Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
QUOTE: I find anger at Christians is a natural (and sometimes very long) stage in the process of recovering from Christianity. This too shall pass.
Although I essentially agree with the above statement, I would change the word "Christianity" that I italicized above to coercive religion.
I say this because it's only the coerciveness of some aspects of Christianity that are so very vexing. I don't at all feel any need to recover from the beauty or the mystery of that religion; nay, I'd hate to cut myself off from that part of my life. True, it may mostly bore me these days, but I am still capable of being moved by any act of love —no matter its source. Furthermore, Christianity is not the only coercive religion, it's just the religion most of us were burdened with.
Recovering from the rude blows of coercive religion, which hamper true spiritual progress... Yes, that's the way I see it.
Pagan comes from Latin paganus 'villager, rustic', from pagus 'country district'. So for example Tibetan Buddhism is Pagan. The modern usage is probably more to do with multiple deities and shamanic or similar practices, both of which can be found in Tibetan vajrayana. Obviosly Tibetan Buddhism has advanced teachings and levels just as Pagans don't spend all their time dressing as goths and casting love spells . . .
In a similar way many Christians believe in holy ghosts, demons and the power of ritual magic involving altar, chalice and High Priests. I was brought up in magick based Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox Church has its icons and magick too . . .
All religions can be practiced on the token level.
That is up to individual depth. Most of us are dabblers. Or maybe that is just me . . . :wave:
As a Pagan myself, for nearly 4 decades, I also classified the religion of Buddhism as a "pagan religion" as they have many gods, goddesses and ritual practices that are not connected to the "Big Three" major religions of the world- Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
Also as a young Catholic I was taught via the Church that Buddhism was a "pagan" religion, right along with any other religion that had multiple gods/goddesses and was considered of a "primitive" culture... Granted, word meanings and usage changes over time, so I checked with a new, English dictionary:
PAGAN, noun: 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist. 2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, gentile; idolator; nonbeliever. 3. an irreligious or hedonistic person. 4. a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient.
adjective: 5. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, heathenish, idolatrous, polytheistic. Antonyms: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, monotheistic. 6. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
A very keen observation @lobster. The Orthodox Catholic (Eastern Orthodox) Church is inclusive rather than exclusive in recognizing and including many influential elements from the use of incense and various objects in worship to even canonizing the Buddha. This is what makes it universal or catholic and far less rigid than most people tend to think.
By the way, participating in a ritual is to directly participate in a transcendent symbol.
I find anger at Christians is a natural (and sometimes very long) stage in the process of recovering from Christianity. This too shall pass.
What about those who have not come from a Christian background and have a lot of anger? It will also be a long process, if at all I assume though.
@OP ants fucking piss me off but I do not conduct genocide on them, I remove the situations that cause them to come in the first time, I understand that we share this land and that I am not superior, if anything I have infringed on 'their' land.
Pagan or not, buddhism is considered primitive and hence it might offend Christians if compared with their religion.
Considered primitive by whom? Thich Nhat Hanh makes many interesting comparisons with Christianity. An ecumenical attitude is far more helpful than one that insists on more dotted lines and division. Seeking common ground is far less offensive than insisting "my religion is better than yours." If dogmatic Christians or Buddhists don't like that, well, that says more about their own insecurity than anything...
I think the secular definition of evil is using someone else as an object, so if we use another person as an object of our anger by that definition what we are doing is evil, and it makes no difference whether one is Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, or Pagan because it part of the conditioning we all share. Fortunately, it is just a condition that can be gotten rid of and not an essential part of our nature.
I don't think it even has to be a fundamentalist family that can cause harm in some way to children growing up. Hate was never tolerated in our home, but there were still a lot of areas where Christianity had a foothold, never in an overtly negative way though. For me the "damage" came in not being allowed to be who I was. In having parents that insisted that because they were Christian, their children would be raised Christian too. I never got a choice, even when I was old enough to insist on it. Once I started to insist it wasn't what I wanted, that's when the "omg, we have a kid who isn't conforming! What to do!!!" started to come in. Basically I was told that once I had my own life, I could live my life how I wanted. Until then, I would keep with what my parents wanted. I never agreed with that and it caused me a lot of anger.
I got over it. I don't blame Christianity for it. The funny thing is that my dad isn't religious at all, he doesn't believe in any of it because he believes religions cause most of the world's problems. My mom believes in the teachings of Christ but that is as far as her Christian belief goes. Thankfully, they have both grown in that department. But it sure made me refuse to push my children into any direction where these things are concerned. We talk about it a lot. But there are times in their lives that I wondered if they wouldn't have benefited from my having instilled a wisdom tradition into their lives. But I honestly just couldn't do it. Once I left home, I was too angry to want any religion in my life. I figured out what I believed on my own as I grew up and then went searching for something to fit it. Buddhism was my first stop but it seemed too complex and dark when I learned about it in college. So eventually I wandered into a Pagan path and flitted around there until a few years ago when I wandered back to Buddhism. I didn't have a tradition to pass down to my kids and I sure wasn't going to indoctrinate them into the Christianity I knew where they were baptised for protection from evil as children and then took vacation bible school and confirmation classes. I just believe too strongly that they deserved to make the call about where to take their lives, and that not one single person I knew had found what they felt comfortable in until at least their teens, and more likely into young adult ages.
When I first started with Buddhism, I kind of had this "HA! Screw you Christianity, this is where it's at!" attitude. But over time, and thanks to a lovely woman in our Sangha, I changed my view to be able to realize what Christianity seemed to truly be saying. Reading Christian verses now, my understanding is a far cry from how I read them 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago. So I'm not angry anymore. It was nothing Christianity did to me. And it wasn't even anything my parents did. They did the best they could with what they had at the time, I'm just glad that now I can be who I am without feeling like I let them down. They are fully accepting of my being a Buddhist. It was what it was, and in the end it is what led me to Buddhism, so how can I be angry for that?
If someone becomes offended, that is their choice. I mostly try not to offend people in such discussions, but if someone gets offended because I say the teachings of Buddha and Christ are quite similar, well, then it is their fault for getting offended at that. It's not my responsibility to not say it if I believe it to be true, which I do. If someone is going to discuss religion with me, then I'm going to tell them what I really think, and honestly, it's never once been a problem. Not even my husband's extremely Catholic family has ever had a problem with me making that comparison because usually it results in them asking "how so?" and then we have a really good discussion about it.
Again, saying that many of the teachings are basically the same is NOT the same as saying "Buddhism and Christianity are the same." I don't think anyone would say that.
Not saying this to anyone in particular; just making a statement about my impression/opinion about the whole comparing religions thing, (any religions) ...
Seems to me when a person is more or less fixated on discussing, proving, arguing, and validating all that is "wrong" with one religion - (usually one they left or have never been a part of) - and discussing, proving, arguing, and validating all that is "right" with another - (usually one they recently adopted) - they are still in a self-convincing, or self validating mode regarding their own decision.
Look at the way some people (again not targeting anyone in particular, in this forum or otherwise) who frequently 'preach to the choir' as they say about [insert religion here] and its superiority over other religion/s.... they sound more like they are trying to convince themselves, don't they?
I could never understand why most forums of any religious focus would have a specific discussion area for the 'comparison' of their own and others' religions. Why? Is it really necessary to compare religions in order to gain respect and or knowledge about Buddhism, or Catholicism or any other ism? Seems to me it's just an open invitation for being judgmental and bigoted about other people's beliefs.... why should it matter what other people do, if they are not related or in contact with you? I'm not talking about the POLITICAL actions of some religious groups; that's a whole other discussion.... I'm talking about comparing religious teachings and practices, that's all.
Comparing and contrasting religions —like comparing and contrasting linguistics (as found in different languages) can serve as very helpful and enlightening conceptual tools. I never really understood the real depth of Christianity until I had encountered Hindu thought. The processing of different paradigms adds depth and contributes to deeper understanding of your own chosen or inherited wisdom tradition.
Just as languages are composed of different concepts (words), constructs (grammars, verb and noun patterns, etc.), and styles —so are the world's religions. In other words, language and religion are in many ways two sides of the same coin and go hand-in-hand. It does no harm to compare religions as long as you are being specific and not a generalist. Indeed, it's in the finding of parallels and the pointing out of differences where we find where we ourselves either fall or aim towards.
Well, that's where I stand. If people want to go about comparing religions without being destructive, that's fine. For myself, I think it's a far worse thing when people try to censor others for what they say or where they're coming from —especially on this forum. I thought that was what the moderators were for. Why can't we stay more to the issues themselves than how we think people are coming across?
I say this because I find that free speech is not understood to be of priority on this forum by its members. There's too much preaching at the person, I think.
Pagan or not, buddhism is considered primitive and hence it might offend Christians if compared with their religion.
That's a massive stereotype @betaboy. My father is a Catholic and has no objection to me practising Buddhism, nor do the other (multitude of) Catholics in my family. The Jews in the family (my mother's side) have no issue with it either.
Did it ever occur to you that it's not Buddhism that Christians might find offensive but rather the actions of certain "Buddhists"?
I could understand @betaboy making that statement if this were, say, a Catholic forum. But it doesn't make much sense in the context of a Buddhist board. It's not as if the forum is full of devout Christians who are going to take offense to our stating the similarities between the two.
I wanted to clarify what I said in my last post. I didn't mean to imply that I just say what I think is true and screw everyone if they don't like it. I do try to be mindful, especially in religious discussion, about everyone's feelings, and if I can't find a way to proceed respectfully, I won't. I just meant that if a religious discussion is going on, and I made such a statement (that I thought Jesus and Buddha taught many of the same things) and someone got offended then it wouldn't make me wish I hadn't said anything. Because I see nothing inflammatory in that statement and if it greatly offended someone, I'd have to ask them why. There are many times I might think of something to be true, but know better than to say so depending on the context, the medium, and the people involved.
Pagan or not, buddhism is considered primitive and hence it might offend Christians if compared with their religion.
That's a massive stereotype @betaboy. My father is a Catholic and has no objection to me practising Buddhism, nor do the other (multitude of) Catholics in my family. The Jews in the family (my mother's side) have no issue with it either.
Did it ever occur to you that it's not Buddhism that Christians might find offensive but rather the actions of certain "Buddhists"?
There are a LOT of fundamentalists out there..lots of very messed up family situations because of it, lots of intolerance.... Nobody can deny that this exists. But I guess when it comes down to it, its just another method that abusers use to weild their power.
Pagan or not, buddhism is considered primitive and hence it might offend Christians if compared with their religion.
That's a massive stereotype @betaboy. My father is a Catholic and has no objection to me practising Buddhism, nor do the other (multitude of) Catholics in my family. The Jews in the family (my mother's side) have no issue with it either.
Did it ever occur to you that it's not Buddhism that Christians might find offensive but rather the actions of certain "Buddhists"?
There are a LOT of fundamentalists out there..lots of very messed up family situations because of it, lots of intolerance.... Nobody can deny that this exists. But I guess when it comes down to it, its just another method that abusers use to weild their power.
I didn't deny it exists, I deny that the stereotype is true for all.
As a Pagan myself, for nearly 4 decades, I also classified the religion of Buddhism as a "pagan religion" as they have many gods, goddesses and ritual practices that are not connected to the "Big Three" major religions of the world- Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
Also as a young Catholic I was taught via the Church that Buddhism was a "pagan" religion, right along with any other religion that had multiple gods/goddesses and was considered of a "primitive" culture... Granted, word meanings and usage changes over time, so I checked with a new, English dictionary:
PAGAN, noun: 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist. 2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, gentile; idolator; nonbeliever. 3. an irreligious or hedonistic person. 4. a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient.
adjective: 5. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, heathenish, idolatrous, polytheistic. Antonyms: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, monotheistic. 6. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
Well both Hinduism and Buddhism are far bigger than Judaism which is tiny so should not be considered in the top 3 and Buddhism is non-theistic as even the Bodhisattvas are not Gods.
^^ It's not simply about numbers, @TheEccentric. It's about cultural/world wide influence amongst ONE creator-god (monotheistic) religions. And that indeed puts Judaism in the top three, considering both Christianity and Islam are an offshoot of original Judaism, and they are the top two - numbers-wise.
Judaism is the oldest of all monotheistic religions and blazed the trail for many other world religions including Christianity and Islam. Judaism follows the teachings of God, Yahweh, and focuses on Jews as the chosen people of God descending from the line of Abraham. Jews are called to be an example for others in holiness and ethical behavior. Moses founded the religion after leading his people from Egyptian slavery and receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai. The Jewish religious text is known as the Torah and recounts the stories and teachings of its founders.
As for Buddhism or Hinduism having no gods .... really? Well, maybe no all-powerful, singular creator god, but there are about a kazillion gods and supernatural beings. The term "god" itself is often open to some interpretation, but the common ground in all religions and languages is that a "god" is a supernatural being, with some power and control over some aspects of life here on earth and/or in other realms. Buddhism and Hinduism are loaded with gods. But maybe I'm wrong? hey- I don't claim to be any sort of scholar....
I did not say that Hinduism had no Gods because that would be a stupid as it has thousands.
While some sects of Buddhism have the Gods you are reffering to not a single one was actually taught by the Gautama Buddha they were just added in later.
I did not say that Hinduism had no Gods because that would be a stupid as it has thousands.
While some sects of Buddhism have the Gods you are reffering to not a single one was actually taught by the Gautama Buddha they were just added in later.
And all the horrid things in the Old Testament were not taught by Christ. They come from a book written hundreds of years before his time.
A lot of people still aren't sure entirely what parts of Buddhism Buddha taught because it was written down for years after his passing. So I'm not convinced you get to decide which parts are *actual* Buddhism and which aren't, considering even the scholars don't always know.
Buddha didn't say "there are no gods". Buddha said one didn't need the gods to reach Nirvana. That the path to enlightenment was within (oneself) not from outside oneself. That (praying or chanting to) the gods couldn't "give you" enlightenment or somehow lead you to it by the hand. In other words; Buddha merely ignored the gods - but never said they didn't exist and never told people to stop the chanting, rituals, mantras, offerings, etc.; that are connected to honoring the different Buddhist gods/deities; just not to rely on them for enlightenment.
Many of the gods did study with Buddhas. The heart sutra says that there was a great gathering of the sangha of monks and a great gathering of the bodhisattvas, gods, asuras, and gandavas.
A bodhisattva is very different from a God. In fact the bodhisattva vow says that one should not take refuge in a God or Gods.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Pagan or not, buddhism is considered primitive and hence it might offend Christians if compared with their religion.
Well gee, did it ever occur to you the degree of disdain some of our members hold to Christianity?
You can see why though, right?
The people that tell us we are inherently evil are the same that want to save us.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Many of the gods did study with Buddhas. The heart sutra says that there was a great gathering of the sangha of monks and a great gathering of the bodhisattvas, gods, asuras, and gandavas.
A bodhisattva is very different from a God. In fact the bodhisattva vow says that one should not take refuge in a God or Gods.
MaryAnne said: The term "god" itself is often open to some interpretation, but the common ground in all religions and languages is that a "god" is a supernatural being, with some power and control over some aspects of life here on earth and/or in other realms.
I agree in that there are indeed many interpretations of the term god, but god as a supernatural being is not common ground for at least half of Christianity.
Valdimir Lossky addresses the topic of supernatural as follows:
"Eastern tradition knows no such supernatural order between God and the created world, adding as it were, to the later a new creation. It recognizes no distinction, or rather division, save that between the created and the uncreated. For the eastern tradition the created supernatural has no existence. That which western theology call by the name of the supernatural signifies for the East the uncreated-the divine energies ineffably distinct from the essence of God. The difference consists in the fact that the western conception of grace implies the idea of causality, grace being represented as an effect of the divine Cause, exactly as is in the act of creation; while for eastern theology there is a natural procession, the energies, shining forth eternally from the divine essence. It is in creation alone that God acts as cause, in producing a new subject called to participate in divine fullness; preserving it, saving it, granting grace to it, and guiding it towards its final goal. In the energies He is, He exists, He eternally manifests Himself. Here we are faced with a mode of divine being to which we accede in receiving grace; which, moreover, in the created and perishable world, is a presence of the uncreated and eternal light, the real omnipresence of God in all things, which is something more than His causal presence-'the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not' (John 1:5).
The divine energies are within everything and outside everything. One must be raised above created being, and abandon all contact with creatures in order to attain to union with 'the rays of the Godhead', says Dionysius the Aeropagite. Despite this, these divine rays penetrate the whole created universe, and are the cause of its existence. The light 'was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not’ (John 1:10).”
(The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 88)
Well gee, did it ever occur to you the degree of disdain some of our members hold to Christianity?
That strikes a cord. Where I work, I am the only Buddhist. I work for a company that teaches each employee to embrace diversity and inclusion even though we are located firmly in the South and the Bible Belt. My department has a group of Christian women who are very intolerant of my beliefs. If you complain, they smile at you in the HR department and say things will be addressed, then the treatment gets worse.
I never started any of the ill will with these people. I go out of my way to be kind and inquire about their families and so forth. The last straw, so to speak, was when my Father passed away. No card, no flowers, not one word of compassion, cold silence, even though I had recently asked this same group of people about sickness in their families. To me this group of Christian women show no love of 'Christ'.
They only want to see me as a human being IF I fit the mold they are expecting to see. Christ mingled and ate with publicans and sinners, he conversed with them. He didn't practice the back handed slap I so often hear being quoted "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Where is that even in the Bible? Christ and God love people where they are, not where they expect them to be or at least that is how I have read those scriptures.
If I were to treat these 'Witches' as they themselves treat me, I would be fired immediately without question. The disdain I now feel, I have a hard time with, but I came by it honestly. The source sometimes is worse than the water that was polluted.
You use a lot of absolutes. "everyone" doesn't say Buddhism is an atheist religion. Everyone's refuge vows are not identical. The premise is the same but the details are different, like pretty much any other vow.
Mine was: I take from this time, until death, the most supreme of all human beings, the Buddha, as my refuge. The most supreme of all that is free from desire, in the Dharma, I take refuge. The most supreme of all assemblies, in the Sangha, I take refuge. From this point, until death, I ask the teacher to accept me as a lay follower, who has faith in the Triple Refuge.
Then we did a prayer In the Buddha, Dharma, and Supreme Assembly, I take refuge until enlightenment is achieved. May the merit of my generosity and other virtuous acts lead to Buddhahood for the welfare of all beings!
And then the refuge precepts: 1. Having taken refuge in the Buddha, one should no longer take refuge in worldly attainments. 2. Having taken refuge in the Dharma, one should no longer harm any sentient being. 3. Having taken refuge in the Sangha, one should no longer associate with negative individuals. 4. One should show great respect towards any representation of the Three Jewels by making offerings, prostrating, and showing reverence towards them at all times.
That was it. No mention of God, god, gods, or lack thereof.
The best way I have heard it explained is that Buddhism is atheistic in strict definition of atheism because it denies a God as creator and ruler. However, Buddhism still recognizes indigenous theistic beliefs and devotional practices. Obviously some traditions view each point somewhat differently.
Well gee, did it ever occur to you the degree of disdain some of our members hold to Christianity?
That strikes a cord. Where I work, I am the only Buddhist. I work for a company that teaches each employee to embrace diversity and inclusion even though we are located firmly in the South and the Bible Belt. My department has a group of Christian women who are very intolerant of my beliefs. If you complain, they smile at you in the HR department and say things will be addressed, then the treatment gets worse.
I never started any of the ill will with these people. I go out of my way to be kind and inquire about their families and so forth. The last straw, so to speak, was when my Father passed away. No card, no flowers, not one word of compassion, cold silence, even though I had recently asked this same group of people about sickness in their families. To me this group of Christian women show no love of 'Christ'.
They only want to see me as a human being IF I fit the mold they are expecting to see. Christ mingled and ate with publicans and sinners, he conversed with them. He didn't practice the back handed slap I so often hear being quoted "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Where is that even in the Bible? Christ and God love people where they are, not where they expect them to be or at least that is how I have read those scriptures.
If I were to treat these 'Witches' as they themselves treat me, I would be fired immediately without question. The disdain I now feel, I have a hard time with, but I came by it honestly. The source sometimes is worse than the water that was polluted.
These people are an insult to Christ. He would tell them later on, "Depart from me. I never knew you."
Well anyway I stand correct that Bodhisattvas are not Gods. If they were then they would be calledGods bot Bodhisattvas.
And the Budha never taught gods he spoke against the worship of worldly gods.
If there are so many gods in Buddhism why are Gods forbidden by the refuge vows? And then why does every one say Buddhism is atheist?
There are some Bodhisattva's in the higher realms who have the form of Gods such as the beings of the Tushita Pureland where Maitreya Bodhisattva currently abides.
Buddha taught against the worship of worldly gods as they are not objects fit for refuge they can aid their followers temporarily but being trapped within Samsara they cannot bring any real benefit to their followers.
Buddha according to the Sutra's visited the Gods and taught them the Dharma many of the gods became followers of Buddha.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Well gee, did it ever occur to you the degree of disdain some of our members hold to Christianity?
That strikes a cord. Where I work, I am the only Buddhist. I work for a company that teaches each employee to embrace diversity and inclusion even though we are located firmly in the South and the Bible Belt. My department has a group of Christian women who are very intolerant of my beliefs. If you complain, they smile at you in the HR department and say things will be addressed, then the treatment gets worse.
I never started any of the ill will with these people. I go out of my way to be kind and inquire about their families and so forth. The last straw, so to speak, was when my Father passed away. No card, no flowers, not one word of compassion, cold silence, even though I had recently asked this same group of people about sickness in their families. To me this group of Christian women show no love of 'Christ'.
They only want to see me as a human being IF I fit the mold they are expecting to see. Christ mingled and ate with publicans and sinners, he conversed with them. He didn't practice the back handed slap I so often hear being quoted "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Where is that even in the Bible? Christ and God love people where they are, not where they expect them to be or at least that is how I have read those scriptures.
If I were to treat these 'Witches' as they themselves treat me, I would be fired immediately without question. The disdain I now feel, I have a hard time with, but I came by it honestly. The source sometimes is worse than the water that was polluted.
These people are an insult to Christ. He would tell them later on, "Depart from me. I never knew you."
A lot of Christians (not all) follow the teachings of Christianity and/or Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus. Jesus preached that the only way to forgiveness is to forgive. For that he was murdered and people still celebrate his death today as if it were a good thing.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2013
I give not of my brother to save me from sin so if I miss the mark then I guess I won't win.
I seem to use a lot of "I"s for a Buddhist, don't I?
Heresy and blasphemy against ones former indoctrination is a valid tool, to expose its childish assertions . . . http://response.fwbo.org/fwbo-files/response37.html That is an antidote or aversion type procedure. Some atheists take it to an extreme due to their attachment to anger . . .
(I hope it is okay to bump this!) I just wanted to add that I had a period after I left my previous religion where I would argue a lot with people. I felt like the culture was out to get me in a lot of ways, but I realized that when I relaxed and stopped pushing against it, then I was able to ease into being around the group, but no longer part of it. It seems like people's reaction when you push against their beliefs is to shut you out and this never really leads to good conversations. It can still be difficult some days, but I just leave the people be. I know it can be difficult to hear people be mean or hypocritical, but then I realize that I would still want to help them. I realized that I used to say truly ignorant things and was pretty down right rude when I was part of their religion. Whenever I start to get too frustrated I try to think of the eight verses of thought transformation. I know this might sound like pretty lame advice, but it has gotten me out of getting into some really heated arguments before.
Comments
Although I essentially agree with the above statement, I would change the word "Christianity" that I italicized above to coercive religion.
I say this because it's only the coerciveness of some aspects of Christianity that are so very vexing. I don't at all feel any need to recover from the beauty or the mystery of that religion; nay, I'd hate to cut myself off from that part of my life. True, it may mostly bore me these days, but I am still capable of being moved by any act of love —no matter its source. Furthermore, Christianity is not the only coercive religion, it's just the religion most of us were burdened with.
Recovering from the rude blows of coercive religion, which hamper true spiritual progress... Yes, that's the way I see it.
So for example Tibetan Buddhism is Pagan.
The modern usage is probably more to do with multiple deities and shamanic or similar practices, both of which can be found in Tibetan vajrayana. Obviosly Tibetan Buddhism has advanced teachings and levels just as Pagans don't spend all their time dressing as goths and casting love spells . . .
In a similar way many Christians believe in holy ghosts, demons and the power of ritual magic involving altar, chalice and High Priests. I was brought up in magick based Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox Church has its icons and magick too . . .
All religions can be practiced on the token level.
That is up to individual depth. Most of us are dabblers. Or maybe that is just me . . . :wave:
As a Pagan myself, for nearly 4 decades, I also classified the religion of Buddhism as a "pagan religion" as they have many gods, goddesses and ritual practices that are not connected to the "Big Three" major religions of the world- Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
Also as a young Catholic I was taught via the Church that Buddhism was a "pagan" religion, right along with any other religion that had multiple gods/goddesses and was considered of a "primitive" culture...
Granted, word meanings and usage changes over time, so I checked with a new, English dictionary:
PAGAN,
noun:
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, gentile; idolator; nonbeliever.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
4. a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient.
adjective:
5. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, heathenish, idolatrous, polytheistic. Antonyms: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, monotheistic.
6. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
By the way, participating in a ritual is to directly participate in a transcendent symbol.
@OP ants fucking piss me off but I do not conduct genocide on them, I remove the situations that cause them to come in the first time, I understand that we share this land and that I am not superior, if anything I have infringed on 'their' land.
I got over it. I don't blame Christianity for it. The funny thing is that my dad isn't religious at all, he doesn't believe in any of it because he believes religions cause most of the world's problems. My mom believes in the teachings of Christ but that is as far as her Christian belief goes. Thankfully, they have both grown in that department. But it sure made me refuse to push my children into any direction where these things are concerned. We talk about it a lot. But there are times in their lives that I wondered if they wouldn't have benefited from my having instilled a wisdom tradition into their lives. But I honestly just couldn't do it. Once I left home, I was too angry to want any religion in my life. I figured out what I believed on my own as I grew up and then went searching for something to fit it. Buddhism was my first stop but it seemed too complex and dark when I learned about it in college. So eventually I wandered into a Pagan path and flitted around there until a few years ago when I wandered back to Buddhism. I didn't have a tradition to pass down to my kids and I sure wasn't going to indoctrinate them into the Christianity I knew where they were baptised for protection from evil as children and then took vacation bible school and confirmation classes. I just believe too strongly that they deserved to make the call about where to take their lives, and that not one single person I knew had found what they felt comfortable in until at least their teens, and more likely into young adult ages.
When I first started with Buddhism, I kind of had this "HA! Screw you Christianity, this is where it's at!" attitude. But over time, and thanks to a lovely woman in our Sangha, I changed my view to be able to realize what Christianity seemed to truly be saying. Reading Christian verses now, my understanding is a far cry from how I read them 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago. So I'm not angry anymore. It was nothing Christianity did to me. And it wasn't even anything my parents did. They did the best they could with what they had at the time, I'm just glad that now I can be who I am without feeling like I let them down. They are fully accepting of my being a Buddhist. It was what it was, and in the end it is what led me to Buddhism, so how can I be angry for that?
Again, saying that many of the teachings are basically the same is NOT the same as saying "Buddhism and Christianity are the same." I don't think anyone would say that.
Not saying this to anyone in particular; just making a statement about my impression/opinion about the whole comparing religions thing, (any religions) ...
Seems to me when a person is more or less fixated on discussing, proving, arguing, and validating all that is "wrong" with one religion - (usually one they left or have never been a part of) - and discussing, proving, arguing, and validating all that is "right" with another - (usually one they recently adopted) - they are still in a self-convincing, or self validating mode regarding their own decision.
Look at the way some people (again not targeting anyone in particular, in this forum or otherwise) who frequently 'preach to the choir' as they say about [insert religion here] and its superiority over other religion/s.... they sound more like they are trying to convince themselves, don't they?
I could never understand why most forums of any religious focus would have a specific discussion area for the 'comparison' of their own and others' religions.
Why?
Is it really necessary to compare religions in order to gain respect and or knowledge about Buddhism, or Catholicism or any other ism? Seems to me it's just an open invitation for being judgmental and bigoted about other people's beliefs.... why should it matter what other people do, if they are not related or in contact with you?
I'm not talking about the POLITICAL actions of some religious groups; that's a whole other discussion.... I'm talking about comparing religious teachings and practices, that's all.
And look! I only capitalized one word in that whole comment!
Wow, I'm getting better, ain't I?
Just as languages are composed of different concepts (words), constructs (grammars, verb and noun patterns, etc.), and styles —so are the world's religions. In other words, language and religion are in many ways two sides of the same coin and go hand-in-hand. It does no harm to compare religions as long as you are being specific and not a generalist. Indeed, it's in the finding of parallels and the pointing out of differences where we find where we ourselves either fall or aim towards.
Well, that's where I stand. If people want to go about comparing religions without being destructive, that's fine. For myself, I think it's a far worse thing when people try to censor others for what they say or where they're coming from —especially on this forum. I thought that was what the moderators were for. Why can't we stay more to the issues themselves than how we think people are coming across?
I say this because I find that free speech is not understood to be of priority on this forum by its members. There's too much preaching at the person, I think.
Did it ever occur to you that it's not Buddhism that Christians might find offensive but rather the actions of certain "Buddhists"?
I wanted to clarify what I said in my last post. I didn't mean to imply that I just say what I think is true and screw everyone if they don't like it. I do try to be mindful, especially in religious discussion, about everyone's feelings, and if I can't find a way to proceed respectfully, I won't. I just meant that if a religious discussion is going on, and I made such a statement (that I thought Jesus and Buddha taught many of the same things) and someone got offended then it wouldn't make me wish I hadn't said anything. Because I see nothing inflammatory in that statement and if it greatly offended someone, I'd have to ask them why. There are many times I might think of something to be true, but know better than to say so depending on the context, the medium, and the people involved.
But I guess when it comes down to it, its just another method that abusers use to weild their power.
Maybe not in this lifetime.
From http://americanlivewire.com/largest-religions/
Judaism is the oldest of all monotheistic religions and blazed the trail for many other world religions including Christianity and Islam. Judaism follows the teachings of God, Yahweh, and focuses on Jews as the chosen people of God descending from the line of Abraham. Jews are called to be an example for others in holiness and ethical behavior. Moses founded the religion after leading his people from Egyptian slavery and receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai. The Jewish religious text is known as the Torah and recounts the stories and teachings of its founders.
As for Buddhism or Hinduism having no gods .... really? Well, maybe no all-powerful, singular creator god, but there are about a kazillion gods and supernatural beings.
The term "god" itself is often open to some interpretation, but the common ground in all religions and languages is that a "god" is a supernatural being, with some power and control over some aspects of life here on earth and/or in other realms. Buddhism and Hinduism are loaded with gods.
But maybe I'm wrong? hey- I don't claim to be any sort of scholar....
While some sects of Buddhism have the Gods you are reffering to not a single one was actually taught by the Gautama Buddha they were just added in later.
:: speechless:::
As I understand it... (I'm paraphrasing):
Buddha didn't say "there are no gods".
Buddha said one didn't need the gods to reach Nirvana. That the path to enlightenment was within (oneself) not from outside oneself. That (praying or chanting to) the gods couldn't "give you" enlightenment or somehow lead you to it by the hand.
In other words; Buddha merely ignored the gods - but never said they didn't exist and never told people to stop the chanting, rituals, mantras, offerings, etc.; that are connected to honoring the different Buddhist gods/deities; just not to rely on them for enlightenment.
http://buddhistgods.blogspot.com/
http://buddhism-eyes.blogspot.com/2008/11/gods-in-buddhism.html
A bodhisattva is very different from a God. In fact the bodhisattva vow says that one should not take refuge in a God or Gods.
The people that tell us we are inherently evil are the same that want to save us.
Valdimir Lossky addresses the topic of supernatural as follows:
"Eastern tradition knows no such supernatural order between God and the created world, adding as it were, to the later a new creation. It recognizes no distinction, or rather division, save that between the created and the uncreated. For the eastern tradition the created supernatural has no existence. That which western theology call by the name of the supernatural signifies for the East the uncreated-the divine energies ineffably distinct from the essence of God. The difference consists in the fact that the western conception of grace implies the idea of causality, grace being represented as an effect of the divine Cause, exactly as is in the act of creation; while for eastern theology there is a natural procession, the energies, shining forth eternally from the divine essence. It is in creation alone that God acts as cause, in producing a new subject called to participate in divine fullness; preserving it, saving it, granting grace to it, and guiding it towards its final goal. In the energies He is, He exists, He eternally manifests Himself. Here we are faced with a mode of divine being to which we accede in receiving grace; which, moreover, in the created and perishable world, is a presence of the uncreated and eternal light, the real omnipresence of God in all things, which is something more than His causal presence-'the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not' (John 1:5).
The divine energies are within everything and outside everything. One must be raised above created being, and abandon all contact with creatures in order to attain to union with 'the rays of the Godhead', says Dionysius the Aeropagite. Despite this, these divine rays penetrate the whole created universe, and are the cause of its existence. The light 'was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not’ (John 1:10).”
(The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 88)
And the Budha never taught gods he spoke against the worship of worldly gods.
If there are so many gods in Buddhism why are Gods forbidden by the refuge vows? And then why does every one say Buddhism is atheist?
There is a difference.
I never started any of the ill will with these people. I go out of my way to be kind and inquire about their families and so forth. The last straw, so to speak, was when my Father passed away. No card, no flowers, not one word of compassion, cold silence, even though I had recently asked this same group of people about sickness in their families. To me this group of Christian women show no love of 'Christ'.
They only want to see me as a human being IF I fit the mold they are expecting to see. Christ mingled and ate with publicans and sinners, he conversed with them. He didn't practice the back handed slap I so often hear being quoted "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Where is that even in the Bible? Christ and God love people where they are, not where they expect them to be or at least that is how I have read those scriptures.
If I were to treat these 'Witches' as they themselves treat me, I would be fired immediately without question. The disdain I now feel, I have a hard time with, but I came by it honestly. The source sometimes is worse than the water that was polluted.
Mine was:
I take from this time, until death, the most supreme of all human beings, the Buddha, as my refuge.
The most supreme of all that is free from desire, in the Dharma, I take refuge.
The most supreme of all assemblies, in the Sangha, I take refuge.
From this point, until death, I ask the teacher to accept me as a lay follower, who has faith in the Triple Refuge.
Then we did a prayer
In the Buddha, Dharma, and Supreme Assembly, I take refuge until enlightenment is achieved. May the merit of my generosity and other virtuous acts lead to Buddhahood for the welfare of all beings!
And then the refuge precepts:
1. Having taken refuge in the Buddha, one should no longer take refuge in worldly attainments.
2. Having taken refuge in the Dharma, one should no longer harm any sentient being.
3. Having taken refuge in the Sangha, one should no longer associate with negative individuals.
4. One should show great respect towards any representation of the Three Jewels by making offerings, prostrating, and showing reverence towards them at all times.
That was it. No mention of God, god, gods, or lack thereof.
The best way I have heard it explained is that Buddhism is atheistic in strict definition of atheism because it denies a God as creator and ruler. However, Buddhism still recognizes indigenous theistic beliefs and devotional practices. Obviously some traditions view each point somewhat differently.
Buddha taught against the worship of worldly gods as they are not objects fit for refuge they can aid their followers temporarily but being trapped within Samsara they cannot bring any real benefit to their followers.
Buddha according to the Sutra's visited the Gods and taught them the Dharma many of the gods became followers of Buddha.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
--Mahatma Gandhi
I seem to use a lot of "I"s for a Buddhist, don't I?
http://response.fwbo.org/fwbo-files/response37.html
That is an antidote or aversion type procedure. Some atheists take it to an extreme due to their attachment to anger . . .
It is a phase.
Hail Lucifer . . . wot a great Venusian . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
:wave:
I just wanted to add that I had a period after I left my previous religion where I would argue a lot with people. I felt like the culture was out to get me in a lot of ways, but I realized that when I relaxed and stopped pushing against it, then I was able to ease into being around the group, but no longer part of it. It seems like people's reaction when you push against their beliefs is to shut you out and this never really leads to good conversations. It can still be difficult some days, but I just leave the people be. I know it can be difficult to hear people be mean or hypocritical, but then I realize that I would still want to help them. I realized that I used to say truly ignorant things and was pretty down right rude when I was part of their religion.
Whenever I start to get too frustrated I try to think of the eight verses of thought transformation. I know this might sound like pretty lame advice, but it has gotten me out of getting into some really heated arguments before.
http://www.lamrim.org.uk/download/eight_verses.htm
The one ingredient needed for maturing cheesy dharma is time . . .
thanks for the bump :clap: