The Neverending Thread (was SATAN DECEIVES YOU)

[Makaveli]

quote:But within the framework of Christianity these things are all coherent, there is no contradiction between them.

Within the framework of just about all other religion these things are all coherent.  There are many undeniable contradictions and obsurd things in the bible.  

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him, and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of this town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid." Deuteronomy 21:18

"No one has ever seen God ..." (John 1:18)

"It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen. 32:30)

Enough said.

quote:I do agree, but at the same time we have to remember that people will make the choice to change their beliefs if they have good reason to do so. All I want to point out is that it is not necessarily so.

True there are always execptions.  There is no reason to believe that they should be choosing Christianity since it is based on faith.

quote:Of course not, but good thing we don't have to worry.

Why wouldn't Christians have to worry compared to other religions?

quote:And you are close to hitting the nail on the head as to why most people do reject Christianity and any religious belief altogether - they simply don't want to. It is a matter of the will, not the mind or the heart.

[/uote]Of course, being a Christian, you already know how I would answer your question. I have found that Christianity is the most intellectually coherent and rational religion that makes the most sense for the state of the world and those who live in it.

Is there any good reason why someones will or heart should lead them to being Christian?  I find much of it very inconsistent we should address some specific areas since I still see no logical arguments to support Christianity.  I would like to know what seems so rational about these beliefs.  

quote:No, there is nothing wrong with being open-minded, but when it comes down to it, being open-minded for too long can have eternal consequences. And this is why I have stated earlier that Christianity's claims must be investigated most earnestly with an open heart and mind as the consequences effect both life and death, for eternity.

This is why I say, start somewhere, get grounded in something, and then start comparing different religious beliefs to see which is closest to the truth - the truth being that which corresponds to reality.

Also, one must be careful of becoming complacent, for lack of a better term, about searching or believing that one can find the truth by believing that we cannot understand the whole truth anyway. I do agree that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, however, I believe that, being made in the image of the Creator, we have the capacity to comprehend most truth and to rationally determine if it is indeed something that is true. There will always be an element of faith involved, but it need not be all faith or blind faith.

So Christians are closed-minded?  Dogma like the one associated with Christianity is limiting people in many ways.  People of all religions search for the truth and find it the most logical like you describe Christians doing.  There is no reason to consider Christianity the default path for what the truth is.  So many Christians seem to limit God to a book and they twist bible passages around to suit themselves.

[Mustardseed]

[Qoute]"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him, and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of this town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid." Deuteronomy

(answer)Is that a contradiction. Does not seem so to me???I Dont understand.

[Qoute]"No one has ever seen God ..." (John 1:18)

"It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen. 32:30)

Enough said.

(answer)Not enough. The story you qoute is firstly about Jacob the deciever. Later to be named Israel. It says "he wresteled with a man......." it is believed to have been a angel and not God. Jacob however thought it was God. This is different. Moses did not see him either, all he saw was his hiney and it gave him a sunburn.You gotta research it properly and use context.

[Qoute]Why wouldn't Christians have to worry compared to other religions?

(answer)We believe we are forgiven our sins and has a home with God in the after life


[Qoute}So many Christians seem to limit God to a book and they twist bible passages around to suit themselves.

Yep thats true. They twist the scriptures.





[/quote]

[Rob]

Cant let this by, it has some interesting ideas behing it.

quote:No. This is when two contradictory things appear to be true. It comes from two Greek words that mean "to seem" and "contrary to expectation." Look it up in the dictionary, it will tell you.

Not true. For instance, even a brief study of quantum mechanics would reveal the inherantly contradictory nature of the atomic world ie the "building blocks" (pfft..) of the world we live in (forget the highschool grade billiard ball model, its 99% BS). Eg, matter is both a particle and a wave - this is not just how it appears, but two ways in which atoms objectively act which are totally irreconcilable - empiracally proveable fact. Essentially, it IS true to say that things can be contradictory and true. This goes deep. The problem lies in the fact that the western world relies totally upon Aristotles 3 laws of logic - which, as has been discovered by both the mystic and the deeeeep physicists (both looking at the fundamentals of reality only using different tools), cannot account for all situations. This means that, a new law of logic is needed.....taadaaa!! (Scroll down to "2.  A Fundamental Correction to Classical Logic " since the link isn't working - although "SOME UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES OF PHYSICS " is well worth reading too for some good contradictions)
http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/PART%20TWO.htm
Either the first 3 are used (classic reality), or the 4th is used (the law of boundary conditions).
Well, I thought it was interesting!
Oh, and whether the contradictory facts are not contradictory upon a higher level, and it is only our limited consciousness that makes them appear so, is totally irrelevant to the current discussion. The fact is that to us they are contradictory, and we cannot therefore discredit things as untrue merely based on their apparently irreconcileable nature. ESPECIALLY when we talking about the nature of God and reality. It seems to me that the further away you get from the standard world of human experience (newtonian model), the stranger and more contradictory things also become.

quote:If you have anything of value to add to the discussion, feel free.

Your ill intentioned sarcasm grates almost as much as your limited and often faulty logic. Quit it.



What I find most amusing is the idea that you cannot get into heaven unless you accept Jesus is your Lord and Saviour. So, I guess God just created all those people who have lived the last couple of thousand years and never heard of Jesus, just for the hell of it, so he could laugh as he throws them into the fiery pit, right? Which makes God a racist. Ahhh......
Would it not be more logical to assume that all the people in Tibet, say, have other means of getting to God eg Tibetan Buddhism or the path they find beneath their own feet? To claim that most the worlds population for the last few thousand years is Damned because God didn't get Christianity there quickly enough is too ludicrous for words. It makes God incompetant, to boot!
Running away with illogic while forgetting simple facts like this is *not* healthy, IMO - "intellectual masturbation" I believe Mr Bruce once called it, and the phrase stuck []. The above alone proves, to my mind, that Christianity is not the one true religion. Therefore religion is unnecessary and there are many, many ways to God, and anyone who says otherwise is barking mad! IMHO lol....
To explain a little, even if God only created one person who didn't have access to one of His True Paths, and was therefore damned to eternal hellfire, that would make God an abomination which I cannot accept him to be. Although, just the very thought that God could sentence anyone to eternal hellfire, is a thought which makes me feel quite ill. I wouldn't want to know a God like that......

Last rant, and then I'll get off my soapbox! IMO its not a good idea to get too caught up in Dogma. There is a simple test to determine whether a religion is helping or hindering people to do Gods will (which is what this is all about, right?) - does it encourage its followers to be kind, generous, full of love and light, at peace with themselves and others, and generally help them to become Good (God) people? (balance). Or does it encourage a descent into cruelty, avarice, greed, sloth, murder and the unpleasnt side of human nature? (inbalance) To me, this is the only true measure of the relative worth of a religion. I'll let you figure out the statistics.......(of course, there will always be some bufoons who have the ability to pick and twist words to their liking, but thats humanity for you - burdened with collective sin, if you like)

Aho!

Rob

[Makaveli]

quote:(answer)Is that a contradiction. Does not seem so to me???I Dont understand.

I also said that there are absurd things.  That is not a contradiction and it is just a extremely stupid passage.  

quote:(answer)Not enough. The story you qoute is firstly about Jacob the deciever. Later to be named Israel. It says "he wresteled with a man......." it is believed to have been a angel and not God. Jacob however thought it was God. This is different. Moses did not see him either, all he saw was his hiney and it gave him a sunburn.You gotta research it properly and use context.

The bible stated it was God and if not the bible must be wrong.  Just one contradiction (there are many) blows away the idea of the bible being infalible.  Besides there are many more:

Gen.12:7
"And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him."
Gen.17:1
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him...."
Gen.18:1
"And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre."
Gen.26:2
"And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of.
Gen.26:24
"And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not."
Gen.32:30
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Gen.35:1
"And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother."
Gen.35:7
"And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother."
Gen.35:9
"And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him."
Gen.48:3
"And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan."
Ex.3:16
"The LORD God ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you."
Ex.4:5
"That they may believe that the LORD God ... hath appeared unto thee."
Ex.6:3
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob...."
Ex.24:9-11
"Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink."
Ex.33:11
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
Ex.33:23
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
Num.14:14
"For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face."
Dt.5:4
"The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire."
Dt.34:10
"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face."
Jg.13:22
"And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God."
1 Kg.22:19
"I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left."
Job 42:5
"I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."
Ps.63.2
"To see thy power and they glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary."
Is.6:1
"In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up."
Is.6:5
"For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."
Ezek.20:35
"And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face."
Am.7:7
"The LORD stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand."
Am.9:1
"I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake."
Hab.3:3-5
"God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran .... He had horns coming out of his hand."  


Here is another contradiction:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works ..." (Rom. 11:6)

"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

quote:(answer)We believe we are forgiven our sins and has a home with God in the after life

Yeah a lot of religions believe that they will be the best off in the afterlife but who is to say which one is correct?  

[Mustardseed]

You know what my friend. I will gladly talk to you about thease things. Unfortunately I am not able tro get into long long debates and threads Lets start simple and I will help you , ask me one question at a time OK. Thanks
regarda MS

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Folks!

First, I am well pleased with the philosophical way this thread is evolving. This is a lesson to all that, even though we have bad times where tempers flare, reason and manners generally prevail if one is patient. Nuf said.....

I have been asked a number of times to explain my conception of God. This is not that of an old man sitting on a throne in the clouds. I see God everywhere I look, in the act that not only created the universe, but that continually creates every moment and every thing and every life.

As a mystic, my conception of God is very simple and pragmatic. Inside everyone, every animal and lifeform in the universe, resides a part of God, a divine spark. This is of course most evident in the higher and more complex species, like humankind, albeit at times a little difficult to see clearly.  

To me, life and humankind are the eyes and ears and consciousness of the universe, eg, God in living action immersed in and manifesting throughout all of life, from the smallest microbe to the most complex being.

Through the act of living in such infinitely wonderous diversity, God's understanding of life evolves, and through this God evolves. This intimate connection is expressed in the Godname 'Shadday' (that's how you say it), which in essence means that every human has a spark of God inside their hearts, which is of the same fire that burns in God.

To not conceive of God as existing in a state of perpetual evolution and perfect growth is to accuse God of stagnation, which is an imperfect state of being. Without evolution, there would also be no purpose or meaning to life in its entirety, that is, unless one considers life to be some kind of divine cosmic amusement park.

A part of God exists inside everyone. But its impossible to divide a part from its whole, for they are one and the same. Because of this, I say that we are all God. And the only difference between the average person and a person of spiritual accomplishment (with some degree of spiritual enlightenment) is that the latter 'realizes' this a little more keenly and intimately than does the former. This is why faith can move mountains, because the essence of faith is the realization of one's connection with God.  No matter how one conceives or words this connection, regardless of one's beliefs, all are looking in the same direction.

As for the diverse religions on this planet, as is being discussed as well on this thread, I think that their major surface differences evolved through historical and cultural necessity. And no matter what the religion or belief that has evolved to suit any particular culture, all are looking in basically the same direction.

Btw, Zen Buddism is an atheistic religion. It is not so much a religion as a 'way'. Zen teaches one how to live one's life to the full in every moment. By doing this, one grows closer to the 'essence' of life, which is creation, and this closeness nurtures spiritual growth and evolution.  I have the highest respect for Buddism, as by large Buddists are gentle spiritual people who quite literally would not harm a fly. No wars or persecutions have ever been caused by Buddists. I don't think the same can be said for any other religion.

Food for thought....

Take care, Robert.

[Makaveli]

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed

You know what my friend. I will gladly talk to you about thease things. Unfortunately I am not able tro get into long long debates and threads Lets start simple and I will help you , ask me one question at a time OK. Thanks
regarda MS

Ok, just dealing with this one contradiction if the bible is infalible why does it say "No one has ever seen God ..." (John 1:18) then there is that long list of passages which I posted where people saw God?  

[Mustardseed]

Well first of all this thing about God. I am not sure about it but I seem to have read that the word Lord is not the same as God. Many believe that those folks saw Jesus. He apparently appeared in the Old testament as well. He is thought to be the mysterious king Melkizedek too. I would have to research it and see, however please be reasonable. If you are sincerly wanting to know I will spent time on it but if it is only sort of a "argument for the sake of argument" I do also work a job and the Forum is not all I have to do. But let me see what I can dig up.

Also thanks Robert. Interesting post and though I do not agree with your conclusion I do follow you in principle, a long long way. God is everywhere in everything and visible in what he created in a sense of the word he is (in) his creation, as he used himself as the image and the power is His and in a way as the building blocks. I also believe that there for sure is a "presence" in everyone that is God or Gods voice. Some say that "consiousness in man is the voice of God". However I do not think that we are God for a few reasons. Firstly in my understanding He is perfect faultless and unable to sin hurt harm or whatever we call it. He has no potential for sin. I believe that he is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Man however is born with the ability to hurt and harm (sin) and this ability is the miracle of "free will". What man has is the possibility of becoming in nature LIKE God. In a way it is the principle of your son being you. Though he is created by you and has all the genetics and all the enherited stuf, still He is not you. You are you. He can become LIKE you if he chooses or he can get 25 piercings and choose a life of drugs and abuse if he wants to, but it is up to him. He might be your spitting image but (as mine are ) he could be a foot taller. I dont want to get into the Bible and all that I am sure that you heard of the doctrine of "original sin" and all that I am sure you know it well. Regarding Buddhists I did remember that you send me a long research when I first wrote you and it was certainly interesting. It was about how they were shown to have more peace. I thought a lot about it and I am actually pretty convinced that it is factual research but it has one "flaw", or consideration. Buddhism is not a religion that are concerned with pleasing God or nessesarily serving mankind. It seems to essentially be a set of living rules ethics and morals, sort of a good advise religion. This is my limited knowledge of the Religion. That it is in a sense not a Religion. If the average Buddhist however, were  living in the streets of New York helping druggies or as helpers for Mother Teresa maybe they would be a tad more stressed, and on the same note if I went to live on a tiny Carribean Island fished and devoted myself to prayer and contemplation I believe my stress level would drob quite a bit as well, even though I am a Christian. What do you think? Concerning Buddhists being peaceful , as you might know I lived several years in Nepal and have had a lot of very close friends who left Tibetan Buddism becourse of the harshness of the munks. The lamas in Lahsa were not exactly a nation of softies either.

Regards Mustardseed

A nice qoute from the politician in the movie "Best little whorehouse in Texas"

I don't know why them jews and Arabs cant behave in a more Christlike fashion"

[Makaveli]

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed

Well first of all this thing about God. I am not sure about it but I seem to have read that the word Lord is not the same as God. Many believe that those folks saw Jesus. He apparently appeared in the Old testament as well. He is thought to be the mysterious king Melkizedek too. I would have to research it and see, however please be reasonable. If you are sincerly wanting to know I will spent time on it but if it is only sort of a "argument for the sake of argument" I do also work a job and the Forum is not all I have to do. But let me see what I can dig up.

I thought the Lord and God were the same well these 2 passages make it seem that way but I'm not sure:

Ex.3:16
"The LORD God ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you."
Ex.4:5
"That they may believe that the LORD God ... hath appeared unto thee."

[no_leaf_clover]

The monotheistic definition of 'Lord' before Christ and in Judaism is 'God'. After Jesus, christians referred to him as the 'Lord'. You'll notice all the quotes referring to God as the Lord are pre-Jesus.

So..

From times BC: Lord = God
From times AD: Lord = Jesus

..unless explicitly stated as otherwise. It can really be interchangeable.

[Narrow Path]

quote:From times BC: Lord = God
From times AD: Lord = Jesus

You are beginning to understand the Trinity.

[Beth]

This has nothing to do with the Trinity.

And the dating system has now been changed:

BC=BCE=Before Current Era
AD=CE=Current Era

Since there are many more religions than Christianity, BC and AD are no longer used.

Peace,
Beth

[Logic]

Well, im going to end this topic once and for all (if people are infact still replying to this 'jibberish')

It all begins with a chemical called DMT (N,N-dimethyltryptamine
(C12H16N2)). A great deal of research has been done on the chemical since its discovery in the western world. Users have claimed to travel to the spirit realm, leaving their bodies and having incredible revelations about almost anything. Experiences are of vivid realities much stronger than astral projection.

Research on test subjects has shown a dramatic change in brainwave's, enough to support the fact that the user has "left" their body, as to their claim. The interesting part about the chemical though, is that it is NOT synthesized. It is extracted from plants like yopo, and also exists in every human body.

Mass production of it is produced by the pineal gland at early ages, before puberty takes effect. When a human is born and dies, or has a NDE, a chamber is opened in the brain that releases an amazing ammount of liquid dmt into the body, the sensation of experiencers who have had NDE's all say the general same thing. Bright lights, popping noises when leaving the body, immense tone's becoming louder and louder, like in astral projections.

Another thing, is how small ammounts of the chemical are released during sleep, as well as production of which after puberty. DMT isnt produced constantly after puberty, but only when sleeping. After puberty, 5-MeO-DMT is produced (5-Methoxy-N,N-Dimethyltryptamine) a somewhat, stronger version of the chemical.

This probably isnt the best essay I've ever written, but the fact is that EVERYONE has astral projection to a certain degree in their lives, in death and in dreams to a smaller degree. Astral Projection is unavoidable, period.

[Makaveli]

quote:Originally posted by Logic

Well, im going to end this topic once and for all (if people are infact still replying to this 'jibberish')

It all begins with a chemical called DMT (N,N-dimethyltryptamine
(C12H16N2)). A great deal of research has been done on the chemical since its discovery in the western world. Users have claimed to travel to the spirit realm, leaving their bodies and having incredible revelations about almost anything. Experiences are of vivid realities much stronger than astral projection.

Research on test subjects has shown a dramatic change in brainwave's, enough to support the fact that the user has "left" their body, as to their claim. The interesting part about the chemical though, is that it is NOT synthesized. It is extracted from plants like yopo, and also exists in every human body.

Mass production of it is produced by the pineal gland at early ages, before puberty takes effect. When a human is born and dies, or has a NDE, a chamber is opened in the brain that releases an amazing ammount of liquid dmt into the body, the sensation of experiencers who have had NDE's all say the general same thing. Bright lights, popping noises when leaving the body, immense tone's becoming louder and louder, like in astral projections.

Another thing, is how small ammounts of the chemical are released during sleep, as well as production of which after puberty. DMT isnt produced constantly after puberty, but only when sleeping. After puberty, 5-MeO-DMT is produced (5-Methoxy-N,N-Dimethyltryptamine) a somewhat, stronger version of the chemical.

This probably isnt the best essay I've ever written, but the fact is that EVERYONE has astral projection to a certain degree in their lives, in death and in dreams to a smaller degree. Astral Projection is unavoidable, period.

Wrong topic your post has nothing to do with this religious debate.  

With what you said it looks like drugs may very well induce OBEs but identifying a trigger of this does nothing to explain the actual experience.  

"Of course, the drug does not produce the transcendent experience. It merely acts as a chemical key - it opens the mind, frees the nervous system of its ordinary patterns and structures. - Timothy Leary

There are many ways to trigger OBEs:
http://www.near-death.com/triggers.html

[Logic]

I was trying to point out that what allanon was crying about for who knows how, was that no matter what everyone has OBE's, its fact. Most of them probably arent christian based or related. Like I said, Its part of human atonomy. When you die DMT is released into the body and the brain functions concioussly for about 3-4 minutes, then you have an OBE, because you die ofcourse.

[Makaveli]

quote:Originally posted by Logic

I was trying to point out that what allanon was crying about for who knows how, was that no matter what everyone has OBE's, its fact. Most of them probably arent christian based or related. Like I said, Its part of human atonomy. When you die DMT is released into the body and the brain functions concioussly for about 3-4 minutes, then you have an OBE, because you die ofcourse.

Ok I see, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Logic]

Its funny how the DEA has declared it illegal when its a part of every human on earth [xx(] maybe its part of some evil conspiracy to hide the truth from the world.

[Mustardseed]

(Robert Bruce said)
No wars or persecutions have ever been caused by Buddists. I don't think the same can be said for any other religion.

Dear Robert

I did a bit of research on that and came up with this. It seems that your statement is not entirely true,Buddhism, like the other faiths, has not always lived up to its principles - there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war:

·   in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China

·   in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters

·   In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

·   In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives.

So it seems reasonable to say that Buddhists as well has a history of war as has Christianity and  has been used as a political tool for a sort of Holy War what do you think .

Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

I would like to keep this thread alive to get a reply from Robert

[Robert Bruce]

Mustardseed!

The intended point in my earlier comment was that no wars have been started in the name of Budda or Buddism.

In that post I stated that "by large, Buddists are gentle spiritual people".  Of course there are exceptions in the behaviour of people. This is why I put in the 'by large'.

RB.

[Mustardseed]

No Robert this is what you said:

No wars or persecutions have ever been caused by Buddist

I think you should just admit that you made a untrue claim that has been refuted by fact, and historical findings. No explaining it away.I must admit that you surprise me. I find that you seem to have a beliefsystem as do others, and defend it in similar emotional way without realising we are on the net, and have a lot of info available to us.This statement of yours could just have become "the truth" and someone could have carried it along with "Robert Bruce said" or "Its a fact that...." . This Buddhist peace claim thing seems so basic and took me 20 sec to research, how come you did not?. Do you WANT to believe that Buddhism is the "better' religion. I hope this is not offensive. It is not intended, just an attemt to have a candid discussion.
Regards Mustardseed

[James S]

Mustardseed,

I understand you're reasonings, you wish to discuss Robert's ideas further -

quote:I hope this is not offensive. It is not intended, just an attemt to have a candid discussion.

Unfortunately your way with words tends to come across as being picky or provoking -

quote:No Robert this is what you said:

No wars or persecutions have ever been caused by Buddist

I think you should just admit that you made a untrue claim that has been refuted by fact, and historical findings. No explaining it away

I would still tend to agree with Robert's statement, and to look at the examples you've used:

"· in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China"
The Mongols were the invading force. Th elives of the Buddhists were at risk.

"· in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters"
The Samuri were the most highly regarded and honoured of the Japanese warriors. Though they were highly trained and very skillfull fighters, they're roll was that of defenders and peackeepers. It was the Samuri that time and again kept the Chinese armies from invading Japan. The Buddhists didn't make them fight, they trained them to meditate and focus.

"· In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."
A bit of sage wisdom here? Not exacly a call to violence.

"· In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives."
Ok, who started this one? Were the Buddhists the aggressors or the defenders"

None of these examples show the Buddhists as being an aggressive people. Their ways, their belief values all life, even that of the most insignificant of living things. More so possibly than any other major religion on earth. They have a right to fight to survive as do we all, but to my knowledge they have never started any "holy" wars.

Kind regards,
James.  

[Mustardseed]

Dear James and Robert
Let us reason together. I believe that we are confusing things here. It seems obvious to me that Robert claim is proven false by the above so any attempt to qualify it with statements like "what I meant was" is unfair. The claim was made and it was proven unsubstantiated. From here we can go two directions.

1. Either Robert admits that he is a Buddhist and is defending "his" religion" in a emotional way like others do when they are talking about something close to their heart. I fully understand this and respect this as an aspect of being human. We defend a lot of things on these premisses. Our kids wives husbands pets country or whatever. If this is to be the focus we should then examine and compare and attempt to judge the tenants of the religion itself the scriptures, and I would be ready to do so.

2. The other way this could be taken is that what he actually means when he refers to Buddhists is the oriental social order, as opposed to the western social order.We could then discuss the different cultures.

You see to me he is doing the very thing that he has told others they should not. He is judging a religion and the truth it might or might not contain by how its followers behave and how they "live it" so to speak. Only his judgement in this case is positive. Where as with Narrow Path it was negative. It is my opinion that as a general rule the orientals are a whole lot more "Christian" (embracing traditional Christian values) than the westeners . They are humble sweet self effacing people with a wonderful sence of social togetherness a ardworking and peaceful people. We from the west tend to be more harsh proud ego driven and selfish. So there you have it. It would be far more beneficial if the discussion was based on how folks live their religion and how they adhere to their teachers i.e. Buddha or Jesus rather than lifting up one and putting down another based on the behavior of the few followers one comes into contact with. If all I had to judge by was Dalai Lama and Narrow Path I too would be a Buddhist. As I stated before I have also seen a lot of bad in Buddhism and Hinduism for that matter, these so called peaceful religions, after having lived in India and Nepal for a decade. On another note I find it rather confusing and I do not understand why people so readily jump to the defense everytime someone questions any of the teachers on the forum. I do believe Robert and Beth communicate well on their own and can argue their own cases.
Regards Mustardseed

PS Robert you never did comment on the fact that when I first sent you an email complimenting you for your book and wanted to compare notes , you sent me back unsolicited Buddhist probaganda material. I had sent you no Christian material nor tried to convert you in any way shape or form. It was a Research on Buddhism, showing the superiority of the Buddhist. I commented on this earlier. I find this to be an indication that you are indeed a Buddhist and that you are as the rest of us adhering to a beliefsystem, and further more that you seem to engage in Missionary work yourself , allbeit in a much more low key and sweet kind of way.

[Rob]

"It seems obvious to me that Robert claim is proven false by the above so any attempt to qualify it with statements like "what I meant was" is unfair"

You did read James' post, right? He clearly refutes your above statement. Your "evidence" proves nothing - none of it shows any Buddhist starting any war, I believe? Self defense is another matter entirely. And people are allowed to believe in punishing wrongdoers, thats often a good thing, isn't it?

You say you are being picky because of the way some people might say "oh Robert Bruce said this so it must be true" well I think a more reasonable argument would be to tell such people to stop idolising (hehe he said), nomatter who the "idol" is (even if it is the Great Robert Bruce LOL.....we are all only human when it comes right down to it). And

Further, even if the point you made which I have quoted above WAS true, it would still be unreasonably picky. The fact of the matter is that Buddhists are very peaceful people, much more so than ANY other religion (that I know of) - which is, I believe, essentially what RB was saying. Having spent time experiencing their culture first hand - would you refute this? You say that Buddhists embrace Christan values, and I think you are indicating that this is because they are gereally a better people. But you will see that the West was shaped by Christianity for the last couple of thousand years, and the Buddhist cultures have been shaped by Buddhism. You seem to trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that it is BECAUSE of Buddhism that its followers are able to assimilate the positive factors of others, and it is BECAUSE of Christianity that its follows cannot do that same

Personally I would be very suprised if no predominantly Buddhist culture had ever started any war, as even Zen Buddhist monasteries unfortunately suffer from the scurge of politics. And, like I said, we are all only human. But the fact remains, and I dont believe it can be refuted, that Buddhists are at least one of the most peaceful of cultures. And they aim towards enlightenment. Neither of these points can truly be made of Christianity which has had its scripture used as a pretext for war countless times, and makes no attempt to lead its following towards expanded consciousness. IMO these two points are intimitely linked - Buddhism is an alive religion, where the fountains of wisdom are not just stuffy old texts but enlightened masters who know what they are talking about, and dont have to refer to Holy Books to provide answers about their religion. Christianity relies upon the words of lots of dead people, and tries to interpret them from lower levels of consciousness which is bound to lead to dogma and inaccuracies, to say the very least.

adios!

Rob

ps the reason I might look like I am "jumping to RB's defense" is primarily because I agree with the things he is saying, and have a real appreciation for Zen Buddhism.

pps no, I am not a Buddhist [] - and I came to all these conclusions independant of RB, not knowing he had any interest in the subject at hand.

ppps all the above should only be taken as my thoughts, and therefore not too seriously! []

[timeless]

Dear Inguma, MustardSeed, James, and Robert,

MustardSeed has proven his point.  But why is he so adamant?  I think there is something that lies deeper.  I am guessing you could argue this point into the ground and miss the 'something deeper'.

When our belief system (say Christianity) becomes part of our identity we often do not like it when someone says to us, "This is better than what you identify with." This can be seen as a slight, a disrespect to what we identify with (say Christianity).  Christianity is not perfect but it holds great value and beauty.  It just depends whose eyes and whose hears are seeing and listening.  

MustardSeed will of course need to speak for himself but my guess is that the root problem is that many at Astral Pulse dump on Christianity without also stressing its beauty and positive side.

Usually all small arguements (which may seem silly to some) have their root in something much deeper.  Countless, squirmishes could likely be avoided if this deeper problem is understood and resolved.

Regards,
timeless