lewis
"And the cause of everything is that which we call [Santa Claus]. To know
[Santa] and live is the same thing. [Santa Claus] is Life."
-Leo Tolstoy
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy
of life is when men are afraid of [Santa's workshop]."
-Plato
****************
Are you as convinced as I am?
John Sloan
Hi John, you've finally convinced me that you possess a mind superior
to that of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon....
Nevertheless, here are some rebuttals for you to consider:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html

and

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/god-as-cosmic-santa-claus-and-bible-as.html

And please note again that I don't claim to be a Christian. I'm
interested only in truth.
wollybird
2006-06-29 23:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Nice Job Tommy, I didn't think this dog could hunt.
Jackson
2006-06-30 00:13:20 UTC
Permalink
My final post in this thread:

The great Jewish theologian Martin Buber wrote:

"An adherent of the Enlightenment, a very learned man, who had heard of
the Rabbi of Berditchev, paid a visit to him in order to argue, as was
his custom, with him, too, and to shatter his old-fashioned proofs of
the truth of his faith. When he entered the Rabbi's room, he found him
walking up and down with a book in his hand, rapt in thought. The Rabbi
paid no attention to the new arrival. Suddenly he stopped, looked at
him fleetingly, and said, 'But perhaps it is true after all.' The
scholar tried in vain to collect himself - his knees trembled, so
terrible was the Rabbi to behold and so terrible his simple utterance
to hear. But Rabbi Levi Yitschak now turned to face him and spoke quite
calmly: 'My son, the great scholars of the Torah with whom you have
argued wasted their words on you; as you departed you laughed at them.
They were unable to lay God and his Kingdom on the table before you,
and neither can I. But think, my son, perhaps it is true.' The exponent
of the Enlightenment opposed him with all his strength; but his
terrible 'perhaps' that echoed back at him time after time broke his
resistance."

-Quoted in J. Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI), Introduction to
Christianity, wherein Ratzinger also cites a famous story by
Kierkegaard to best sum up the difficulty faced by anyone attempting to
communicate theology today:

"According to this story, a travelling circus in Denmark had caught
fire. The manager sent the clown, who was already dressed and made-up
for the performance, into the neighboring village to fetch help,
especially as there was a danger that the fire would spread across the
fields of dry stubble and engulf the village itself. So, the clown
hurried into the village and requested the inhabitants 'come as quickly
as possible' and help put the fire out.

"But the villagers took the clown's shouts simply for an excellent
piece of advertising, meant to attract as many people as possible to
the performance; they applauded the clown and laughed till they cried.
The clown felt more like weeping than laughing; he tried in vain to get
people to be serious, to make clear to them he was speaking in bitter
earnest, that there really WAS a fire! His supplications only increased
the laughter; people thought he was playing his part splendidly --
until finally the fire DID engulf the village, and both circus and
village were burned to the ground."

And that, says Ratzinger, is the "theologian's position today . . . the
appearance of a clown trying in vain to make people listen to his
message!

"In his medieval, or at any rate old-fashioned clown's costume he is
simply not taken seriously. Whatever he says, he is ticketed and
classified, so to speak by his role. Whatever he does in his attempts
to demonstrate his seriousness people always know in advance that he is
in fact just --- a clown. They are already familiar with what he is
talking about, and know he is just giving a performance which has
little or nothing to do with 'reality.'

"So, they can listen to him quite happily without having to worry too
seriously about what he is saying."
Tommy Grand
2006-06-30 00:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Good. Let's just agree to stay out of each other's threads from now on
mmk? At least mine have a point.
Tashi
2006-06-30 16:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
And that, says Ratzinger, is the "theologian's position today . . . the
appearance of a clown trying in vain to make people listen to his
message!
How profound! Ratzinger is quite the theologian!

The " Dictatorship of Relativism " I'm sure Ratzinger would love to
in act, in the free world. Problem is.... the Absolute can not exist
within relative. However, the phrase " Dictatorship of the Relative"
is nothing more than an all too common SLOGAN....... like " Just say
yes, to Jesus," "'The War on Terror", " People of Faith" all
meaningless SLOGANS.
However if one analyzes this slogan further, one can see some
truth. Dictator represents absolute, and here lies the irony.
Ratzinger is saying nothing more than HE would like to dictate the
absolute, and have control over others relativity. In the end
Ratzinger has placed yet another profundity on a ship with holes in it.


In Buddhist Teaching there are two Truths, absolute and relative.
The term relative means one event influencing another, and many
different events, of the past and present coming together to create a
present situation. This is what's call relative truth, as each event
relates to a past event. Absolute Truth exists independent of relative
interdependency. The western term God could perhaps be used as a
another word for Absolute Truth, however Ratzinger exists in the
relative world, and can only present his interpretation of the
Absolute, in relative terms. BTW so is Plato, etc.

Jackson I noticed no mention in your list of famous quotes any people
living east of Israel. You might want to avoid all the bullshit these
western theologians echo, and head straight to the source of the Nile.
MT
Post by Jackson
"In his medieval, or at any rate old-fashioned clown's costume he is
simply not taken seriously. Whatever he says, he is ticketed and
classified, so to speak by his role. Whatever he does in his attempts
to demonstrate his seriousness people always know in advance that he is
in fact just --- a clown. They are already familiar with what he is
talking about, and know he is just giving a performance which has
little or nothing to do with 'reality.'
"So, they can listen to him quite happily without having to worry too
seriously about what he is saying."
a***@yahoo.com
2006-06-30 02:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
Post by John Sloan
snip appeals to authority for the existence of god <
And now, using the same approach, I will demonstrate the folly of not
*************************
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to [not believing in Santa Claus],
but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to [Santa]."
- Francis Bacon
"Beauty is the gift of [Santa Claus]."
-Aristotle
"When speaking of divine perfection, we signify that [Santa Claus] is just
and true and loving, the author of order, not disorder, of good, not evil.
We signify that he is justice, that he is truth, that he is love, that he is
order, that he is the very progress of which we were speaking; and that
wherever these qualities exist, whether in the human soul or
in the order of nature, there [Santa Claus] exists."
-Plato
"To sustain the belief that there is no [Santa Claus], [not believing in
Santa Claus] has to demonstrate infinite knowledge. Because their
declaration is tantamount to saying, 'I have infinite knowledge that there
is no [Santa Claus] in existence with
infinite knowledge.'"
- Ravi K. Zacharias
"Science without [Santa] is lame, [Santa Claus] without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
"Settle it, therefore, in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or
forgotten, that [not believing in Santa Claus] is an inhuman, bloody,
ferocious system, equally hostile to every useful restraint, and to every
virtuous affection; that leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round
us to awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and earth; its first
object
is to dethrone [Santa Claus], its next to destroy man."
- Robert Hall
"Those who tell us that they deny the existence of [Santa Claus] are merely
substituting one [santa] for another."
-Fulton Sheen
"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is rather in the life than in the heart of
man."
- Francis Bacon
"When men live as if there were no [Santa Claus], it becomes expedient for
them that there should be none; and then they endeavor to persuade
themselves so."
- John Tillotson
"[Not believing in Santa Claus] is the result of ignorance and pride, of
strong sense and feeble reasons, of good eating and ill living."
- Jeremy Collier
"That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will
no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall
into a most ingenious treatise of [anti-Santaism]."
- Jonathan Swift
"Really, a young [person who doesn't believe in Santa Claus] cannot guard
his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side."
-C.S. Lewis
"And the cause of everything is that which we call [Santa Claus]. To know
[Santa] and live is the same thing. [Santa Claus] is Life."
-Leo Tolstoy
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy
of life is when men are afraid of [Santa's workshop]."
-Plato
****************
Are you as convinced as I am?
John Sloan
Hi John, you've finally convinced me that you possess a mind superior
to that of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon....
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
and
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/god-as-cosmic-santa-claus-and-bible-as.html
And please note again that I don't claim to be a Christian. I'm
interested only in truth.
Nah, Epicurius made the greek philosophers old hat and obsolete and
that was 1700 years ago. Get hep, daddy-o.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/epicurius.php

ACAA
Vol
2006-06-30 09:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
Hi John, you've finally convinced me that you possess a mind superior
to that of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon....
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
That is without doubt one of the most desperate forays into self-serving
"logic" I've ever seen. Deluded and disturbed on a grand scale.

Love the way he puts on his physics cap when assessing the merits of
"invisible pink unicorns" and quickly takes it off when it suits his own
needs.

He misses the point entirely. It *is* ridicules to imagine "pink invisible
unicorns" as a possible reality, but that's reason why people choose it as
a damn comparison in the first place!
Recuerdos Lover
2006-06-30 16:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
Hi John, you've finally convinced me that you possess a mind superior
to that of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon....
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
I couldn't read after a few paragraphs. Almost every brick of his
foundation is logically flawed. At first, I found Jackson interesting
because he seemed to have so much lined up. But when you actually
follow the links, you realize that half of them are utterly
compromised. It's amazing that he thinks these could possibly be
convincing. These people are still waiting for the flying saucer to
come down and take them away to the Andromeda system.
Larry Deack
2006-06-30 17:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
These people are still waiting for the flying saucer to
come down and take them away to the Andromeda system.
We are still orbiting and watching and won't be picking up any humans
until the virus runs its course. Reports to the contrary are bogus.

Hey, would you stop your hummer in the jungle to pick up a maniacal
monkey with Ebola and a gun?
Tashi
2006-06-30 18:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
I couldn't read after a few paragraphs. Almost every brick of his
foundation is logically flawed. At first, I found Jackson interesting
because he seemed to have so much lined up. But when you actually
follow the links, you realize that half of them are utterly
compromised. It's amazing that he thinks these could possibly be
convincing. These people are still waiting for the flying saucer to
come down and take them away to the Andromeda system.
That's because Jackson is someone other than who he says he is.
He's playing Devils advocate. If one really believed this, one might be
a bit more passioned about it. Jaskson's analytical mind is sharp,
therefore, his presentation of this flawed science is rather revealing,
as to, his true identity.
MT
Tashi
2006-06-30 15:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
And please note again that I don't claim to be a Christian. I'm
interested only in truth.
And which variety might this come in, the Absolute or the Relative?
MT
John Sloan
2006-06-30 21:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
Hi John, you've finally convinced me that you possess a mind superior
to that of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon....
Thank you, but you are mistaken.
Post by Jackson
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
The argument from design. Used by most religions to justify a belief in
their particular god or gods. "What else explains the universe as it is?"
If it is valid, then why the christian god as opposed to the Greek gods or
any others? Whatever god a particular sect chooses to believe in based on
this argument is an entirely arbitray and parochial choice. Under the
argument from design you could invent any god you want to explain the
universe. Very convenient, but not reasonable. It in no way establishes
the existence of the christian god (or any other).
Post by Jackson
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/god-as-cosmic-santa-claus-and-bible-as.html
Interesting about Santa Claus. I chose that fable to show not necessarily
that there isn't a god, but how ridiculous was your appeal to authority to
bolster your position. I chose something we could agree doesn't exist to
demonstrate that no matter what a person's credentials we cannot take them
at their word on the basis of their personal prestige or prior achievments
alone (none of the quotes you mentioned offered arguments, only aphorisms).
I could also have substituted the word "Zeus," but I was afraid that would
confuse people.

John Sloan
Jackson
2006-06-30 21:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Sloan
Post by Jackson
Hi John, you've finally convinced me that you possess a mind superior
to that of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon....
Thank you, but you are mistaken.
Post by Jackson
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
The argument from design. Used by most religions to justify a belief in
their particular god or gods. "What else explains the universe as it is?"
If it is valid, then why the christian god as opposed to the Greek gods or
any others? Whatever god a particular sect chooses to believe in based on
this argument is an entirely arbitray and parochial choice. Under the
argument from design you could invent any god you want to explain the
universe. Very convenient, but not reasonable. It in no way establishes
the existence of the christian god (or any other).
Post by Jackson
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/god-as-cosmic-santa-claus-and-bible-as.html
Interesting about Santa Claus. I chose that fable to show not necessarily
that there isn't a god, but how ridiculous was your appeal to authority to
bolster your position. I chose something we could agree doesn't exist to
demonstrate that no matter what a person's credentials we cannot take them
at their word on the basis of their personal prestige or prior achievments
alone (none of the quotes you mentioned offered arguments, only aphorisms).
I could also have substituted the word "Zeus," but I was afraid that would
confuse people.
John Sloan
Hi John, I remember when I used to use these same arguments against
theists. Dig deeper and you're going to find that they're vacuous. I
recommend starting with E.F. Schumacher's A Guide for the Perplexed,
and then moving on to Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity. Your view of
the world is impoverished. Begin to open your eyes. And with that, I've
done all I can for you.

What piece are you working on at the moment?
John Sloan
2006-07-01 06:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
Hi John, I remember when I used to use these same arguments against
theists.
I don't use them against theists, I use them against the notion that god is
part of the universe.
Post by Jackson
Dig deeper and you're going to find that they're vacuous.
Can you back that up with an argument (in your own words this time)? I
assume you must have something, or you wouldn't have changed your mind.
Just make sure you aren't assuming the very thing you're setting out to
prove.
Post by Jackson
What piece are you working on at the moment?
I'm working the kinks out of "Zapateado" by Regino Sainz de la Maza.

John Sloan
Jez
2006-07-01 11:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Sloan
Post by Jackson
Hi John, you've finally convinced me that you possess a mind superior
to that of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon....
Thank you, but you are mistaken.
Post by Jackson
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
The argument from design. Used by most religions to justify a belief in
their particular god or gods. "What else explains the universe as it is?"
If it is valid, then why the christian god as opposed to the Greek gods or
any others? Whatever god a particular sect chooses to believe in based on
this argument is an entirely arbitray and parochial choice. Under the
argument from design you could invent any god you want to explain the
universe. Very convenient, but not reasonable. It in no way establishes
the existence of the christian god (or any other).
Post by Jackson
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/god-as-cosmic-santa-claus-and-bible-as.html
Interesting about Santa Claus. I chose that fable to show not necessarily
that there isn't a god, but how ridiculous was your appeal to authority to
bolster your position. I chose something we could agree doesn't exist to
demonstrate that no matter what a person's credentials we cannot take them
at their word on the basis of their personal prestige or prior achievments
alone (none of the quotes you mentioned offered arguments, only
aphorisms). I could also have substituted the word "Zeus," but I was
afraid that would confuse people.
Father Xmas eh....

http://www.jamesarthur.net/mm_01.html

:)
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
William D Clinger
2006-06-30 21:56:34 UTC
Permalink
The way that most men deal with traditions, even
traditions of their own country, is to receive them
all alike as they are delivered, without applying any
critical test whatever....So little pains do the vulgar
take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily
the first story that comes to hand.

Thucydides
as translated by Richard Crawley, 1874
socrates
2006-06-30 22:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by William D Clinger
The way that most men deal with traditions, even
traditions of their own country, is to receive them
all alike as they are delivered, without applying any
critical test whatever....So little pains do the vulgar
take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily
the first story that comes to hand.
Thucydides
as translated by Richard Crawley, 1874
And I took Thucydides without testing it, it being the first story at
hand....:)
William D Clinger
2006-07-01 03:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by socrates
And I took Thucydides without testing it, it being the first story at
hand....:)
And because you trusted Jackson's recommendation.
Shame on you!

Will
Jez
2006-06-30 11:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson
Post by Charlie
Post by Jackson
More accurately, militant atheism is a substitute for religion pursued
with religious fervor.
Whatever militant atheism is, something you made up? I haven't heard of
atheists going to war and killing in the name of jesus.
Ok jackson, you can go find the obscure case and build your whole bigoted
opinion on it now, and ignore that it is christians and muslims, basically,
who have creeds of hate and repression. I haven't met too many atheists who
want to impose their belief systems on the rest of us, to the point of
killing in the name of their beliefs or getting others to do it in the name
of patriotism. The world has to be saved from christians and muslims, not
atheists. Killing in the name of the prince of peace, what a hoot!
Charlie
Hello Charlie, here's a bit of militant atheism, hardly obscure, which
has produced a staggering body count far eclipsing the totality of all
religious wars combined throughout history: communism.
What happened in the Soviet Union was NOT communism, it was Totalitarianism.
Quite a different thing.

Stalin, BTW, was trained to be a Priest......so I wonder where his murderous
urges came from...
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
John D. Rimmer
2006-06-30 12:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Jackson
Post by Charlie
Post by Jackson
More accurately, militant atheism is a substitute for religion pursued
with religious fervor.
Whatever militant atheism is, something you made up? I haven't heard of
atheists going to war and killing in the name of jesus.
Ok jackson, you can go find the obscure case and build your whole bigoted
opinion on it now, and ignore that it is christians and muslims, basically,
who have creeds of hate and repression. I haven't met too many atheists who
want to impose their belief systems on the rest of us, to the point of
killing in the name of their beliefs or getting others to do it in the name
of patriotism. The world has to be saved from christians and muslims, not
atheists. Killing in the name of the prince of peace, what a hoot!
Charlie
Hello Charlie, here's a bit of militant atheism, hardly obscure, which
has produced a staggering body count far eclipsing the totality of all
religious wars combined throughout history: communism.
What happened in the Soviet Union was NOT communism, it was
Totalitarianism.
Quite a different thing.
Jez,

Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?

John
Jez
2006-06-30 12:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D. Rimmer
Post by Jez
Post by Jackson
Post by Charlie
Post by Jackson
More accurately, militant atheism is a substitute for religion pursued
with religious fervor.
Whatever militant atheism is, something you made up? I haven't heard of
atheists going to war and killing in the name of jesus.
Ok jackson, you can go find the obscure case and build your whole bigoted
opinion on it now, and ignore that it is christians and muslims, basically,
who have creeds of hate and repression. I haven't met too many atheists who
want to impose their belief systems on the rest of us, to the point of
killing in the name of their beliefs or getting others to do it in the name
of patriotism. The world has to be saved from christians and muslims, not
atheists. Killing in the name of the prince of peace, what a hoot!
Charlie
Hello Charlie, here's a bit of militant atheism, hardly obscure, which
has produced a staggering body count far eclipsing the totality of all
religious wars combined throughout history: communism.
What happened in the Soviet Union was NOT communism, it was
Totalitarianism.
Quite a different thing.
Jez,
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
Nowhere that I'm aware of.
That they use the label, 'Communism' ,doesn't make it a, 'Communist state'.

But then most folks belive we live in a, 'Democracy'.
More fool them.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
John LaCroix
2006-06-30 13:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D. Rimmer
Jez,
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
Why, that would be the world where everyone has one view and therefore
there is only one truth so everyone is in agreement = no need for
totalitarism. Unfortunately, not the planet we are living on.

John L.
Steven Bornfeld
2006-06-30 20:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Steve
Jackson
2006-06-30 21:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi guys, here are some words from the Dalai Lama. Even though the guy
is addicted to bacon, he speaks some truth here:

The Dalai Lama Speaks Out Against Fashionable Buddhism in Europe

[CND 01/02/01] The Dalai Lama spoke out against the current craze for
Buddhism in Europe....In reply to the fashion for Buddhism in France,
the Dalai Lama said: "I believe that the French, who are Christian by
culture and ancestry, should remain Christian. It is better to stick to
your own traditional values ... It is only if, after mature reflection,
you believe that Buddhism could offer you more than Christianity that
you should become a Buddhist."

The Buddhist spiritual leader believes Buddhism and Christianity have
much in common: "the same philosophy of love for the other, the
aspiration to lift the human being above his vices, compassion and
forgiveness." He said he often told his monks to look for inspiration
to St. Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

The Dalai Lama explained that Buddhists believed in "an infinite number
of lives" while [Christians] "believe there is only one, and in a
creator." He further differentiated: "You believe you have free choice,
while we only swear by karma. Every action committed has its
consequences in this life or another ... We Tibetans, for example, are
suffering today a black karma for what we did in previous lives,
feudalism, closure to the world. Once we have expiated this karma, we
will be free."
wollybird
2006-06-30 23:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Steve
Nope, not according to the article (interesting article by the way).
Marxism has never existed. It is an unnatural state.
Matanya Ophee
2006-06-30 23:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Steve
Nope, not according to the article (interesting article by the way).
Marxism has never existed. It is an unnatural state.
Agreed. As one who spent the better part of my youth as a kibbutz
member, I can tell you it always was an ideological sham where some
kibbutz members were more equal than others. It looked good on paper,
but in practice it was just as exploitational as any capitalist
scheme. Once I figured this out, being at the bottom rang of the
pecking order, I left.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
Jackson
2006-07-01 00:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Agreed. As one who spent the better part of my youth as a kibbutz
member, I can tell you it always was an ideological sham where some
kibbutz members were more equal than others. It looked good on paper,
but in practice it was just as exploitational as any capitalist
scheme. Once I figured this out, being at the bottom rang of the
pecking order, I left.
"Egalitarians usually have a very strong sense of hierarchy."

-Theodore Dalrymple, from here: http://tinyurl.com/zu8j6
Steven Bornfeld
2006-07-01 01:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by wollybird
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Steve
Nope, not according to the article (interesting article by the way).
Marxism has never existed. It is an unnatural state.
Agreed. As one who spent the better part of my youth as a kibbutz
member, I can tell you it always was an ideological sham where some
kibbutz members were more equal than others. It looked good on paper,
but in practice it was just as exploitational as any capitalist
scheme. Once I figured this out, being at the bottom rang of the
pecking order, I left.
Well, you I won't contest. ;-)

Steve
Post by Matanya Ophee
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
Steven Bornfeld
2006-07-01 00:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Steve
Nope, not according to the article (interesting article by the way).
Marxism has never existed. It is an unnatural state.
Operationally it is. Yes, Marxists rejected states. But we don't have
pure capitalism either--demanding purity of Marxism is "unnatural"

Steve
wollybird
2006-07-01 01:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by wollybird
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Steve
Nope, not according to the article (interesting article by the way).
Marxism has never existed. It is an unnatural state.
Operationally it is. Yes, Marxists rejected states. But we don't have
pure capitalism either--demanding purity of Marxism is "unnatural"
Steve
The article said the Kabutizes were now indistinguishable from
capitalist enterprises... they deteriorated to this state. Marxism
teaches that the dictatorship of the proletariat would disappear...
Quite the opposite happened in real life. People are not by nature
egalitarian... even if most were, it only takes one to upset the
system.
Capitalism is evolutionary, not revolutionary
Jez
2006-07-01 11:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by wollybird
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Steve
Nope, not according to the article (interesting article by the way).
Marxism has never existed. It is an unnatural state.
Operationally it is. Yes, Marxists rejected states. But we don't have
pure capitalism either--demanding purity of Marxism is "unnatural"
Steve
The article said the Kabutizes were now indistinguishable from
capitalist enterprises... they deteriorated to this state. Marxism
teaches that the dictatorship of the proletariat would disappear...
Quite the opposite happened in real life. People are not by nature
egalitarian... even if most were, it only takes one to upset the
system.
Capitalism is evolutionary, not revolutionary
No, Capitalism is a form of Parasitism.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-07-04 12:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by wollybird
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by John D. Rimmer
Where might one find communism without the totalitarianism? Soviets?
China? Cuba? N Korea?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Steve
Nope, not according to the article (interesting article by the way).
Marxism has never existed. It is an unnatural state.
Operationally it is. Yes, Marxists rejected states. But we don't have
pure capitalism either--demanding purity of Marxism is "unnatural"
Steve
The article said the Kabutizes were now indistinguishable from capitalist
enterprises... they deteriorated to this state. Marxism teaches that the
dictatorship of the proletariat
Marx never heard of any 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. I suggest you
read a good summary/commentary on 'Das Kapital' etc. to find out what Marx
was all about, instead of parroting anti-Soviet propaganda. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
wollybird
2006-07-04 14:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Marx never heard of any 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. I suggest you
read a good summary/commentary on 'Das Kapital' etc. to find out what Marx
was all about, instead of parroting anti-Soviet propaganda. daveA
EESh David, Your ego is only exceeded by you lazyness, The first entry
if you google "dictatorship of the proletariat":
http://tinyurl.com/c3vt8

No "Communist" country has ever had this system. My contention is Marx
had a poor understanding of human nature. As for "anti Soviet
propaganda", it was vastly understated.
PS I read das Kapital 30 years ago. It's a pile of crap.
Larry Deack
2006-07-04 14:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
PS I read das Kapital 30 years ago. It's a pile of crap.
RMCG is a pile of crap too.

Marx was just as good at understanding human behavior as Rand. Both
are worth the read and both seem to follow Sturgeon's Law just like RMCG.

YMMV
wollybird
2006-07-04 14:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Marx was just as good at understanding human behavior as Rand.> YMMV
Not even close.
Larry Deack
2006-07-04 15:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Marx was just as good at understanding human behavior as Rand.> YMMV
Not even close.
Exactly!

wollybird
2006-07-04 14:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Post by wollybird
PS I read das Kapital 30 years ago. It's a pile of crap.
RMCG is a pile of crap too.
But you love it!
John Philip Dimick
2006-06-30 16:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
What happened in the Soviet Union was NOT communism, it was Totalitarianism.
I say tuh-MAY-toe.
Jez
2006-07-01 11:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Philip Dimick
Post by Jez
What happened in the Soviet Union was NOT communism, it was
Totalitarianism.
I say tuh-MAY-toe.
Then your an idiot...it's Tomato.

Where in Marx does it say Communism requires a Dictator ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
wollybird
2006-07-01 13:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Where in Marx does it say Communism requires a Dictator ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
Jez, You should stick to Country Dancing and Advanced VooDoo.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a cornerstone of the Marxist model
http://www.heggy.org/books/imperative/chapter_2.htm

Problem is, it's GOOD to be dictator.
e***@yahoo.com
2006-07-01 14:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Post by Jez
Where in Marx does it say Communism requires a Dictator ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
Jez, You should stick to Country Dancing and Advanced VooDoo.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a cornerstone of the Marxist model
http://www.heggy.org/books/imperative/chapter_2.htm
Problem is, it's GOOD to be dictator.
Dubya! Is that you?
Jez
2006-07-02 11:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Post by Jez
Where in Marx does it say Communism requires a Dictator ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
Jez, You should stick to Country Dancing and Advanced VooDoo.
LOL.......Get yer own Degree here..
http://www.cynicalbastards.com/ubs/

:)
Post by wollybird
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a cornerstone of the Marxist model
Ahh indeed ! I wasn't thinking on those lines at all, but rather an
Individual Dictator..

'Dictatorship of the proletariat' is a rather unfortunate phrase...
Post by wollybird
http://www.heggy.org/books/imperative/chapter_2.htm
Some interesting articles on that site....Not really come across much
Egyptian political writing...Thanks !
Post by wollybird
Problem is, it's GOOD to be dictator.
Bush and Blair seem to think so :)
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Tom Sacold
2006-06-29 07:04:18 UTC
Permalink
<snip>

Atheism is simply disbelief in supernatural explanations of life, the
universe and everything, therefore it is not a religion. It is a
philosophical point of view.

Anyway, what has this got to do with classical guitar?
Vol
2006-06-29 10:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Gay
Atheists are always trying to crusade and destroy the religions of
other people, replacing those religions with their beliefs, trying to
force others to share their beliefs, because THEIR system of belief is
somehow better.
Shocking.
So not believing in fairy tale religions makes me religious? Yeah, right!
I'm an atheists, but I'm not on a crusade. At most I might mock fully grown
adults who believe in invisible men in the sky, but that's about it.

I don't believe in Santa Claus or worship pixies in the garden either. Is
that also a bad thing?

Joey, do you believe that Elvis is alive?
wollybird
2006-06-29 11:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vol
Post by Joey Gay
Atheists are always trying to crusade and destroy the religions of
I don't believe in Santa Claus or worship pixies in the garden either. Is
that also a bad thing?
Joey, do you believe that Elvis is alive?
maybe not, but I bet he believes in Santa Claus right about now.
Vol
2006-06-29 12:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by wollybird
Post by Vol
Post by Joey Gay
Atheists are always trying to crusade and destroy the religions of
I don't believe in Santa Claus or worship pixies in the garden either. Is
that also a bad thing?
Joey, do you believe that Elvis is alive?
maybe not, but I bet he believes in Santa Claus right about now.
Why what's happened, did he just receive another blow to head?
Ho Ho Ho. Merry Christmas Joey!
wollybird
2006-06-29 12:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vol
Post by wollybird
maybe not, but I bet he believes in Santa Claus right about now.
Why what's happened, did he just receive another blow to head?
Ho Ho Ho. Merry Christmas Joey!
Merry Christmas, Joey. Hey go easy guys, Joey is a preacher.
Jez
2006-06-29 11:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Gay
Don't shoot the messenger........
Remember, religions don't have to include an afterlife, or contain a
god or pantheon of gods.
Atheists are always preaching their beliefs and trying to impose their
beliefs on others.
Bollocks.

The deluded religious fools are those who are always preaching their crap...

Atheists have no 'Gods' to preach about.

Go argue with the fine folks over in alt.atheism.......they'll tear any
theological argument you may deludingly hold, to shreds.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-06-29 11:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Gay
Don't shoot the messenger........
Bang. Atheism is not a religion. There are Christian atheists, and those
are folks who *believe* that there is no Christian god.

Most atheists are Buddhists, who not only don't believe in the
Judeochristian God but are convinced that there is nothing permanent and
unchanging, and that anything resembling the Christian god, even if such a
prodigy existed, would be irrelevant to salvation. Christians don't mind
Christian atheism so much, but they are enraged by folks who think the God
of their fathers would be impotent, ignorant, and irrelevant, even if He
existed.

The *majority* of atheists don't *care* whether there is a "supreme
being" or not. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
h***@verizon.net
2006-06-29 13:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Let's see:

Oxford English Reference Dictionary:

religion 1) the belief in a superhuman controlling power esp. in a
personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2) the
expression of this in worship. 3) a particular system of faith and
worship. 4) life under monastic vows. (the way of religion) 5) a thing
that one is devoted to (football is their religion)


Is athiesm a religion? Under definitions 1, 2 and 4, no. Under
definitions 3 and 5, maybe.

Let's define our terms before we start throwing ideas around.

Seth
John LaCroix
2006-06-29 14:04:35 UTC
Permalink
I am not an antheist probably an agnostic. I believe in a higher being.
For me the story behind what I was taught as a child (Christianity) is
too complicated. The God of the bible is a bit too standoff-ish these
days, seemed like he was much more involved 2000 years ago. How come we
don't have all of the prophets we use to? But I digress.

I think that some believe in God simply because of fear of the
alternative. Without God, meaning in this world is up to us, no guiding
hand. Just people. Promises of salvation I guess helps keep some on the
right path while they are in this world - out of fear of punishment and
damnation.

Frequently I ask myself why does God let terrible things happen? I know
this is a question many ask themselves. I got my answer one day while I
was out jogging. On the side of the road I saw a butterfly in the
clutches of a praying mantis. I thought to myself, I could stop,
intervene, set the butterfly free, piss off the mantis for taking his
dinner away. From the perspective of the insects (if they had human
type intelligence) God intervened: the butterfly experienced a miracle
(not so much for the mantis). If I just continued on my way, the
Butterfly might ask - 'why doesn't God help me, doesn't he/she care?'
and the answer would be that it's not that he/she doesn't care, God
elected not to interfere. This thought has me now thinking that the God
we think about just lets things happen because (1) he/she is not in
fact omnipotent (because some things slip by unnoticed), or (2) he/she
doesn't want to intervene (maybe doesn't care).

In the case of (1) we would be worshiping a superior lifeform. In the
case of (2) who wants to worship a God that either doesn't care or lets
bad things happen without doing anthing about it? Neither are
satisfactory to me. What to do, what to do?

Answer is simple: nothing. Just live life, be the best person you can
be and don't just do it exchange for some reward in the hereafter. If
there is no hereafter, you will have waited for nothing or worse: lived
your live on the path to an empty promise. If there is a hereafter, you
will have done the right things for the right reasons. If God is pissed
that you didn't worship as you should of and throws your ass in hell,
well at least you were a good person.

We are given free will so God can see if we will do the right thing,
given a choice. Why would God bother? Is some cosmic game being played
were we are just all pawns? Making sense of all this really isn't as
neat and tidy as my religious upbringing sought to make it.

Perhaps when he is ready Jackson will descent from the mountain to
provide the appropriate enlightenment.

John L.
e***@yahoo.com
2006-06-29 14:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John LaCroix
I am not an antheist probably an agnostic. I believe in a higher being.
For me the story behind what I was taught as a child (Christianity) is
too complicated. The God of the bible is a bit too standoff-ish these
days, seemed like he was much more involved 2000 years ago. How come we
don't have all of the prophets we use to? But I digress.
I think that some believe in God simply because of fear of the
alternative. Without God, meaning in this world is up to us, no guiding
hand. Just people. Promises of salvation I guess helps keep some on the
right path while they are in this world - out of fear of punishment and
damnation.
Frequently I ask myself why does God let terrible things happen? I know
this is a question many ask themselves. I got my answer one day while I
was out jogging. On the side of the road I saw a butterfly in the
clutches of a praying mantis. I thought to myself, I could stop,
intervene, set the butterfly free, piss off the mantis for taking his
dinner away. From the perspective of the insects (if they had human
type intelligence) God intervened: the butterfly experienced a miracle
(not so much for the mantis). If I just continued on my way, the
Butterfly might ask - 'why doesn't God help me, doesn't he/she care?'
and the answer would be that it's not that he/she doesn't care, God
elected not to interfere. This thought has me now thinking that the God
we think about just lets things happen because (1) he/she is not in
fact omnipotent (because some things slip by unnoticed), or (2) he/she
doesn't want to intervene (maybe doesn't care).
In the case of (1) we would be worshiping a superior lifeform. In the
case of (2) who wants to worship a God that either doesn't care or lets
bad things happen without doing anthing about it? Neither are
satisfactory to me. What to do, what to do?
Answer is simple: nothing. Just live life, be the best person you can
be and don't just do it exchange for some reward in the hereafter. If
there is no hereafter, you will have waited for nothing or worse: lived
your live on the path to an empty promise. If there is a hereafter, you
will have done the right things for the right reasons. If God is pissed
that you didn't worship as you should of and throws your ass in hell,
well at least you were a good person.
We are given free will so God can see if we will do the right thing,
given a choice. Why would God bother? Is some cosmic game being played
were we are just all pawns? Making sense of all this really isn't as
neat and tidy as my religious upbringing sought to make it.
Perhaps when he is ready Jackson will descent from the mountain to
provide the appropriate enlightenment.
John L.
Religion works on the same assumption that the right front wheel of a
car can understand the technology and operation of the entire car.

Ed S.
John LaCroix
2006-06-29 14:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Religion works on the same assumption that the right front wheel of a
car can understand the technology and operation of the entire car.
Ed S.
Nice! I like that, hehe..
John LaCroix
2006-06-29 14:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Religion works on the same assumption that the right front wheel of a
car can understand the technology and operation of the entire car.
Ed S.
Actually, reminds me of a quandry I have about psychologists studying
the brain - the difficulty of using the object under study (the mind)
to study the inner workings (or the mind).

John L.
Recuerdos Lover
2006-06-29 14:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Hmmm, didn't the Chinese and Soviet Communist regimes impose atheism on
their peasants?

Not that I have any sympathy toward the view of Jackson of course.
Calling atheism a religion...now that's a good way to drag them down to
your level!
Tashi
2006-06-29 16:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John LaCroix
We are given free will so God can see if we will do the right thing,
given a choice. Why would God bother? Is some cosmic game being played
were we are just all pawns? Making sense of all this really isn't as
neat and tidy as my religious upbringing sought to make.
One day The Buddha was giving meditation instruction to his student.
After receiving his instruction the student went off to practice his
teaching. After sometime many thoughts arose in the students mind as
to the nature of existence, where we came from, why we are here etc.
He went back to the Buddha with all these questions. The Buddha
said, the only teaching I gave you was how to meditate, not the nature
of existence. Then said, If someone shoots you with an arrow, before
pulling it out, do you ask from which direction it came from, who shot
you, why they shot you etc? One must first take out the arrow then you
can ask questions.
MT
Post by John LaCroix
John L.
Larry Deack
2006-06-29 16:24:50 UTC
Permalink
The Buddha said, the only teaching
I gave you was how to meditate, not
the nature of existence.
Meditations on Nature and Existence

"Well... ummmm, I... uh... well... uh... uh...
...any other questions?"

-Void
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-06-29 19:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@verizon.net
religion 1) the belief in a superhuman controlling power esp. in a
personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2) the expression
of this in worship. 3) a particular system of faith and worship. 4) life
under monastic vows. (the way of religion) 5) a thing that one is devoted
to (football is their religion)
Is athiesm a religion? Under definitions 1, 2 and 4, no. Under
definitions 3 and 5, maybe.
Let's define our terms before we start throwing ideas around.
The dictionary definition of religion above, a belief system, rules out
Buddhism as well as most of the religion of the ancient and non-European
world. Find a non-Christian dictionary. Lots of luck. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Tashi
2006-06-30 15:56:59 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
The dictionary definition of religion above, a belief system, rules out
Buddhism as well as most of the religion of the ancient and non-European
world. Find a non-Christian dictionary. Lots of luck. daveA
Yes Dave, this seems to be Jackson's first blunder. His second
blunder is basing his theory on his first blunder.
MT
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
--
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Tashi
2006-06-29 15:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Joey Gay
Don't shoot the messenger........
Bang. Atheism is not a religion. There are Christian atheists, and those
are folks who *believe* that there is no Christian god.
Most atheists are Buddhists, who not only don't believe in the
Judeochristian God but are convinced that there is nothing permanent and
unchanging, and that anything resembling the Christian god, even if such a
prodigy existed, would be irrelevant to salvation. Christians don't mind
Christian atheism so much, but they are enraged by folks who think the God
of their fathers would be impotent, ignorant, and irrelevant, even if He
existed.
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would even
recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them.
MT
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
The *majority* of atheists don't *care* whether there is a "supreme
being" or not. daveA
--
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
socrates
2006-06-30 18:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Joey Gay
Don't shoot the messenger........
Bang. Atheism is not a religion. There are Christian atheists, and those
are folks who *believe* that there is no Christian god.
Most atheists are Buddhists, who not only don't believe in the
Judeochristian God but are convinced that there is nothing permanent and
unchanging, and that anything resembling the Christian god, even if such a
prodigy existed, would be irrelevant to salvation. Christians don't mind
Christian atheism so much, but they are enraged by folks who think the God
of their fathers would be impotent, ignorant, and irrelevant, even if He
existed.
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would even
recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them.
MT
Actually, you can't brush with such a broad stroke. Not all Buddhists
believe in a God- some do some don't.....
e***@yahoo.com
2006-06-30 19:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by socrates
Post by Tashi
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Joey Gay
Don't shoot the messenger........
Bang. Atheism is not a religion. There are Christian atheists, and those
are folks who *believe* that there is no Christian god.
Most atheists are Buddhists, who not only don't believe in the
Judeochristian God but are convinced that there is nothing permanent and
unchanging, and that anything resembling the Christian god, even if such a
prodigy existed, would be irrelevant to salvation. Christians don't mind
Christian atheism so much, but they are enraged by folks who think the God
of their fathers would be impotent, ignorant, and irrelevant, even if He
existed.
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would even
recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them.
MT
Actually, you can't brush with such a broad stroke. Not all Buddhists
believe in a God- some do some don't.....
Not sure what beliefs have been added in the rural areas of the world
but one of the main tenents of Buddhism is the human mind can't
comprehend god/creator so it is no use to go there. Refer back to the
post with the Buddha story. But some areas of Southeast Asia see
Buddha much like Christ with miracles and super powers. And if you
start to get into the sutras you'll find just as much crap as any other
religion.

Ed S.
Tashi
2006-07-01 15:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Not sure what beliefs have been added in the rural areas of the world
but one of the main tenents of Buddhism is the human mind can't
comprehend god/creator so it is no use to go there. Refer back to the
post with the Buddha story. But some areas of Southeast Asia see
Buddha much like Christ with miracles and super powers. And if you
start to get into the sutras you'll find just as much crap as any other
religion.
Ed S.
To lump Buddhism together with all other religions simply reveals
your particular level of ignorance. There is a very clear, and
substantial difference between Buddhism and all western religions.
Western religions are monotheistic, they believe in a single
Supreme God. The very foundations of Christianity and Islam, say God is
Prue, and Man is not, therefore creating a separation between God and
Man, and implying Man is incapable of purity by nature of him being
Man. Buddhism teaches the fundamental nature of the mind itself, is
pure, and not separate from ( for lack of a better term God).
Therefore belief in a God, is not the means to salvation, as western
religions claim.

The other very significant difference between them is the absence of "
Converting People". Buddhists don't prosthletize, and never had any
such tradition, they in fact, believe it to be negative Karma to do so.
I understand your frustration with the state of religion in this
particular age. When people no longer understand the essence of
religion they revert to the empty shell of fundamentalism. I've never
heard of a Fundamentalist Buddhist, I find it quite impossible, for
extremist views, to find any refuge in Buddhist teaching.
MT
Larry Deack
2006-07-01 16:00:55 UTC
Permalink
I've never heard of a Fundamentalist Buddhist, I find it quite impossible, for
extremist views, to find any refuge in Buddhist teaching.
How about a Buddhist Army?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0309/p07s02-woap.html

These guys don;t seem to have an army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jains

But some guys from Germany turned their holiest symbol into something
most people in the world see as the epitome of violence and evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

How's that for primate fun and games? I love it when an alpha primate
pisses on the symbols of those they dominate so the other primates
forget it once belonged to somebody else but still get the message that
they better kowtow too.
Tashi
2006-07-01 20:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
I've never heard of a Fundamentalist Buddhist, I find it quite impossible, for
extremist views, to find any refuge in Buddhist teaching.
How about a Buddhist Army?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0309/p07s02-woap.html
Participating in political comment does not imply, extremist views.
Post by Larry Deack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jains
But some guys from Germany turned their holiest symbol into something
most people in the world see as the epitome of violence and evil.
The swastika is a symbol found amongst Hindu, Buddhist, and Native
American, cultures. I simply means..... a center and the four sacred
directions. A variation of this symbol is also found in Christian
culture, however the term for this is called a Cross.
MT
Post by Larry Deack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
How's that for primate fun and games? I love it when an alpha primate
pisses on the symbols of those they dominate so the other primates
forget it once belonged to somebody else but still get the message that
they better kowtow too.
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-07-03 16:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Post by Larry Deack
I've never heard of a Fundamentalist Buddhist, I find it quite
impossible, for extremist views, to find any refuge in Buddhist
teaching.
How about a Buddhist Army?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0309/p07s02-woap.html
Participating in political comment does not imply, extremist views.
Post by Larry Deack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jains
But some guys from Germany turned their holiest symbol into something
most people in the world see as the epitome of violence and evil.
The swastika is a symbol found amongst Hindu, Buddhist, and Native
American, cultures. I simply means..... a center and the four sacred
directions.
It's also a firewheel and sun symbol. If a shaft through the
center points North and you look down on it, it tracks the path of the
sun. Clockwise is good, other way is bad, as a sundial. Hitler's was a
bad luck sign. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Alain Reiher
2006-07-01 18:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Not sure what beliefs have been added in the rural areas of the world
but one of the main tenents of Buddhism is the human mind can't
comprehend god/creator so it is no use to go there. Refer back to the
post with the Buddha story. But some areas of Southeast Asia see
Buddha much like Christ with miracles and super powers. And if you
start to get into the sutras you'll find just as much crap as any other
religion.
Ed S.
To lump Buddhism together with all other religions simply reveals
your particular level of ignorance. There is a very clear, and
substantial difference between Buddhism and all western religions.
Western religions are monotheistic, they believe in a single
Supreme God. The very foundations of Christianity and Islam, say God is
Prue, and Man is not, therefore creating a separation between God and
Man, and implying Man is incapable of purity by nature of him being
Man.
Thus creating the need of a knowledgeable mediator that link the people to
the above. Namely ... a priest.

Buddhism teaches the fundamental nature of the mind itself, is
Post by Tashi
pure, and not separate from ( for lack of a better term God).
(The state of) Buddahood is the word!
Post by Tashi
Therefore belief in a God, is not the means to salvation, as western
religions claim.
The other very significant difference between them is the absence of "
Converting People". Buddhists don't prosthletize, and never had any
such tradition, they in fact, believe it to be negative Karma to do so.
Not totally true. They do prosthelize but they never enforce it on people.
They offer. Ultimately, developping your faith and accepting the practice of
Buddhism has to come from within nd becomes a choice.
As I once heard .... easy to accept ... difficult to continue! Tackling
one's own fundamental darkness is no easy task. [;o)

Alain
Post by Tashi
I understand your frustration with the state of religion in this
particular age. When people no longer understand the essence of
religion they revert to the empty shell of fundamentalism. I've never
heard of a Fundamentalist Buddhist, I find it quite impossible, for
extremist views, to find any refuge in Buddhist teaching.
MT
Recuerdos Lover
2006-07-02 00:19:34 UTC
Permalink
There is a sect of Buddhism, Sokka Gakkai International, of the Lotus
Sutra, which does use prosetylization. They call it shakabu and it's
somewhat obnoxious. Shakabu means "break and subdue".
Post by Alain Reiher
Post by Tashi
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Not sure what beliefs have been added in the rural areas of the world
but one of the main tenents of Buddhism is the human mind can't
comprehend god/creator so it is no use to go there. Refer back to the
post with the Buddha story. But some areas of Southeast Asia see
Buddha much like Christ with miracles and super powers. And if you
start to get into the sutras you'll find just as much crap as any other
religion.
Ed S.
To lump Buddhism together with all other religions simply reveals
your particular level of ignorance. There is a very clear, and
substantial difference between Buddhism and all western religions.
Western religions are monotheistic, they believe in a single
Supreme God. The very foundations of Christianity and Islam, say God is
Prue, and Man is not, therefore creating a separation between God and
Man, and implying Man is incapable of purity by nature of him being
Man.
Thus creating the need of a knowledgeable mediator that link the people to
the above. Namely ... a priest.
Buddhism teaches the fundamental nature of the mind itself, is
Post by Tashi
pure, and not separate from ( for lack of a better term God).
(The state of) Buddahood is the word!
Post by Tashi
Therefore belief in a God, is not the means to salvation, as western
religions claim.
The other very significant difference between them is the absence of "
Converting People". Buddhists don't prosthletize, and never had any
such tradition, they in fact, believe it to be negative Karma to do so.
Not totally true. They do prosthelize but they never enforce it on people.
They offer. Ultimately, developping your faith and accepting the practice of
Buddhism has to come from within nd becomes a choice.
As I once heard .... easy to accept ... difficult to continue! Tackling
one's own fundamental darkness is no easy task. [;o)
Alain
Post by Tashi
I understand your frustration with the state of religion in this
particular age. When people no longer understand the essence of
religion they revert to the empty shell of fundamentalism. I've never
heard of a Fundamentalist Buddhist, I find it quite impossible, for
extremist views, to find any refuge in Buddhist teaching.
MT
Alain Reiher
2006-07-02 05:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Hi Recuerdos,

In the same organisation you named there is also a softer approach called
shoju.

Alain
Post by Recuerdos Lover
There is a sect of Buddhism, Sokka Gakkai International, of the Lotus
Sutra, which does use prosetylization. They call it shakabu and it's
somewhat obnoxious. Shakabu means "break and subdue".
Post by Alain Reiher
Post by Tashi
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Not sure what beliefs have been added in the rural areas of the world
but one of the main tenents of Buddhism is the human mind can't
comprehend god/creator so it is no use to go there. Refer back to the
post with the Buddha story. But some areas of Southeast Asia see
Buddha much like Christ with miracles and super powers. And if you
start to get into the sutras you'll find just as much crap as any other
religion.
Ed S.
To lump Buddhism together with all other religions simply reveals
your particular level of ignorance. There is a very clear, and
substantial difference between Buddhism and all western religions.
Western religions are monotheistic, they believe in a single
Supreme God. The very foundations of Christianity and Islam, say God is
Prue, and Man is not, therefore creating a separation between God and
Man, and implying Man is incapable of purity by nature of him being
Man.
Thus creating the need of a knowledgeable mediator that link the people to
the above. Namely ... a priest.
Buddhism teaches the fundamental nature of the mind itself, is
Post by Tashi
pure, and not separate from ( for lack of a better term God).
(The state of) Buddahood is the word!
Post by Tashi
Therefore belief in a God, is not the means to salvation, as western
religions claim.
The other very significant difference between them is the absence of "
Converting People". Buddhists don't prosthletize, and never had any
such tradition, they in fact, believe it to be negative Karma to do so.
Not totally true. They do prosthelize but they never enforce it on people.
They offer. Ultimately, developping your faith and accepting the practice of
Buddhism has to come from within nd becomes a choice.
As I once heard .... easy to accept ... difficult to continue! Tackling
one's own fundamental darkness is no easy task. [;o)
Alain
Post by Tashi
I understand your frustration with the state of religion in this
particular age. When people no longer understand the essence of
religion they revert to the empty shell of fundamentalism. I've never
heard of a Fundamentalist Buddhist, I find it quite impossible, for
extremist views, to find any refuge in Buddhist teaching.
MT
Tashi
2006-07-04 13:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
There is a sect of Buddhism, Sokka Gakkai International, of the Lotus
Sutra, which does use prosetylization. They call it shakabu and it's
somewhat obnoxious. Shakabu means "break and subdue".
Thesedays anyone can proclaim ones self a teacher, and that is the
problem. My teacher a Tibetan Lama in SF once said to me " the ones
who say they are teachers are very smart, and the people who follow
them are very stupid.

The Buddhists say basically one should request the teaching of the
Dharma three times before a teacher can teach. This is the traditional
way Buddhism is taught. If someone chooses to prosetylize the Buddhist
teaching, this person is breaking ranks with tradition. I'm not
familiar with Sokka Gakkai, but do find their practice of
prosetylization quite obnoxious and can only surmise the purpose of
which is to collect money.

All traditions of Buddhism have very strong emphasis on lineage, and
trace all there teachings back to the time of the Buddha himself. If
someone comes along and starts a new tradition this might not be taken
seriously by most teachers.
MT
Tashi
2006-07-01 14:51:51 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by socrates
Post by Tashi
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would even
recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them.
MT
Actually, you can't brush with such a broad stroke. Not all Buddhists
believe in a God- some do some don't.....
You have chosen the slogan ''believe in a God" Buddhists
generally don't use that wording, as belief in something, isn't
critical to it's existence. I can chose to believe the world is round
or not, but this won't change the shape of the world.
All Buddhist's acknowledge the existence of many different
realities, the realm of the Gods being one of them. These realities are
created by oneself, not by a God. The Gods Indra, and Brahma, both
appeared before the Buddha and requested him to teach both Gods, and
humans.

The Gods are still considered to be in cyclic existence. Even though
they temporally reside in Heaven, their Karma generated by good deeds
will eventually run out
MT
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-07-03 16:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tashi
.
Post by socrates
Post by Tashi
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would
even recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them. MT
Actually, you can't brush with such a broad stroke. Not all Buddhists
believe in a God- some do some don't.....
You have chosen the slogan ''believe in a God" Buddhists
generally don't use that wording, as belief in something, isn't critical
to it's existence. I can chose to believe the world is round or not, but
this won't change the shape of the world.
All Buddhist's acknowledge the existence of many different
realities, the realm of the Gods being one of them. These realities are
created by oneself, not by a God. The Gods Indra, and Brahma, both
appeared before the Buddha and requested him to teach both Gods, and
humans.
The Gods are still considered to be in cyclic existence. Even though they
temporally reside in Heaven, their Karma generated by good deeds will
eventually run out
MT
namo tassa bhagavato arihato sammasambuddhassa

All Buddhism is atheistic because there is no dependence on gods for
salvation. That is the sense in which gods are irrelevant, and I don't
have to believe in the existence of Indra or any of that lot to be a
Buddhist.

My stock answer to "Do you believe in God?" is "Believe in God to do
exactly what?".

Everything is belief with Christians, so they are never interested in what
myths and other 'silly stories' mean, unless they come from their bible.
(Some mythic artifacts, such as Yggdrasil, have a fairly obvious and
wise meaning and purpose.) Christians insulate themselves from all the
wisdom of the ancient world as well as from all it's foolishness, and
so become ever more the victims of their own foolishness.

I am not concerned in the least with whether there 'really is' an Indra.
The right question is 'What does this Sutra mean?' What Lord Buddha
meant and what it could mean to me are also simply other ways of asking
the same question. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Recuerdos Lover
2006-07-03 18:59:34 UTC
Permalink
David,
I don't mean to steal your thunder and you're basically right, but
again, the Sokka Gakkai International, of the Lotus Sutra, sect does
have a lot of religious elements. Their founding father, Nichiren,
broke from the rest of Buddhism because he considered them impure and
corrupt. He was then banished to an island, where he spent the rest of
his days penning a succession of strange self-congratulatory rants.
These rants eventually led to the founding of this immensely successful
sect. If you read his writing and the literature about him, you will
see that he is treated as a deity. Also, their current leader, Daisaku
Ikeda is considered to be a minor deity as well. It is part of the
gospel and belief system that he is the equal in impact to Gandhi or
MLK and is primed for sainthood.

I'm not trying to be negative, just pointing out there that all is not
peaches and creamy atheism in the world of Buddha. This is not a minor
sect but a very successful one. Most of the US members seem to be
ex-Christians who were burned by their organizations but retained their
basic "flock" values. On the other hand, the purpose of the SGI is
world peace, which is far nobler in my opinion than protecting the
sanctity of marriage from gays.
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Tashi
.
Post by socrates
Post by Tashi
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would
even recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them. MT
Actually, you can't brush with such a broad stroke. Not all Buddhists
believe in a God- some do some don't.....
You have chosen the slogan ''believe in a God" Buddhists
generally don't use that wording, as belief in something, isn't critical
to it's existence. I can chose to believe the world is round or not, but
this won't change the shape of the world.
All Buddhist's acknowledge the existence of many different
realities, the realm of the Gods being one of them. These realities are
created by oneself, not by a God. The Gods Indra, and Brahma, both
appeared before the Buddha and requested him to teach both Gods, and
humans.
The Gods are still considered to be in cyclic existence. Even though they
temporally reside in Heaven, their Karma generated by good deeds will
eventually run out
MT
namo tassa bhagavato arihato sammasambuddhassa
All Buddhism is atheistic because there is no dependence on gods for
salvation. That is the sense in which gods are irrelevant, and I don't
have to believe in the existence of Indra or any of that lot to be a
Buddhist.
My stock answer to "Do you believe in God?" is "Believe in God to do
exactly what?".
Everything is belief with Christians, so they are never interested in what
myths and other 'silly stories' mean, unless they come from their bible.
(Some mythic artifacts, such as Yggdrasil, have a fairly obvious and
wise meaning and purpose.) Christians insulate themselves from all the
wisdom of the ancient world as well as from all it's foolishness, and
so become ever more the victims of their own foolishness.
I am not concerned in the least with whether there 'really is' an Indra.
The right question is 'What does this Sutra mean?' What Lord Buddha
meant and what it could mean to me are also simply other ways of asking
the same question. daveA
--
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Alain Reiher
2006-07-03 20:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
David,
I don't mean to steal your thunder and you're basically right, but
again, the Sokka Gakkai International, of the Lotus Sutra, sect does
have a lot of religious elements. Their founding father, Nichiren,
broke from the rest of Buddhism because he considered them impure and
corrupt. He was then banished to an island, where he spent the rest of
his days penning a succession of strange self-congratulatory rants.
These rants eventually led to the founding of this immensely successful
sect. If you read his writing and the literature about him, you will
see that he is treated as a deity. Also, their current leader, Daisaku
Ikeda is considered to be a minor deity as well. It is part of the
gospel and belief system that he is the equal in impact to Gandhi or
MLK and is primed for sainthood.
I'm not trying to be negative, just pointing out there that all is not
peaches and creamy atheism in the world of Buddha. This is not a minor
sect but a very successful one. Most of the US members seem to be
ex-Christians who were burned by their organizations but retained their
basic "flock" values. On the other hand, the purpose of the SGI is
world peace, which is far nobler in my opinion than protecting the
sanctity of marriage from gays.
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Tashi
.
Post by socrates
Post by Tashi
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would
even recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them. MT
Actually, you can't brush with such a broad stroke. Not all Buddhists
believe in a God- some do some don't.....
You have chosen the slogan ''believe in a God" Buddhists
generally don't use that wording, as belief in something, isn't critical
to it's existence. I can chose to believe the world is round or not, but
this won't change the shape of the world.
All Buddhist's acknowledge the existence of many different
realities, the realm of the Gods being one of them. These realities are
created by oneself, not by a God. The Gods Indra, and Brahma, both
appeared before the Buddha and requested him to teach both Gods, and
humans.
The Gods are still considered to be in cyclic existence. Even though they
temporally reside in Heaven, their Karma generated by good deeds will
eventually run out
MT
namo tassa bhagavato arihato sammasambuddhassa
All Buddhism is atheistic because there is no dependence on gods for
salvation. That is the sense in which gods are irrelevant, and I don't
have to believe in the existence of Indra or any of that lot to be a
Buddhist.
My stock answer to "Do you believe in God?" is "Believe in God to do
exactly what?".
Everything is belief with Christians, so they are never interested in what
myths and other 'silly stories' mean, unless they come from their bible.
(Some mythic artifacts, such as Yggdrasil, have a fairly obvious and
wise meaning and purpose.) Christians insulate themselves from all the
wisdom of the ancient world as well as from all it's foolishness, and
so become ever more the victims of their own foolishness.
I am not concerned in the least with whether there 'really is' an Indra.
The right question is 'What does this Sutra mean?' What Lord Buddha
meant and what it could mean to me are also simply other ways of asking
the same question. daveA
--
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Alain Reiher
2006-07-03 21:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
David,
I don't mean to steal your thunder and you're basically right, but
again, the Sokka Gakkai International, of the Lotus Sutra, sect does
have a lot of religious elements.
Well ... Buddhism is indeed a religion.

Their founding father, Nichiren,
Post by Recuerdos Lover
broke from the rest of Buddhism because he considered them impure and
corrupt. He was then banished to an island, where he spent the rest of
his days penning a succession of strange self-congratulatory rants.
These rants eventually led to the founding of this immensely successful
sect. If you read his writing and the literature about him, you will
see that he is treated as a deity. Also, their current leader, Daisaku
Ikeda is considered to be a minor deity as well. It is part of the
gospel and belief system that he is the equal in impact to Gandhi or
MLK and is primed for sainthood.
A very quick summary of Nichiren Daishonin's life! In my opinion, the
"strange self-congratulatory rants" is not appropriate and neither is the
analisys which present Nichiren Daishonin as a deity!
A true Buddha, yes. The relationship of master and disciple is as essential
as the most sound advice we can find here when someone wants to develop his
skill as a guitar player: Find a teacher!
Post by Recuerdos Lover
I'm not trying to be negative, just pointing out there that all is not
peaches and creamy atheism in the world of Buddha.
Absolutely right! The Lotus flower bloom in a muddy pound. Life is full of
shit!

This is not a minor
Post by Recuerdos Lover
sect but a very successful one. Most of the US members seem to be
ex-Christians who were burned by their organizations but retained their
basic "flock" values. On the other hand, the purpose of the SGI is
world peace, which is far nobler in my opinion than protecting the
sanctity of marriage from gays.
Most Sokka Gakai members have indeed a religious background inherited
through their family tradition. Most of them were not pleased or did not
care about the mechanism of faith or religion when adhering to this
organisation. True that Kosen rufu, world peace, is the purpose of the
organisation and people from all walk of life can contribute without
discarding their own attributes. Buddhahood is attainable as is, in this
life time.

Alain
Post by Recuerdos Lover
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Tashi
.
Post by socrates
Post by Tashi
Buddhists acknowledge the existence of many Gods, and even a
Supreme leader of the Gods. They also recognize the existence of a
heaven, and hell. as well as animal, and spirit realms. They would
even recognize the existence of the God of the Christians, and Jews.
However, they would not the refuge in any of them. MT
Actually, you can't brush with such a broad stroke. Not all Buddhists
believe in a God- some do some don't.....
You have chosen the slogan ''believe in a God" Buddhists
generally don't use that wording, as belief in something, isn't critical
to it's existence. I can chose to believe the world is round or not, but
this won't change the shape of the world.
All Buddhist's acknowledge the existence of many different
realities, the realm of the Gods being one of them. These realities are
created by oneself, not by a God. The Gods Indra, and Brahma, both
appeared before the Buddha and requested him to teach both Gods, and
humans.
The Gods are still considered to be in cyclic existence. Even though they
temporally reside in Heaven, their Karma generated by good deeds will
eventually run out
MT
namo tassa bhagavato arihato sammasambuddhassa
All Buddhism is atheistic because there is no dependence on gods for
salvation. That is the sense in which gods are irrelevant, and I don't
have to believe in the existence of Indra or any of that lot to be a
Buddhist.
My stock answer to "Do you believe in God?" is "Believe in God to do
exactly what?".
Everything is belief with Christians, so they are never interested in what
myths and other 'silly stories' mean, unless they come from their bible.
(Some mythic artifacts, such as Yggdrasil, have a fairly obvious and
wise meaning and purpose.) Christians insulate themselves from all the
wisdom of the ancient world as well as from all it's foolishness, and
so become ever more the victims of their own foolishness.
I am not concerned in the least with whether there 'really is' an Indra.
The right question is 'What does this Sutra mean?' What Lord Buddha
meant and what it could mean to me are also simply other ways of asking
the same question. daveA
--
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Larry Deack
2006-07-03 21:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Reiher
The relationship of master and disciple is as essential
as the most sound advice we can find here when someone
wants to develop his skill as a guitar player: Find a teacher!
Find MANY teachers and don't follow just one, especially one who
claims to be better than all the other gurus. Become a teacher and help
others become teachers too.

Yesterday I taught my 11 year old niece to mow a lawn. She had never
tried it before and enjoyed it and the swim in the pool after the hard
work in the hot sun.

We are all teachers and students who have many teachers and many
students. We are connected in many ways to our past and our future.

I am not sure what a guru is but I do know something about the fact
that sometimes my students teach me more than I teach them... just like
my niece who taught me that mowing a lawn can be a lot of fun.
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-07-03 22:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
The relationship of master and disciple is as essential as the most
sound advice we can find here when someone wants to develop his skill as
a guitar player: Find a teacher!
Find MANY teachers and don't follow just one, especially one who
claims to be better than all the other gurus. Become a teacher and help
others become teachers too.
Yesterday I taught my 11 year old niece to mow a lawn. She had never
tried it before and enjoyed it and the swim in the pool after the hard
work in the hot sun.
We are all teachers and students who have many teachers and many
students. We are connected in many ways to our past and our future.
I am not sure what a guru
Guru = garu (pali) = teacher.

daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Larry Deack
2006-07-03 23:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Guru = garu (pali) = teacher.
Rabi, Instructor, Educator, Maestro, Shīfu, Ustad, Ostad, Pangrawit,
Magister Ludi...

????

Your equation did not seem to make Guru any clearer to me and my ambiguity.
Alain Reiher
2006-07-04 07:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Guru = garu (pali) = teacher.
Rabi, Instructor, Educator, Maestro, Shifu, Ustad, Ostad, Pangrawit,
Magister Ludi...
????
Your equation did not seem to make Guru any clearer to me and my ambiguity.
Mentor! you forgot mentor.
[;o)
Alain
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-07-04 12:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Guru = garu (pali) = teacher.
Rabi, Instructor, Educator, Maestro, Shifu, Ustad, Ostad, Pangrawit,
Magister Ludi...
????
Your equation did not seem to make Guru any clearer to me and my ambiguity.
Guru is a very old word meaning teacher. What part of teacher confuses
you? daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Larry Deack
2006-07-04 14:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Guru is a very old word meaning teacher. What part of teacher confuses
you?
So all my teachers were gurus and my wife is a certified guru... wait,
I'm a guru too... hell, looks like we are all gurus since virtually
everybody has taught somebody something at one time or another.

How can you NOT find this confusing?
Recuerdos Lover
2006-07-03 22:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Alain,
thank you for your tolerance for my rather negative post.
Alain Reiher
2006-07-04 08:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
Alain,
thank you for your tolerance for my rather negative post.
Recuerdos,

Your short sentence is full of meaning.
Thanks for that.



P.S. Lateral thinking : Its 10 - 10.
Tommy Grand
2006-07-04 02:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Reiher
Well ... Buddhism is indeed a religion.
That's the un-hip part about it. No wonder DAR is trying to deny it!!!
Alain Reiher
2006-07-04 07:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tommy Grand
Post by Alain Reiher
Well ... Buddhism is indeed a religion.
That's the un-hip part about it. No wonder DAR is trying to deny it!!!
Well its un-hip (maybe I should say here: maybe because) in our western
society we have had a lot of bad press on the subject of religion. lots of
bad blood and bad relations have been built on misunderstanding about the
usefulness of religion. If I am not mistaken, one of the meaning of the word
religion is to bind.
Religion is represented almost as negatively as the stories covered daily in
the 6 o'clock news. Something like good news are not good for good news.
There is also the fact that people in general consider their religion and
faith as a private matter.... maybe rightly so ... to avoid prejudice.
The zoom back on the one planet, one world, one language one brotherhood ...
seems all but impossible! Nonetheless each religion cpretend to be the only
one able to bring a solution to this "problem" (is it a problem?).
Diversity is not a problem ... openness is!
The western world is found of duality! See... its free stroke rest stroke
all over again.
By now should not we all be good at listenning?

Alain
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-07-03 22:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
David,
I don't mean to steal your thunder and you're basically right, but again,
the Sokka Gakkai International,
One is advised in the sutras to compare and contrast to make sure that
everything taught is the real deal. Sokka Gakkai is not a Buddhist sect.
Buddhist sects are restricted to monks and nuns. In some Mahayana
sects there are part time monks, but there is no sense in which any lay
person can be a member of a Buddhist sect. Since the practices you
described are antithetical to Buddhist teachings I deny unequivocally that
Sokka Gakkai is anything like a Buddhist sect. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Recuerdos Lover
2006-07-04 05:00:24 UTC
Permalink
David,
that's a nice exercise in unreality.

"Size of Group: Estimates of the size of the Soka Gokkai membership in
the U.S. vary enormously. The Encyclopedia of American Religions
reported that Nichiren Shoshu claimed 300,000 members in the United
States in 1985. A recent Time magazine article (November 20, 1995)
claimed over 8.1 million members."

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/nich.html
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Recuerdos Lover
David,
I don't mean to steal your thunder and you're basically right, but again,
the Sokka Gakkai International,
One is advised in the sutras to compare and contrast to make sure that
everything taught is the real deal. Sokka Gakkai is not a Buddhist sect.
Buddhist sects are restricted to monks and nuns. In some Mahayana
sects there are part time monks, but there is no sense in which any lay
person can be a member of a Buddhist sect. Since the practices you
described are antithetical to Buddhist teachings I deny unequivocally that
Sokka Gakkai is anything like a Buddhist sect. daveA
--
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
David Raleigh Arnold
2006-07-04 12:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recuerdos Lover
David,
that's a nice exercise in unreality.
How many Christians who are not Mormons admit that Mormons are Christians?
Not many. A mere claim to be a Buddhist monk or nun does not suffice to
make it so.

Again, there is *no way* that a person who is not a monk or nun can claim
to be in a Buddhist sect, any more than a lay person can claim to be
a Jesuit or Franciscan. There is no equivalent to Catholic or
Protestant or any of that in Buddhism. You can't even truthfully say
that you are Theravada or Mahayana unless you are a monk or nun. Lay
persons are not obliged to adhere to any sects at all, and they can't
claim to be members of any.

Also, Christian sectarianism is based on *beliefs*. Buddhist sects
are based on *practice*, and especially practice as monks or nuns. There
is no equivalent to western philosophy. What is mistakenly called Buddhist
philosophy is actually descriptions of practice, how-tos if you like. Lay
people are seldom full time meditators, so sects make little difference
to tham. For laymen, practice doesn't vary a whole lot from place to
place. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Alain Reiher
2006-07-04 08:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Recuerdos Lover
David,
I don't mean to steal your thunder and you're basically right, but again,
the Sokka Gakkai International,
One is advised in the sutras to compare and contrast to make sure that
everything taught is the real deal. Sokka Gakkai is not a Buddhist sect.
Buddhist sects are restricted to monks and nuns. In some Mahayana
sects there are part time monks, but there is no sense in which any lay
person can be a member of a Buddhist sect. Since the practices you
described are antithetical to Buddhist teachings I deny unequivocally that
Sokka Gakkai is anything like a Buddhist sect. daveA
--
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition. Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
Tien-tai (aka Chi-i 538-597) was maybe the greatest erudite of Buddhism to
have lived in China. He studied all the Sutra of Shakiamuni and established
a detail and complex system of classification.
I doubt that denying unequivocally will change the Soka Gakkai intention to
continue working toward world piece!

Alain
Tashi
2006-07-04 14:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
namo tassa bhagavato arihato sammasambuddhassa
All Buddhism is atheistic because there is no dependence on gods for
salvation. That is the sense in which gods are irrelevant, and I don't
have to believe in the existence of Indra or any of that lot to be a
Buddhist.
If one needed the help of George W. Bush in a critical undertaking.
One would gather together lots of money to offer to his re-election
campaign, one would put on ones best clothes, one would seek out the
help of the minor deities ( Carl Rove, Andy Card etc.) to help procure
a meeting with him, and offer them money as well.
If one invokes the help of powerful Gods or spirits one dose the same
thing as mentioned above. Offerings to powerful Gods can help one, on
ones journey, they aren't the object of veneration, however. So in
this case they are irrelevant.
MT
Tommy Grand
2006-07-04 14:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Using Google groups, and sorting by date, I see there are presently 95
posts. This differs from the information displayed in the 'active
older topics' frame on the right hand side of the screen. What's a man
to do?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...