|
|
|
|
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 10:37:06 AM |
Hinduism was in place and in working order a long time before Buddha was born. The bulk of his teachings work on the assumption that the hindu idea of Karma, wich predated him, was true. Buddha is also known for his teachings standing out for their rejection of hinduisms caste system, well entrenched before his birth.
Are you even listening to me? I said CLASSICAL HINDUISM, the Hinudism we know today. Buddhism and Classical Hinduism share the same source. Buddhism arose during the same period as the Upanishads.
Nearly every religion the originated in that area at that time had some beliefs dealing with karma and rebirth, but no too were exactly alike. For some, Karma was a bad thing that you wanted to get RID of.
Buddhism even PREDATES the various schools of Hindu philosophy.
I didn't say it did come into its flowering all at once, but it was indeed a fully fleshed and entrenched faith when the great sage was born into it.
And I am telling you that is wrong.
How could it have been fully entrenched when several of it's foundational holy texts had not been written yet? No, the Hinduism that we know of today, the one that we point and say THAT is Hinduism, was coalescing at the same time that Buddhism was.
The pre-classical religion cannot properly be called Hinduism because it was vastly different, it can generally be referred to as the 'historical Vedic religion.'
Youve failed to convince me other than what I was taught in school. Im thirsty and willing to follow any links you might have that will give me more details to convince me that buddha and his teachings somehow predate hinduism existing in a recognisable form.
As far as I know, the Vedas, Hinduisms first and "main" texts for their classic age... were written and widespread by about 800 BCE (with the faith existing in at least a few forms since 1500BCE, and further still depending on who you ask)... with the great sage being born into that culture some 300 years later around 550 BCE.
Ill agree that buddhism took off with massive popularity, and the two bounced ideas back and forth once the buddha fame was established... but I dont think that means buddhism isnt hinduisms child... i think it just means that they have a better parent-child relationship than christianity and judaism.
The Vedas are NOT the 'main' texts for Hinduism. I am not saying that VEDIC RELION is not older then Buddhism, I am saying the Classical Hinduism is not. You should actually try to understand what I am referring to before telling me that I am wrong.
Hinduism's classic age was during the time of the rise of Buddhism, Jainism, etc. During the period where the various texts that make up the Upanishads were being composed.
You are a computer engineer. I study History and Religion. I think that what I say has a little more weight here.
If you were taught in school that Buddhism is Hinduisms kid, then what you were taught is wrong or misguided. Buddhism and Hinduism both arose from the historic Vedic religion. The Vedas were a foundation, but they are NOT the structure of Hinduism.
What you are saying, would be like saying that because the Hebrew Bible is part of the 'main' scriptures of Christianity, that it existed before the Christ event.
The Vedas are primarily ritual texts. the philosophical stuff (including reincarnation) comes from the later texts, NOT the Vedas.
When discussing such things, the Buddha was not addressing an established mode of thought, but engaging in the topic of the day. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 12:03:13 PM | I study History and Religion.
You have confused me with my wife. I am an anthropology major, this actually is my SPECIFIC focus of study too. Adjust whose voice you think "carries more weight" ? (though I do agree with your philosophy of letting someone have the floor on their subjects)
If you were taught in school that Buddhism is Hinduisms kid, then what you were taught is wrong or misguided.
Im a little insulted, but im choking that back because I usually like your posts and Im guessing it was an honest mistake that youd check the profile and not read further to see it was two people instead of one. My major was anthropology . My wife, the chinese girl in the pics, is the engineering major.
The Vedas are NOT the 'main' texts for Hinduism.
I still politely disagree. I maintain that their (the vedas) creation is exactly the thing that forged hinduism from a collection of regional shamanic traditions into "hinduism" and that though it has been through many changes and had many offshoots... its still hinduism.
Another major text of Hinduism, The Upanishads, (a collection of various yogis teachings) was being seen in part as early as 800 bce. (though some parts authors lived as late as 100 years after the buddha... so i didnt use it in my original arguments)
I am not saying that VEDIC RELION is not older then Buddhism, I am saying the Classical Hinduism is not..
Here is our big difference. I was taught calling the post-Bhagavad Gita hinduism as modern or mainstream hinduism. what i was taught to identify as the "golden age" or "classic" was the Vedic era. That could be as small a difference as having two different professors though.
And really, knowing that so many varieties of hinduism exist as you do, I wouldnt have guessed youd try to split off the vedic tradition in that way as "not hinduism" I know you didnt say it wasnt, but your posts are insistent that buddha wasnt born into hindu culture and ways when he WAS an indian in the vedic era. You mentioned earlier that you know theres many, almost countless, sects of hinduism... more than a handful of those STILL revere those vedic gods and are just as much hinduism as the mainstream. (The worship of Agni is doing well even in the mainstream!)
When discussing such things, the Buddha was not addressing an established mode of thought, but engaging in the topic of the day.
Karma and the caste system were firmly part of the culture of the day that buddha. Our only disagreement is your (apparent?) insistence that the vedas and the vedic era are not hindu(ism).
Buddhism even PREDATES the various schools of Hindu philosophy.
Some of them, sure. Even if you want to discount the vedas as not-hinduism, I pointed out that many of the upanishands were written before the buddha, and certainly flavored the thinking of the day. (or because they are derived from vedic reasoning you wouldnt say they are hinduism either?)
J (not L)
PS- this...
You should actually try to understand what I am referring to before telling me that I am wrong.
sharing the same page as this...
And I am telling you that is wrong.
Was a bit insulting and funny at the same time. (practice what you preach, eh?) I hope that our bickering does send the more open minded people out onto the net for online libraries or even their local universities and libraries so they will decide for themsleves. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 1:55:25 PM | I like Paul's posts as well, but I've never seen anything, anywhere that would justifiy the flat assertion that Buddhism isn't a direct offshoot of Hindu thought, culture & tradition. (Tho' that doesn't mean there isn't a source that does; I would eagerly welcome any citation or reference you could provide.) And the "parallel" thesis seems even more difficult to support when aplied to the relationship between Judaism & Christianity. Jesus taught in the temple, often quoted Mosaic law, & was regarded by his followers as the Jewish Messiah. The term Christian didn't come into usage for some time; until then it was just another Jewish sect.
Question: If Buddhism is not an offshoot of Hinduism & Christianity of Judaism, is Protestantism then also not an offshoot of Catholicism? And if it is, why doesn't it fit your thesis? What makes it different? All three, I would respectfully submit, started as reform movements to make the established order of the day more responsive to the needs of it's adherents.
On the up-side, over the years I've found "justified true belief" as a working definition of "knowledge" VERY handy & pretty much bullet-proof, at least in the context of epistemics. The phrase does require a certain amount of unpacking, so maybe we should start a "What constitutes knowledge?" thread. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 8:13:32 PM |
You have confused me with my wife. I am an anthropology major, this actually is my SPECIFIC focus of study too. Adjust whose voice you think "carries more weight" ? (though I do agree with your philosophy of letting someone have the floor on their subjects)
Im a little insulted, but im choking that back because I usually like your posts and Im guessing it was an honest mistake that youd check the profile and not read further to see it was two people instead of one. My major was anthropology . My wife, the chinese girl in the pics, is the engineering major.
I cannot be blamed for thinking that you are someone who does not have a proper background in the subject. You should post as yourself under your own login.
However, what you are debating is NOT properly the realm of anthropology; it is the realm if the history of religion. Though I do concede that you would have greater knowledge on the subject then the average person.
I still politely disagree. I maintain that their (the vedas) creation is exactly the thing that forged hinduism from a collection of regional shamanic traditions into "hinduism" and that though it has been through many changes and had many offshoots... its still hinduism. Another major text of Hinduism, The Upanishads, (a collection of various yogis teachings) was being seen in part as early as 800 bce. (though some parts authors lived as late as 100 years after the buddha... so i didnt use it in my original arguments) [\quote] I should have put the emphasis as them not being THE 'main' texts. The problem with what you are claiming is that the Hinduism that we know today, classical Hinduism , is QUITE different from what it was prior. This is why it is wrong to claim that Hinduism gave birth to Buddhism, philosophicaly Buddhism was developing at the same time as what we not refer to as Hinduism, what came before is the historic vedic religion. In short: there was a myriad of various philosophical thoughts and schools in the period. All of them shared common heritage in the historic vedic religion. some became Hinduism, some became Buddhism, others Jainism, and so on. The Vedas unified the shamanic traditions in the Vedic religion, Hinduism developed due to the later commentary texts. I agree that some of the Upanishads were written prior to Buddhisms formation, but some of them were written latter. Buddhism arose in response to the Upanishads, just like other Hindu philosophical schools. It is just that Buddhisms texts ended up being named sutras. Here is our big difference. I was taught calling the post-Bhagavad Gita hinduism as modern or mainstream hinduism. what i was taught to identify as the "golden age" or "classic" was the Vedic era. That could be as small a difference as having two different professors though.
And really, knowing that so many varieties of hinduism exist as you do, I wouldnt have guessed youd try to split off the vedic tradition in that way as "not hinduism" I know you didnt say it wasnt, but your posts are insistent that buddha wasnt born into hindu culture and ways when he WAS an indian in the vedic era. You mentioned earlier that you know theres many, almost countless, sects of hinduism... more than a handful of those STILL revere those vedic gods and are just as much hinduism as the mainstream. (The worship of Agni is doing well even in the mainstream!) Then our argument is not an argument at all but a conflict of definitions. I have long been taught that the formation of classical Hinduism was with (in general) the Upanishads, Vedic religion existed prior to that (often called Vedic Brahmanism). THIS is why I say that Buddhism and modern Hinduism are siblings, more the children of Vedic Brahmanism. Some of them, sure. Even if you want to discount the vedas as not-hinduism, I pointed out that many of the upanishands were written before the buddha, and certainly flavored the thinking of the day. (or because they are derived from vedic reasoning you wouldnt say they are hinduism either?) Some them were indeed written before the life of Gautama, but much of the philosophical foundation of Buddhism comes from the same discourse that produced the Upanishads. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 8:24:39 PM |
Question: If Buddhism is not an offshoot of Hinduism & Christianity of Judaism, is Protestantism then also not an offshoot of Catholicism? And if it is, why doesn't it fit your thesis? What makes it different? All three, I would respectfully submit, started as reform movements to make the established order of the day more responsive to the needs of it's adherents.
No, protestantism is pretty much an offshoot of Catholicism. Whereas Protestant movements developed within catholicism in opposition to percieved errors, Christianity and Judiasm both arose side by side among many different groups of the Judaism of old. Modern Judaism is the remains of one of the schools that survived.
The same thing with Buddhism and Hinduism, they both survived from Vedic Brahmanism.
Unlike those situations, Catholicism still survives. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 10:33:42 PM | | This dead horse has been kicked over and over. It simply depends on who you ask. Even the damn Buddhists can't seem to agree on this one from my personal experience. They don't believe in a god or deity so as far as I'm concerned Buddhism is a phylosopy and not a religion. Simply put, that is what makes a religion a religion to me. A belief in a god or deity. Now just about the entire world will start copy and pasting dictionary definitions to say that I'm wrong but I really don't give much of a crap. If you are delusional enough to believe in god, you're religious. If not, you ain't. Simple really. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 10:41:24 PM |
This dead horse has been kicked over and over. It simply depends on who you ask. Even the damn Buddhists can't seem to agree on this one from my personal experience. They don't believe in a god or deity so as far as I'm concerned Buddhism is a phylosopy and not a religion. Simply put, that is what makes a religion a religion to me. A belief in a god or deity. Now just about the entire world will start copy and pasting dictionary definitions to say that I'm wrong but I really don't give much of a crap. If you are delusional enough to believe in god, you're religious. If not, you ain't. Simple really.
Nice of you to devaluize someones religion because it does not believe in deity.
AND to insult people who DO believe in deity.
You are just full of positive thoughts aren't you? | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 10:47:14 PM |
If you are delusional enough to believe in god, you're religious. Painting with broad strokes... hmmmm... rather ironic considering some of the other posts I have seen you make..
There are a LOT of people who believe in God yet are part of no religion... who are also not delusional... next time at least qualify your insulting generalizations with an "imo" since that is all it is. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 11:49:27 PM |
Nice of you to devaluize someones religion because it does not believe in deity.
AND to insult people who DO believe in deity. But I don't consider to be a religion, as I stated, do I? So impossible to devaluize Buddhism. At least for me. Close to humanism it seems to me. Not to you. To me. And if you take my true feeling that people who are religious by MY definition are delusional, which as I say Buddhism isn't, then tough. This is a forum for us to exchange those ideas and feelings regardless of whether or not you see it like I do. Don't like it? Scroll by my posts. You sure aren't making any headway by replying to them are you? | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/27/2007 11:52:52 PM | There are a LOT of people who believe in God yet are part of no religion... who are also not delusional...
Ah but they are. At least in my view.
next time at least qualify your insulting generalizations with an "imo" since that is all it is.
Tell ya what. Next time you read one of my posts, or anybody's here for that matter, consider it thiers or my opinion. Because that's all it is. You thought otherwise somehow? This is a forum, not a course on religion or psychiatry. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 12:02:15 AM |
Tell ya what. Next time you read one of my posts, or anybody's here for that matter, consider it thiers or my opinion. Because that's all it is. You thought otherwise somehow? I am glad you realize your previous statement is null and void ;)
This is a forum, not a course on religion or psychiatry. Then refrain from making generalizations regarding either... at least... without acknowledging that it is only your opinion... not an assertion of fact. There is a difference... apparently that needed to be explained... ? | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 12:18:02 AM |
I am glad you realize your previous statement is null and void ;)
Don't realize anything of the sort. How could you be glad? For that matter, how could you even begin to know what I realize? All of my statements are my opinions or as how I view an issue. Those are never null and void to me. That's why we engage in forums like this, to offer those views and opinions and exchange dialog with others who may see it differently. Simple really.
Then refrain from making generalizations regarding either... at least... without acknowledging that it is only your opinion... not an assertion of fact.
Firstly, when did you become a moderator or someone else in authority which gives you the right to even ASK much less TELL me to refrain from doing anything? And secondly, I have never asserted a fact. Here or anywhere else. I may suggest that a concept is highly plausible to me or offer my views and opinions on a subject. But I never would assert a fact. In fact, the fact of the matter is that I don't really believe that there is such a think as a fact. And that is factually a fact. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 12:25:35 AM |
I have never asserted a fact. Here or anywhere else. I may suggest that a concept is highly plausible to me or offer my views and opinions on a subject. But I never would assert a fact. In fact, the fact of the matter is that I don't really believe that there is such a think as a fact. And that is factually a fact. Your previous post:
If you are delusional enough to believe in god, you're religious. If not, you ain't. Simple really. Assertion of fact. Period.
Firstly, when did you become a moderator or someone else in authority which gives you the right to even ASK much less TELL me to refrain from doing anything? I am the authority over whether the word "religious" fits me. Not you. Now good night. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 3:39:10 AM |
But I don't consider to be a religion, as I stated, do I? So impossible to devaluize Buddhism. At least for me. Close to humanism it seems to me. Not to you. To me. And if you take my true feeling that people who are religious by MY definition are delusional, which as I say Buddhism isn't, then tough. This is a forum for us to exchange those ideas and feelings regardless of whether or not you see it like I do. Don't like it? Scroll by my posts. You sure aren't making any headway by replying to them are you?
Oh? be saying that it is a philosophy and not a religion, then you are devaluing it. A philosophy does not get legal protection from discrimination. Employers do not give consideration to the holidays of a philosophy.
By restricting religion to mean only those that deal with deities removes religious status to MANY. But I am sure that you do not care about that, you are too full of yourself to bother.
YOUR definition? Arrogant.
Believing something differently then you makes them delusional? Go troll a different forum. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 3:46:46 AM |
Don't realize anything of the sort. How could you be glad? For that matter, how could you even begin to know what I realize? All of my statements are my opinions or as how I view an issue. Those are never null and void to me. That's why we engage in forums like this, to offer those views and opinions and exchange dialog with others who may see it differently. Simple really.
The last refuge of the know-it-all who knows nothing. 'these are my opinions, so i can't be wrong.'
Total bullshit. Clinging to an idea that has been proven to be full of crap, by calling it opinion (which is never wrong, pft), is the mark of someone living in a fantasy world.
Firstly, when did you become a moderator or someone else in authority which gives you the right to even ASK much less TELL me to refrain from doing anything? And secondly, I have never asserted a fact. Here or anywhere else. I may suggest that a concept is highly plausible to me or offer my views and opinions on a subject. But I never would assert a fact. In fact, the fact of the matter is that I don't really believe that there is such a think as a fact. And that is factually a fact.
By the fact that this is a community moderated forum.
Everything you write here is bombast and hot air. go away. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 7:56:17 AM |
Assertion of fact. Period.
Nope. Can't take that quote in the proper context without looking at the several other posts of mine both on this thread and others where I define whay MY opinion af delusion is. So still, consistent in not stating something the I believe to be a fact. Read it anyway you chose. But only I know if I believe the statement to be a fact in MY mind huh? But to make it a little easier for you. many people, mostly the faithful, do not see the term delusional as I see it.
I am the authority over whether the word "religious" fits me. Not you. Now good night.
Of course you are. But I am the authority over whether I think the word "religious" fits you huh? I've been put in no less than four categories that I know of by people here and they have the right to categorize me anyway they choose. Doesn't change my opinion of what I am but they have a right to thier own. Actually don't have an opinion of whether or not you are religious I don't believe but if I've indicated to you that I have reached such a conclusion, well all I can say is there are many different people here with many different views and I sometimes do not do a good job of keeping track of everybody's belief system. Sleep well. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 8:20:10 AM |
Oh? be saying that it is a philosophy and not a religion, then you are devaluing it.
In your view, certainly not in mine. Indeed viewing any concept as a phylosopy as opposed to a religion lends it high credibility in my view when compared to what I think a delusional concept such as religion, my definition, is.
A philosophy does not get legal protection from discrimination. Employers do not give consideration to the holidays of a philosophy.
And neither should a religion. No justice in this world huh? It's the government and employers that you speak of, not me, that does not recognize the value of such phylosophies as Buddhism. If it's a religion by the way, why do you suppose it is not offered those protections that you point out by the government and given the same consideration by employers as well? Hmmmmm. Could it be that even your own government and the vast majority, if not all, of the employers in the US do not view Buddhism as a religion just like me? Are Buddhists legally protected more than us humanists? Are they afforded more consideration in the work place than we are. Interesting point. Think I'll file that one away. Never thought of it. See, I am still learning.
By restricting religion to mean only those that deal with deities removes religious status to MANY.
Excellent point along the same line so let's take it for a spin. I honestly don't know the answer to this but is there any belief system in the US that is afforded the protections that you mention that religions have that enjoys those same protections? No time now but I think I'll research the issue. Should be easy to find some case law somewhere that has ruled for a Buddhist in his court challenge that he was unlawfully descriminated against because he thought he was a member of a religion. Perhaps his national origin or race was an issue but religion? Hmmm. Interesting. We sure don't have any national holidays honoring Buddhism. Perhaps you've already studied this issue of legal status. I'd sure like any direction you might point me to for my own research. Don't bother to copy and past an excerpt that you might decide address the issue. I'll do my own reading. Just point the way. Or maybe in a day or two when the world series is over I'll shed some light on it for you. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 8:35:42 AM |
Oh? be saying that it is a philosophy and not a religion, then you are devaluing it. A philosophy does not get legal protection from discrimination. Employers do not give consideration to the holidays of a philosophy.
Wow Paul... Well done.
I never looked at it that way... Buddhists claiming it isn't a religion (which alot do ) are kind of inviting spiritual discrimination.
Of course you are. But I am the authority over whether I think the word "religious" fits you huh? I've been put in no less than four categories that I know of by people here and they have the right to categorize me anyway they choose.
Judging by your posts, yes they can decide for themselves which category you fall in... However, if they were to say all Humanists are ignorant would you not get offended?
Nobody has the right to make blanket statements and not expect to be called on them.
If you are delusional enough to believe in god, you're religious. If not, you ain't. Simple really.
This is a prejudiced, insulting generalisation and Sassy had every right to call you on it. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 8:39:28 AM | What is your definition of a religion? If you take the dictionary’s meaning it is any system of belief in and worship of a supernatural power of god.
But, if you do not worship it... is it still a religion?
If you don't have a specific denomination/faith/piety, considering instead there may be elements of truth in many things, just not the whole truth in any one of them... how can this be a religion? And how could I call myself religious?
This is my position. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 9:16:36 AM | Well I found some stuff afterall. As usual though with the law, light is not always shed. Several cases seem to contradict each other. For example:
In Davis v. Beason, the Court stated: "The term ‘religion’ has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.
In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court broke the theistic mold which had theretofore restricted the American legal definition of religion. According to the Court, the first amendment precluded government from aiding "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." The Court noted that "[a]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." This expanded position reflected a recognition of the great diversity of religious beliefs in modern America.
While Congress has provided no definition of religion in the context of federal tax exemptions, it did so in the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948. The Act’s provision allowing a military exemption for those conscientiously opposed to war due to religious credences defined religious training and belief as "an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation but [not including] . . . essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."
So we come full circle yet again. Many definitions of what a religion is. Using congess's, some supreme court rulings and mine, Buddhism ain't one. You and others in the field of law and government don't seem to agree. Simple really. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 9:54:05 AM | Judging by your posts, yes they can decide for themselves which category you fall in... However, if they were to say all Humanists are ignorant would you not get offended?
Not in the least. Nor if humanists were regarded as delusional. Perhaps some of my fellow humanists might but I've been called ignorant and much worse as an individual and I am not offended. Don't think I ever have. The definition of ignorance and intelligence is way to subjective in my view to bring it into a debate where it offers nothing to a persons position on the issue. I see that more from the faithful here than I could ever match. Delusional, on the other hand, though somewhat subjective as well it would seem, in my view does have at least some objectivity and generally accepted definition attached to it. At least in psychiatry. So I accept that definition of the term and believe that it applies to believers in a god or deity. It also applies to me in my various beliefs and fantacies. And no. I will not go back and post the psychiatric definition again. But I will post what is likely only one of many definitions of ignorant:
ig·no·rant –adjective 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
All four of these definitions apply to me in some form or another and I take it as a compliment to my continuing outlook in my search for intelligence. The only people that I think would take offence at being called ignorant would be those whose firm belief in what they feel to be a certainty is refered to as ignorance. You see, to belive someone is ignorant relative to yourself, you must believe that you are more correct than the other person on the particular subject. I do not believe that I am more correct than the faithful regarding the existance of god for instance. They could be right. I just feel that we do not have the capacity to ever know. Therefore, I don't know and don't claim to know. They do that. Often. But I never have. To me, ignorance is to believe that you know something for a certainty that has yet to be prooven or at least demonstrated and therefore regarding that something, you have nothing more to learn.
This is a prejudiced, insulting generalisation and Sassy had every right to call you on it. Of course and so do you. I am prejudiced when it comes to religion. Until I find one christian or muslim that does not tell me that either I believe precisely as they do or else then I will prejudge and of the faithful that approach me as feeling precisely the same way. There are other areas of religion where I can quite accurately be considered prejudiced, such as my thoughts on what it is to be delusional, but they are my thoughts and my prejudices. Just as you have yours I suspect. And I did not realize that generalisations that might insult a particular group are anything other than the norm hear. I honestly do not think that I insult just for the purpose of insulting, such as calling someone ignorant when they've no idea what's inside my mind, but instead my views in opposition of others are insulting. But my views an issue are my views and I choose to express them. If I have personally attacked somebody other than in my expression of my views on the particular issue then it was wrong of me and I'll watch it in the future. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 10:44:42 AM |
Delusional, on the other hand, though somewhat subjective as well it would seem, in my view does have at least some objectivity and generally accepted definition attached to it. At least in psychiatry. So I accept that definition of the term and believe that it applies to believers in a god or deity. And no. I will not go back and post the psychiatric definition again.
There's no need for you to have to go back and provide the dictionary definition of the word,delusional that you are using to apply and refer to "the faithful" as you have also been stated it in other posts within these forums as well....No need at all...fret not I say for my happy as.s will do you the pleasure of quoting you and bringing this information over here for all to see:
jrbogie wrote:
Just what claim have I made? The definition of delusion as it is used in psychiatry? Tell you what sport, the same definition can be found in the dictionary. Here ya go. Next time I'll need your Visa/Mastercard number before surfing for such simple information for you.
de·lu·sion (di l?'??n)
noun
a deluding or being deluded
a false belief or opinion
Psychiatry a false, persistent belief maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary
While using your same definition that you are using, let me once again break this all the way down for you. Unless you have available evidence to provide as well to support your very own definition of delusion that you are using to refer to and define others as delusional(example being in reference to another one's spiritual and/or religious beliefs)then I once again,highly suggest you present your future posts in here in reference to this as just your personal opinion or personal belief and/or perception for example instead of presenting your posts as an exclusivity of truth(which by the way,breaks forums rules for you to do so).
And just to help ya out on this..guess what...theories are not what many of the academic minds would consider as AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!
jrbogie wrote:
Tell ya what. Next time you read one of my posts, or anybody's here for that matter, consider it thiers or my opinion. Because that's all it is. You thought otherwise somehow?
Just like others over here,I am a critical thinker as well and the first thing that I do is separate facts from opinions. And just because you seem to always fail to present your posts as a belief and opinion,don't assume that others lack the mental ability that demonstrates one to be able to present their post and position accordingly.
Sassy wrote:
Assertion of fact. Period.
I completely agree.It appears to me in my opinion that he presents this as something that should be a universally accepted fact and also fails to provide any available evidence while doing so instead of presenting this as just is his opinion and/or belief for example.
Paul wrote:
YOUR definition? Arrogant.
Believing something differently then you makes them delusional? Go troll a different forum.
I agree completely once again
Stones wrote:
This is a prejudiced, insulting generalisation and Sassy had every right to call you on it.
I agree completely and I for one, am through calling him on this and presenting it as a request once again that he refrain from such while posting in these open forums...I have extended every courtesy I can in reference to this and although I am not one to file reports of forum violations but I will next time I see this occur with this poster. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 10:53:32 AM | "In Davis v. Beason, the Court stated: "The term ‘religion’ has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.
In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court broke the theistic mold which had theretofore restricted the American legal definition of religion. "
These cases do not, as asseted later, "contradict." Davis came in 1890, Torasco in 1961. The court frequently revisits previous decisions and expands, modifys or nullifies them. The most recent ruling becones the operant precedent. Buddhism is afforded the same protection under the free exercise clause & the same restrictions under the establishment clause as the Baptists or the Methodists.
You may choose to believe otherwise, but the vast majority of scholars in comparative religion do not see theism as perequisite to religion & find the term "nontheistic religion" to be valid & useful.
It's unfortunate the tenor of this discourse has become so unecessarily shrill & abusive. This is no longer dialectic or even polemic, it's just redfaced, sputtering & scrteaming & it's saddening that people with so much knowledge to share can't do so without taking umbrage. You do great disservice to your own credibility in presenting as arrogant jackasses. (I'm not naming names; you know who you are.)
Now, go ahead & tell me to mind my own f* ckin' business & demonstrate my point. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 10:56:41 AM |
You and others in the field of law and government don't seem to agree. Simple really.
Not the first time, likely won't be the last, lol!
The courts don't always make the smartest decisions, do they? I'm guessing they didn't look past a few definitions... There are a few definitions of religion that have nothing to do with any gods... This is one of them but there are others that fit Buddhism, Taoism and others that follow set guidelines.
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
The definition of ignorance and intelligence is way to subjective in my view to bring it into a debate where it offers nothing to a persons position on the issue.
I only used the term because I couldn't really think of a good insult for Humanists... I wasn't calling anyone anything... Just giving an example. | |
|
| Is buddhism a religion?
Posted: 10/28/2007 11:25:29 AM | jrbogie... I feel no need to give lessons on the difference between stating your opinion in a respectful manner and of making insulting generalizations as though they are factual.... it really isn't a hard concept to grasp....
But I will say that since the word religion has no universally decided upon definition it cannot be applied in a generalized way with any kind of certainty.... especially while also attempting to apply the term to a complex human being...
Oh, and as for the word delusional..... are you qualified to make such a psyhiatric diagnosis? Some are and yet make no such assertions.....
This is a prejudiced, insulting generalisation and Sassy had every right to call you on it. Thanks Stone :)
Casheyes:
It appears to me in my opinion that he presents this as something that should be a universally accepted fact and also fails to provide any available evidence while doing so instead of presenting this as just is his opinion and/or belief for example. I thought it was pretty blatant myself! I think your method of handling things in the future is best... I think I will follow suit :)
| |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
