Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

OK, so here is the premise of the question. You have a kid and you have to raise them as a religious person but this can not be your own belief, what religion would you choose and why?

I would strive to teach them about as many religions as possible and explain them side by side. As adults, they will choose their own religious identity and path.

Originally posted by Storm
I would strive to teach them about as many religions as possible and explain them side by side. As adults, they will choose their own religious identity and path. That is not what I asked though, you would have to choose the religion for them.

But one of the main reasons I was attracted to my religion was the young people who were raised in Nichiren Buddhism. They are some of the most "got it together" kids I have ever met. So, even though it is against the rules, I would have to say my religion.

Boy I see this going down hill. I know that the religion that you would choose would be your own because you believe in it; this is more of an exercise as to what other religion you either feels closely match your own or that you see has similar values.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Boy I see this going down hill. I know that the religion that you would choose would be your own because you believe in it; this is more of an exercise as to what other religion you either feels closely match your own or that you see has similar values.

I understand, but I would not want my child to have a religion that caused suffering in their life. But if I had to choose, I would choose Catholic. Although I would bothered by the fact that they would worship a man they believed to be god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand, but I would not want my child to have a religion that caused suffering in their life. But if I had to choose, I would choose Catholic. Although I would bothered by the fact that they would worship a man they believed to be god. I understand but I think of this because I may be faced with this on my own. Since I’m atheist as you all well know and my wife is Catholic we have talked about how we would raise our kids. If I had to choose one religion over another it would be Buddhism for I find that it fits more into my own personal beliefs and I see it spreading harmony more than any other and personal responsibility.

Taoism.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is not what I asked though, you would have to choose the religion for them. The ancient pre-christian pagan religions.

Eg. Celtic religion, Viking, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian.

Any of them.

Viking wasnt pre christian though

Probably something close to Taoism or Buddhism.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I understand but I think of this because I may be faced with this on my own. Since I’m atheist as you all well know and my wife is Catholic we have talked about how we would raise our kids. If I had to choose one religion over another it would be Buddhism for I find that it fits more into my own personal beliefs and I see it spreading harmony more than any other and personal responsibility.

I recommend Nichiren Buddhism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I recommend Nichiren Buddhism. Really?

Eastern traditions are less offensive to my faculties of reason. It seems a few others agree. It's when they try to overlap ancient texts with metaphysics in paper-thin metaphors, or endorse paranormal beliefs, that I shy away from them. But as philosophies and guides for living and loving life, I struggle to find a more tolerant, benign, peaceful, and reasonable approach than Taoism.

Originally posted by Storm
I would strive to teach them about as many religions as possible and explain them side by side. As adults, they will choose their own religious identity and path.

Agreed, except I'd only teach them the Big 5 not "as many as possible".

Big 5?

Christianity, Islam, Hinduis, Buddhism, Judaism

Don't pick a Jew, they can't eat ribs.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism

Hmm. I've never heard of them as the Big 5. But meh. I guess they're considered as such based on cultural zeitgeist rather than worldwide adherents (in which the top 5 would lose Buddhism and Judaism if memory serves).

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Don't pick a Jew, they can't eat ribs. As long as I can eat pork I'm cool with it, my wife doesn't eat pork but that doesn't stop me from eating Babe

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Christianity, Islam, Hinduis, Buddhism, Judaism Would you include atheist views?

No. That's a nonperson.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
No. That's a nonperson.

Well according to Christians it is....pity.

This one is easy.


Zen Buddhism.

I don't like religion on the whole, but I do like excellent work ethics and a very strong willingness to improve the self. There are a lot of things about Buddhism that I admire but I like Zen Buddhism the best...so far.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Zen Buddhism.
My understanding is, it's the closest to being doctrineless. Just, zazen, baby. Just zazen.

i dunno what i am exactly, a sceptic/atheist/agnostic/mysical beleiver/existentialis. so i dunno. if it has to be sum established relegion, id prolly go for nicherian or zen buddhism mixed with taoism. i dunno, not a whole lot of relegions i like. maybe sumthing like the things the red indians beleived in.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, so here is the premise of the question. You have a kid and you have to raise them as a religious person but this can not be your own belief, what religion would you choose and why?

Easy...Philosophy...then they'll pick one for themselves. Or pick none...or be like me and welcome everything and accept that all means of spirituality are connected in some way and that life is a great mystery. With no easy answers.

Then, of course...Mc Donalds afterwards.

And people say raising kids is difficult...Ha!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Easy...Philosophy...then they'll pick one for themselves. Or pick none...or be like me and welcome everything and accept that all means of spirituality are connected in some way and that life is a great mystery. With no easy answers.

Then, of course...Mc Donalds afterwards.

And people say raising kids is difficult...Ha! Philosophy is a religion

Could you think of a religion that doesn't involve Philosophy?

Philosophy and religion is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Easy...Philosophy...then they'll pick one for themselves. Or pick none...or be like me and welcome everything and accept that all means of spirituality are connected in some way and that life is a great mystery. With no easy answers.

Some things can be known, however, even about religious matters. To chalk everything up to mystery and unanswerable propositions is to short-change our reasoning faculties and capacity for empirical knowledge.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Could you think of a religion that doesn't involve Philosophy?

Philosophy and religion is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Just because it includes it doesn’t mean that it is it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Some things can be known, however, even about religious matters. To chalk everything up to mystery and unanswerable propositions is to short-change our reasoning faculties and capacity for empirical knowledge.

In terms of spirituality there are mysteries. In terms of science and empirical knowledge and all that other stuff...there isn't...so since this is a religion discussion....

(...)

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Just because it includes it doesn’t mean that it is it.

As I said "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" you can eat it without the jelly or you can add it. It's up the person who is going eat the sandwich.

(hints peanut butter sandwich as metaphor)

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In terms of spirituality there are mysteries. In terms of science and empirical knowledge and all that other stuff...there isn't...so since this is a religion discussion....

(...)



As I said "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" you can eat it without the jelly or you can add it. It's up the person who is going eat the sandwich.

(hints peanut butter sandwich as metaphor)

The holly peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The holly peanut butter and jelly sandwich.


My gods are Skippy and Smucker's.
pray

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My gods are Skippy and Smuckers.
pray

However, there will be wars over crunchy or creamy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The holly peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My gods are Skippy and Smucker's.
pray Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, there will be wars over crunchy or creamy. crylaugh

As always Shaky brings up a good point.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My gods are Skippy and Smucker's.
pray

Jif > Skippy

Taoism, it seems almost flawless to me, and is not particularly faith-based.

First and foremost, I do not believe that one "needs" to be raised to live religiously. All man, instinctively knows, that a so-called "higher power" exists, in whatever form, for the sake of an argument. This does not require teaching!

Second, teach your child that moral values derive from God--in whatever form--and not from Kings and Queens--presidents and politicians. Otherwise, morality is in the eyes of the beholder. That is dangerous thinking!

Third, expose your child to all religions; in conjunction, teach them the value of "objective" thinking--to be lead my facts in pursuit of truth, not emotion.

And lastly, be a parent, not a friend. Teach your child the value of hard work and sacrifice; nobody owes them anything, and in this world, there are no free hands outs--unless you know someone (ha ha ha)! They will kick and scream, but in the end, they will thank you for it.

That is just my 2 cents. Take care, all!

Originally posted by ushomefree
First and foremost, I do not believe that one "needs" to be raised to live religiously. All man, instinctively knows, that a so-called "higher power" exists, in whatever form, for the sake of an argument. This does not require teaching!

Second, teach your child that moral values derive from God--in whatever form--and not from Kings and Queens--presidents and politicians. Otherwise, morality is in the eyes of the beholder. That is dangerous thinking!

Third, expose your child to all religions; in conjunction, teach them the value of "objective" thinking--to be lead my facts in pursuit of truth, not emotion.

And lastly, be a parent, not a friend. Teach your child the value of hard work and sacrifice; nobody owes them anything, and in this world, there are no free hands outs--unless you know someone (ha ha ha)! They will kick and scream, but in the end, they will thank you for it.

That is just my 2 cents. Take care, all! Well that didn't answer the question, what religion would you choose?

To get to the point, and in keeping with this thread, I'd would help my child understand the message of Jesus Christ--Christianity. To force such a message, however, I would not. For all who have truly studied--and I mean, actually purchasing books, audio commentary, DVDs, misc. research papers, not to mention sifting through countless websites--religion is a hard topic to tackle. To study religion, it requires discipline! And that is wholly ignored today. Take religious cults for example, all major religions have them. People are to busy reading what they "want to hear," and not the truth! In any case, religion is personal; but if "objectivity" is taught at an early age, in my opinion, people would come face-to-face with monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Through rigorous study--that got my child thus far--my child should be equipped to make an "intellingent"--informed--decision on what they believe--as previously stated--not one based on emotion. There ain't nothing romantic about hell. That is my opinion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
To get to the point, and in keeping with this thread, I'd would help my child understand the message of Jesus Christ--Christianity. To force such a message, however, I would not. For all who have truly studied--and I mean, actually purchasing books, audio commentary, DVDs, misc. research papers, not to mention sifting through countless websites--religion is a hard topic to tackle. To study religion, it requires discipline! And that is wholly ignored today. Take religious cults for example, all major religions have them. People are to busy reading what they "want to hear," and not the truth! In any case, religion is personal; but if "objectivity" is taught at an early age, in my opinion, people would come face-to-face with monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Through rigorous study--that got my child thus far--my child should be equipped to make an "intellingent"--informed--decision on what they believe--as previously stated--not one based on emotion. There ain't nothing romantic about hell. That is my opinion. Aren't you already a Christian? That would be against the topic of the question.

What are you asking me exactly?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hmm. I've never heard of them as the Big 5. But meh. I guess they're considered as such based on cultural zeitgeist rather than worldwide adherents (in which the top 5 would lose Buddhism and Judaism if memory serves).

I'm not surprised you haven't heard the term. Religion doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

And if you wanna talk sheer numbers: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese religions, Buddhism. The term refers to global influence and fame, not numbers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you include atheist views?

Sure. "Ok, kids now finally let's talk Atheism. You know those five religions we covered? Well all you have to do is think they're complete bullshit and 5 billion people on this planet are wasting their time."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Sure. "Ok, kids now finally let's talk Atheism. You know those five religions we covered? Well all you have to do is think they're complete bullshit and 5 billion people on this planet are wasting their time."

Obviously there's more to atheism. Otherwise you can cover Christianity the same way. "Ok, kids, about Christianity, lots of folks believe that a guy nailed to a tree 2000 years ago will save them. Good night"

Originally posted by ushomefree
What are you asking me exactly? You have to choose a religion that is not of your own.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously there's more to atheism.

Not really, it doesn't get more simple or straight-forward than not believing in anything.

And since there's no rules or organization in Atheism, its off the spectrum completely. So teaching it wouldn't be necessary anyways.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
You have to choose a religion that is not of your own.

Not going to happen.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"Ok, kids now finally let's talk Atheism. You know those five religions we covered? Well all you have to do is think they're complete bullshit and 5 billion people on this planet are wasting their time."

It's not all that different than saying "Okay, you know those 4 other religions we covered? That's 4 billion other people wasting their time."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not really, it doesn't get more simple or straight-forward than not believing in anything.

And since there's no rules or organization in Atheism, its off the spectrum completely. So teaching it wouldn't be necessary anyways.

The philosophical reasons for atheism are in your opinion not worthy of being told?

Originally posted by Devil King
It's not all that different than saying "Okay, you know those 4 other religions we covered? That's 4 billion other people wasting their time."

True, but Quiero just has it in for atheists. He makes blanket assumptions about them, despite not being one himself (most of them bigoted and false), and doesn't believe that anyone else is right but him. I've attempted to reason with him before, and also preach tolerance and understanding, but some of his statements paint atheists almost as lesser humans (and at the very least uninformed and simplistic in their ideologies) and he never really relented from such opinions, as his comments here elucidate.

...but along your point's line, you could also phrase it as "There's belief and non-belief," and so by that account he's casually ignoring half of the spectrum. I'd tend to favor agnosticism and atheism on equal footing with the others, rather than a greater share of importance. Or if we consider worldwide adherents, agnosticism would be #4 (#3 if you add atheists to the total). But in either case he's just ignoring them because of his personal biases, not because they deserve to be ignored.

I've never really known his to be like that. But no one likes to have their beliefs questioned.

Originally posted by Devil King
I've never really known his to be like that. But no one likes to have their beliefs questioned.

On the contrary, I love it. It's a shift in mentality, but it's entirely possible to go from wanting to guard what you perceive to be the truth, to wanting to be challenged in order to discover the truth. When most people have a crisis of faith they search for affirmations of their beliefs rather than alternative ideas. It's inevitable, but can be transcended.

Though you're right that it's true for most.

As for Quiero, I feel bad saying those things about him, but that's been my experience with him on these forums, and I have yet to see something that would convince me otherwise. So it's not intended as bashing, just as commentary on my dealings with him.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Or if we consider worldwide adherents, agnosticism would be #4 (#3 if you add atheists to the total).

Agnosticism is a form of Negative Atheism.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Agnosticism is a form of Negative Atheism.

negative atheism?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
negative atheism?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
negative atheism?



There are two types of Atheism; Positive Atheism is the affirmative belief that gods do not exist, and Negative Atheism is the absence of belief that gods exist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are two types of Atheism; Positive Atheism is the affirmative belief that gods do not exist, and Negative Atheism is the absence of belief that gods exist.

OK, what do you call a person who believe that all gods are man made, but that the universe was a living being, and therefore, God?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, what do you call a person who believe that all gods are man made, but that the universe was a living being, and therefore, God? Psychotic?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Agnosticism is a form of Negative Atheism. That's not quite correct. You could possibly be a theistic agnostic as well. Not very common I guess.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
True, but Quiero just has it in for atheists. He makes blanket assumptions about them, despite not being one himself (most of them bigoted and false), and doesn't believe that anyone else is right but him. I've attempted to reason with him before, and also preach tolerance and understanding, but some of his statements paint atheists almost as lesser humans (and at the very least uninformed and simplistic in their ideologies) and he never really relented from such opinions, as his comments here elucidate.

...but along your point's line, you could also phrase it as "There's belief and non-belief," and so by that account he's casually ignoring half of the spectrum. I'd tend to favor agnosticism and atheism on equal footing with the others, rather than a greater share of importance. Or if we consider worldwide adherents, agnosticism would be #4 (#3 if you add atheists to the total). But in either case he's just ignoring them because of his personal biases, not because they deserve to be ignored.

Look at the title of the thread; Another Religion. I was answering the question. Atheism is not a religion.

And I don't seek out Atheists and beat them up, in case you think that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, what do you call a person who believe that all gods are man made, but that the universe was a living being, and therefore, God?

A fake Buddhist.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Look at the title of the thread; Another Religion. I was answering the question. Atheism is not a religion.

And I don't seek out Atheists and beat them up, in case you think that.



A fake Buddhist.

From a fake Christian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
From a fake Christian.

I wasn't joking. Buddha never talked about the universe being a living thing. Your adding to your religion. He also never posited that God was made up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, what do you call a person who believe that all gods are man made, but that the universe was a living being, and therefore, God?

A theist.

Da Pittman-

Sorry about the confusion; I would embrace--most likely--Judaism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not quite correct. You could possibly be a theistic agnostic as well. Not very common I guess.

True. However, one may argue that a reasonable person cannot hold a belief to be true while simultaneously holding the belief that he does not know whether or not his belief is true.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are two types of Atheism; Positive Atheism is the affirmative belief that gods do not exist, and Negative Atheism is the absence of belief that gods exist.

Ah. I'm familiar with the distinction and I'm glad you made it as well...I had just never heard it called negative atheism. Most are the latter, since the former is difficult to defend.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Look at the title of the thread; Another Religion. I was answering the question. Atheism is not a religion.

And I don't seek out Atheists and beat them up, in case you think that.

That's playing semantics. Atheism is a set of beliefs, and falls along the spectrum of "religion." If it isn't, what is atheism doing in this forum? And just like no two Christians are alike in their exact beliefs, you'll find variance among atheists as well, so you're mischaracterization of atheism earlier is still false.

As for the latter, I realize you don't go looking to pick fights, but having harmful or incorrect opinions about a group of people is no less acceptable if you only express them when asked. The degree is perhaps lesser, but the hatred and ignorance persists.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

That's playing semantics. Atheism is a set of beliefs, and falls along the spectrum of "religion." If it isn't, what is atheism doing in this forum? And just like no two Christians are alike in their exact beliefs, you'll find variance among atheists as well, so you're mischaracterization of atheism earlier is still false.


Its not word games at all. Is being anti-politics a politcal party? Is being anti-music a musical genre? No. Those are just antagonistic responses to something that exists. Same with being atheist; it exists outside of the religious spectrum completely.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Its not word games at all. Is being anti-politics a politcal party? Is being anti-music a musical genre? No. Those are just antagonistic responses to something that exists. Same with being atheist; it exists outside of the religious spectrum completely. Yet, to give a full view of human relations towards Religion you'd have to illuminate that part as well. Just saying if you want to teach "the big 5" it would just be reasonable to give an introduction to atheism as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yet, to give a full view of human relations towards Religion you'd have to illuminate that part as well. Just saying if you want to teach "the big 5" it would just be reasonable to give an introduction to atheism as well.



...which is a better way of stating what I was trying to get at. He played semantics to say atheist thought isn't necessary. Ok, but from a practical standpoint it deserves equal say with the others, regardless of whether or not one categorizes it as a religion or not.

Stephen Jay Gould has a famous quote that's something to the affect of "To understand the human condition, you must understand religion." Similarly, to understand religion and the social phenomenon that is religious interaction in the world, it does a person a world of good to understand the entirety of the spectrum.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I wasn't joking. Buddha never talked about the universe being a living thing. Your adding to your religion. He also never posited that God was made up.

Buddha did not talk about any gods, or about the origin of the universe. However, there is no restriction in my religion on the topic of god. My views belong to me, but I am still a Buddhist.

What you are saying is something that Christians say about other Christians. Things like “Mormons are not true Christians” are just silliness even among Christians, but when you try to apply that flawed thinking to Buddhists, it is laughable. All types of Buddhists are Buddhists.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddha did not talk about any gods, or about the origin of the universe. However, there is no restriction in my religion on the topic of god. My views belong to me, but I am still a Buddhist.

What you are saying is something that Christians say about other Christians. Things like “Mormons are not true Christians” are just silliness even among Christians, but when you try to apply that flawed thinking to Buddhists, it is laughable. All types of Buddhists are Buddhists.

It's technically true. You're adding to your religion. Buddha never talked about any of that, and you're just taking it upon yourself to adhere to beliefs that your religion has nothing to do with.

Like I've said; you're an American pseudo Buddhist.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's technically true. You're adding to your religion. Buddha never talked about any of that, and you're just taking it upon yourself to adhere to beliefs that your religion has nothing to do with.

Like I've said; you're an American pseudo Buddhist.

No, I am not a coffee house Buddhist, if that is what you mean by "American pseudo Buddhist". Someone like that would not have a practice. They would just read a few books and talk about the philosophy . I have a daily practice, and I go to meeting and Buddhist activities. In many ways I'm more active in my religion them a lot of Christians I know. Sure I was not born into the religion, but that is my parent's fault.

Buddha never talked about evolution. So, if a Buddhist believed in evolution, would you call them an American pseudo Buddhist?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I am not a coffee house Buddhist, if that is what you mean by "American pseudo Buddhist". Someone like that would not have a practice. They would just read a few books and talk about the philosophy . I have a daily practice, and I go to meeting and Buddhist activities. In many ways I'm more active in my religion them a lot of Christians I know. Sure I was not born into the religion, but that is my parent's fault.

Buddha never talked about evolution. So, if a Buddhist believed in evolution, would you call them an American pseudo Buddhist?

Yes you are. Go to Thailand, Vietnam, Bhutan, or any other country that has a large population of real Buddhists. Ask them if they think the universe is alive or if a god has anything to do with their lives. The answer will be no, because they don't add to their religion's founder's teachings. I'm thoroughly convinced that Buddhism in the US is just a fad, and people like you and SpearofDestiny show it. It's no different than those middle-aged white guys who call themselves Hare Krishnas and play drums on street corners on Saturday nights.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes you are. Go to Thailand, Vietnam, Bhutan, or any other country that has a large population of real Buddhists. Ask them if they think the universe is alive or if a god has anything to do with their lives. The answer will be no, because they don't add to their religion's founder's teachings. I'm thoroughly convinced that Buddhism in the US is just a fad, and people like you and SpearofDestiny show it. It's no different than those middle-aged white guys who call themselves Hare Krishnas and play drums on street corners on Saturday nights.

If Buddhism was a type of religion that required people to adhere to a strict book of beliefs, it might as well be Christianity.

You don't know me or SOD. I will judge you by the same measure you judge me. Cars are not a part of Christianity. If you could ask Jesus about cars, he would not know what you are talking about. Therefore you are adding to your religion by working on or talking about cars.

You see, when I talk about God, or the universe being alive, I am only talking about something as important as cars.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If Buddhism was a type of religion that required people to adhere to a strict book of beliefs, it might as well be Christianity.

You don't know me or SOD. I will judge you by the same measure you judge me. Cars are not a part of Christianity. If you could ask Jesus about cars, he would not know what you are talking about. Therefore you are adding to your religion by working on or talking about cars.

You see, when I talk about God, or the universe being alive, I am only talking about something as important as cars.

That was the stupidest analogy in history. What does my profession have to do with your opinion on the origin of the cosmos? Absolutely nothing. Being a mechanic has nothing to do with religion, at all.

And you keep saying that there's no stringent rules in Buddhism about theistic teachings, and maybe that's why its popular with some people in the US. You can call yourself a Buddhist, and all the while be lazy about the religion, hell you can even torque it to suit your arbitrarily made up beliefs.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That was the stupidest analogy in history. What does my profession have to do with your opinion on the origin of the cosmos? Absolutely nothing. Being a mechanic has nothing to do with religion, at all.

…and having an opinion that is outside of my religion has nothing to do with my religion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And you keep saying that there's no stringent rules in Buddhism about theistic teachings, and maybe that's why its popular with some people in the US. You can call yourself a Buddhist, and all the while be lazy about the religion, hell you can even torque it to suit your arbitrarily made up beliefs.

I am never lazy about my religion. My religion is a practice, not talk.

In the defense of the view of others, it's been my experience that in America most buddhists are following a fad. It's kind of like that song that says: "But isn't she pissed at all the other non-conformists; listening to that same obscure band!" Your typical American "buddhist" has read a few books; maybe went out and bought a buddha statue that he lights a scented candle in front of everyday; probably even sits on a mat a few of times a week and thinks about his life, and calls all that striving for enlightenment.

If I was the dalai lama, I'd be shitting my pants over the Scream 4, independant film festival, starbucks, consumerism version of buddhism that's going on in America today.

And before a bunch of you jump on me, that was not directed at anyone in particular. It was just an observation based on experience. And if there are any real buddhists here, they should be angry over the poor representation of buddhism that is presented by these types of in-name-only buddhists.

Originally posted by Devil King
In the defense of the view of others, it's been my experience that in America most buddhists are following a fad. It's kind of like that song that says: "But isn't she pissed at all the other non-conformists; listening to that same obscure band!" Your typical American "buddhist" has read a few books; maybe went out and bought a buddha statue that he lights a scented candle in front of everyday; probably even sits on a mat a few of times a week and thinks about his life, and calls all that striving for enlightenment.

If I was the dalai lama, I'd be shitting my pants over the Scream 4, independant film festival, starbucks, consumerism version of buddhism that's going on in America today.

And before a bunch of you jump on me, that was not directed at anyone in particular. It was just an observation based on experience. And if there are any real buddhists here, they should be angry over the poor representation of buddhism that is presented by these types of in-name-only buddhists.

It all depends on what type of Buddhist you are talking about. You are talking like there is a true Buddhist and then a untrue Buddhist. That is as silly as a true or untrue Christian. Most Buddhists I know, would not be offended by what other people say on an Internet forum. They are far too concerned with every day life. However, there are as many different types of Buddhist as there are types of Christians, but someone who is not a Buddhist might not know that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what type of Buddhist you are talking about. You are talking like there is a true Buddhist and then a untrue Buddhist. That is as silly as a true or untrue Christian. Most Buddhists I know, would not be offended by what other people say on an Internet forum. They are far too concerned with every day life. However, there are as many different types of Buddhist as there are types of Christians, but someone who is not a Buddhist might not know that. Just like all them damn Christian Atheist out there pitt_fist

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That was the stupidest analogy in history. What does my profession have to do with your opinion on the origin of the cosmos? Absolutely nothing. Being a mechanic has nothing to do with religion, at all.

And you keep saying that there's no stringent rules in Buddhism about theistic teachings, and maybe that's why its popular with some people in the US. You can call yourself a Buddhist, and all the while be lazy about the religion, hell you can even torque it to suit your arbitrarily made up beliefs. Really kinda like what most Christian's do when they pick their parts of the Bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what type of Buddhist you are talking about. You are talking like there is a true Buddhist and then a untrue Buddhist. That is as silly as a true or untrue Christian. Most Buddhists I know, would not be offended by what other people say on an Internet forum. They are far too concerned with every day life. However, there are as many different types of Buddhist as there are types of Christians, but someone who is not a Buddhist might not know that.



No

There are people who say they are buddhists, and go through the motions or preach about it to others and like the assumed reverence or weight it gives their opinion and they buy the statues and light the candles and buy the books, but at the end of the day, they're about as buddhist as I am a Jedi.

So you're saying that to become a buddhist it's only a matter of claiming it? That means there are about as many fake buddhists out there as there are fake christians.

Originally posted by Devil King


No

There are people who say they are buddhists, and go through the motions or preach about it to others and like the assumed reverence or weight it gives their opinion and they buy the statues and light the candles and buy the books, but at the end of the day, they're about as buddhist as I am a Jedi.

So you're saying that to become a buddhist it's only a matter of claiming it? That means there are about as many fake buddhists out there as there are fake christians. I'm a *boob-ist*

sorry couldn't resit

Originally posted by Devil King


No

There are people who say they are buddhists, and go through the motions or preach about it to others and like the assumed reverence or weight it gives their opinion and they buy the statues and light the candles and buy the books, but at the end of the day, they're about as buddhist as I am a Jedi.

So you're saying that to become a buddhist it's only a matter of claiming it? That means there are about as many fake buddhists out there as there are fake christians.

I don't understand what you are getting at, and why would you say no my commit?

Buddhism is like the ocean.

Look man, it's not like I'm speaking buddhist here, it's pretty easy to understand. I really didn't think you were the type to profess ignorance when you didn't want to discuss a subject or didn't have an answer to a question.

And if buddhism is like the ocean, it's full of human shit and aids needles. I recommend you don't go in unless you have your surfsocks on.

Originally posted by Devil King
Look man, it's not like I'm speaking buddhist here, it's pretty easy to understand. I really didn't think you were the type to profess ignorance when you didn't want to discuss a subject or didn't have an answer to a question.

And if buddhism is like the ocean, it's full of human shit and aids needles. I recommend you don't go in unless you have your surfsocks on.

So if a person is a child in the practice of Buddhism, then they are not a Buddhist? Is a Buddhist a special person who become a monk? Can a common person be a Buddhist?

You should go for a walk and get control over the world of anger that you are in right now. That is why I am having a difficult time understanding you. The world of anger is a world where communication with words are not used. In other words, the more angry you get, the more stupid you sound to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So if a person is a child in the practice of Buddhism, then they are not a Buddhist? Is a Buddhist a special person who become a monk? Can a common person be a Buddhist?

You should go for a walk and get control over the world of anger that you are in right now. That is why I am having a difficult time understanding you. The world of anger is a world where communication with words are not used. In other words, the more angry you get, the more stupid you sound to me.


Man, you've gone off the deep end. If you can't understand that there are people who say they are buddhists just for the sake of saying it, then you're more lost than you think I am. The converse of what you say is that everyone who says they are a buddhist IS a buddhist. If a person is a child of buddhism, then they should have knowledge of it and follow it's practices. And if you don't think there are people around who say they are buddhists and do none of those things, you are trying not to understand what I'm sayiing in favor of starting an argument.

Originally posted by Devil King
Man, you've gone off the deep end. If you can't understand that there are people who say they are buddhists just for the sake of saying it, then you're more lost than you think I am. The converse of what you say is that everyone who says they are a buddhist IS a buddhist.

What is a Buddhist? You are saying that a Buddhist has to be this or that, but you have not told me what this or that is. In some forms of Buddhism you have to do a lot; give up everything in your life, but there are some types of Buddhism that requires almost nothing. They would receive those people with open arms.

What are you asking me? Are you asking me my personal opinion? If so, then there are people who I would call Coffee house Buddhists. They are Buddhists without a practice. I thought I made that clear.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is a Buddhist? You are saying that a Buddhist has to be this or that, but you have not told me what this or that is. In some forms of Buddhism you have to do a lot; give up everything in your life, but there are some types of Buddhism that requires almost nothing. They would receive those people with open arms.

What are you asking me? Are you asking me my personal opinion? If so, then there are people who I would call Coffee house Buddhists. They are Buddhists without a practice. I thought I made that clear.

No, in fact, I said my comments weren't directed at anyone...just in general. Fine, you call them coffee house buddhists; I called them fake consumerism buddhists. There are a lot of people who claim to be buddhists simply because they don't subscribe to a western religion. So, they're pretty much buddhists in name only and likely do as much just so people will think they're mysterious and enlightened when they speak. You're the one who went off the deep end and started telling me that everyone who claims buddhism IS a buddhist.

A buddhist is someone who subscribes to the beliefs, teachings and practices. So those who don't do those things are not buddhists, even if they say they are.

So you tell me what a buddhist is?

Originally posted by Devil King
No, in fact, I said my comments weren't directed at anyone...just in general. Fine, you call them coffee house buddhists; I called them fake consumerism buddhists. There are a lot of people who claim to be buddhists simply because they don't subscribe to a western religion. So, they're pretty much buddhists in name only and likely do as much just so people will think they're mysterious and enlightened when they speak. You're the one who went off the deep end and started telling me that everyone who claims buddhism IS a buddhist.

A buddhist is someone who subscribes to the beliefs, teachings and practices. So those who don't do those things are not buddhists, even if they say they are.

So, this was all just a way to personally attack me. You have no credibility.

Now, please answer my question, or should I call you JIA?

Originally posted by Devil King
In the defense of the view of others, it's been my experience that in America most buddhists are following a fad. It's kind of like that song that says: "But isn't she pissed at all the other non-conformists; listening to that same obscure band!" Your typical American "buddhist" has read a few books; maybe went out and bought a buddha statue that he lights a scented candle in front of everyday; probably even sits on a mat a few of times a week and thinks about his life, and calls all that striving for enlightenment.

If I was the dalai lama, I'd be shitting my pants over the Scream 4, independant film festival, starbucks, consumerism version of buddhism that's going on in America today.

And before a bunch of you jump on me, that was not directed at anyone in particular. It was just an observation based on experience. And if there are any real buddhists here, they should be angry over the poor representation of buddhism that is presented by these types of in-name-only buddhists.

An anecdote virtually applied as a generalization? hmm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is a Buddhist? You are saying that a Buddhist has to be this or that, but you have not told me what this or that is. In some forms of Buddhism you have to do a lot; give up everything in your life, but there are some types of Buddhism that requires almost nothing. They would receive those people with open arms.

What are you asking me? Are you asking me my personal opinion? If so, then there are people who I would call Coffee house Buddhists. They are Buddhists without a practice. I thought I made that clear.

I really have no clue how the hell someone can draw a line and people have to meet or exceed that benchmark in order to call themselves "Buddhists". There probably is a line....but it is blurry and probably varies from person to person. The truth lies in the heart of the professor of that religion.

Originally posted by Devil King
So you tell me what a buddhist is?

A Buddhist is a person who is a member of a Buddhist organization (or school), and has a Buddhist practice.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, this was all just a way to personally attack me. You have no credibility.

Now, please answer my question, or should I call you JIA?

Are you crazy! I said 4 posts ago that I wasn't attacking anybody! I said that there are a lot of buddhists out there that call themselves buddhists because they view it as a consumerist fad!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A Buddhist is a person who is a member of a Buddhist organization (or school), and has a Buddhist practice.

And how is that not EXACYLY what I said?

And I wouldn't even include that they have to belong to an organization.

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you crazy! I said 4 posts ago that I wasn't attacking anybody! I said that there are a lot of buddhists out there that call themselves buddhists because they view it as a consumerist fad!

And that was a lie then just like it is a lie now.

Originally posted by Devil King
And how is that not EXACYLY what I said?

I couldn't understand what you said. Now, I know that it was just a set up. Therefore, you did not have a real point. Most trolls don't.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that was a lie then just like it is a lie now.

It's a lie now because you say it is. It wasn't a lie then because I said it, very clearly. I was simply saying that the view of some people in this thread is justified because we've all encountered people who say they're buddhists but never act like buddists, or react like buddhists, and are really only buddhists when it comes to telling others they are or buying a scented candle.

You need to get a grip.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I couldn't understand what you said. Now, I know that it was just a set up. Therefore, you did not have a real point. Most trolls don't.

Whatever. Yeah, my forum time is devoted to tripping you up.

Originally posted by Devil King
It's a lie now because you say it is. It wasn't a lie then because I said it, very clearly. I was simply saying that the view of some people in this thread is justified because we've all encountered people who say they're buddhists but never act like buddists, or react like buddhists, and are really only buddhists when it comes to telling others they are or buying a scented candle.

You need to get a grip.

I apologize if your intent was not to be sly and attacking.

In fact I said that actual buddhists should resent the faddist image presented by so many people that claim to be buddhists, because it makes it harder for them to be taken seriously by members of other religions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes you are. Go to Thailand, Vietnam, Bhutan, or any other country that has a large population of real Buddhists. Ask them if they think the universe is alive or if a god has anything to do with their lives. The answer will be no, because they don't add to their religion's founder's teachings. I'm thoroughly convinced that Buddhism in the US is just a fad, and people like you and SpearofDestiny show it. It's no different than those middle-aged white guys who call themselves Hare Krishnas and play drums on street corners on Saturday nights.

How arrogantly spiteful.

Everyone adds or picks and chooses. You do too, even if you don't realize it. You can't seem to understand that the label isn't what is important. Shakya, or a lot of devout people of any belief, believe what they believe and put it into practice. Period. Saying he's a Buddhist is practical and efficient because it's hard to quantify religious thoguht beyond simple labels, but to try to make an arbitrary distinction between "true" and "fake" adherents of any religion is to belittle peoples' ability to reason for themselves within and without religious paradigms.

Picking and choosing beliefs from various religions or sciences isn't a lesser form a religion. It's a greater form of independance and reason.

Originally posted by Devil King
In fact I said that actual buddhists should resent the faddist image presented by so many people that claim to be buddhists, because it makes it harder for them to be taken seriously by members of other religions.

I see your point now. I had been talking to someone else, on the forum, who was accusing me of being a fake Buddhist. That sent me into the world of Animality were I was being attacked. I didn't realize I was there until I reread all the posts we had made.

Animality is world that has a strong hold on me, because of my past. I am sorry if I wrongfully attacked you.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
How arrogantly spiteful.

Everyone adds or picks and chooses. You do too, even if you don't realize it. You can't seem to understand that the label isn't what is important. Shakya, or a lot of devout people of any belief, believe what they believe and put it into practice. Period. Saying he's a Buddhist is practical and efficient because it's hard to quantify religious thoguht beyond simple labels, but to try to make an arbitrary distinction between "true" and "fake" adherents of any religion is to belittle peoples' ability to reason for themselves within and without religious paradigms.

Picking and choosing beliefs from various religions or sciences isn't a lesser form a religion. It's a greater form of independance and reason.

You kind of hit it for me, right there. I you said more of what I was trying to say in a better way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see your point now. I had been talking to someone else, on the forum, who was accusing me of being a fake Buddhist. That sent me into the world of Animality were I was being attacked. I didn't realize I was there until I reread all the posts we had made.

Animality is world that has a strong hold on me, because of my past. I am sorry if I wrongfully attacked you.

Well played. You are a really nice guy.



On the whole, I admire Buddhists teachings and I personally feel that the world could do better if they applied some of the teachings. I know I am generalizing about Buddhism because their are many "sects", so please over look that for a general appreciation instead of ignorance.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You kind of hit it for me, right there. I you said more of what I was trying to say in a better way.

Yeah, I'll do that.

Originally posted by Devil King
In the defense of the view of others, it's been my experience that in America most buddhists are following a fad. It's kind of like that song that says: "But isn't she pissed at all the other non-conformists; listening to that same obscure band!" Your typical American "buddhist" has read a few books; maybe went out and bought a buddha statue that he lights a scented candle in front of everyday; probably even sits on a mat a few of times a week and thinks about his life, and calls all that striving for enlightenment.

If I was the dalai lama, I'd be shitting my pants over the Scream 4, independant film festival, starbucks, consumerism version of buddhism that's going on in America today.

And before a bunch of you jump on me, that was not directed at anyone in particular. It was just an observation based on experience. And if there are any real buddhists here, they should be angry over the poor representation of buddhism that is presented by these types of in-name-only buddhists.

Exactly. Just because Shaky or some other American read The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism and sits cross-legged on a mat once or twice a week with their eyes closed while burning incense means nothing.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
How arrogantly spiteful.


But incredibly accurate.

You can't torque theistic teachings of a religion that you claim to be a member of. A Buddhist saying that the universe is alive is no different than a Muslim that believes in 2 gods. It's absurd because simply put; it means their not members of that religion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You can't torque theistic teachings of a religion that you claim to be a member of. A Buddhist saying that the universe is alive is no different than a Muslim that believes in 2 gods. It's absurd because simply put; it means their not members of that religion.

That can't be true. All the time you have people who disagree with one, two, or a few of their professed religion's teachings. Isn't that part of being human? Questioning things? That is one of the reasons our species is so successful.

There are things that I don't agree with completely about Mormonism, but would you say that I am not truly a Mormon because I don't I am not a "Latter-Day-Saint?" I think this saying that I came up with waaaay back when is applicable now:

"I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but I am not a latter day saint."

Do you need me to expound on that because I am not sure if I made my thoughts clear?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Exactly. Just because Shaky or some other American read The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism and sits cross-legged on a mat once or twice a week with their eyes closed while burning incense means nothing.

But I would not count out "Americans" just because they're Americans. And I understand you aren't doing as much. I have my reservations due to the half-assed presentation of buddism on this forum. (As though it were the only time I've encountered it) Gestures mean nothing. And many people who present themselves as buddists should explain themselves, given that they are adherents to the practice. As much as some present themselves, there should be some measure of expectation of delivery.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Exactly. Just because Shaky or some other American read The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism and sits cross-legged on a mat once or twice a week with their eyes closed while burning incense means nothing.



But incredibly accurate.

You can't torque theistic teachings of a religion that you claim to be a member of. A Buddhist saying that the universe is alive is no different than a Muslim that believes in 2 gods. It's absurd because simply put; it means their not members of that religion.

If we apply that to any religion then there can't be different denominations everywhere. Dude, you don't follow every teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible, yet we would still consider you part of the whole of Christianity. Shakya might not follow every aspect of Buddha's teachings but he doesn't need to necessarily to be called Buddhist.

Really, it is kinda like a Christian that doesn't believe in the "put your daughter down when she disobeys you" part of the Bible not being a Christian at all, but some Coffee House Jesusist....no, wait...they are called Christian, aren't they?

Do you think the earth was created in 6 days, is approximately 6000 years old, had a God kill a huge bunch of men by drowning them, letting them be swallowed by the earth or rain fire on them, had a whole tribe wandering through a desert for 60 years in search of Israel, leaving behind no traces whatsoever, had a huge all encompassing flood killing everyone except for the animals on one boat and one family (yes, one family, makes incest look much more acceptable, eh? ... of course again, leaving behind NO ****ING EVIDENCE whatsoever), etc.

Do you believe all that or do you pick and mix with what all your leaders said afterwards?

Not to forget that you are not a Christian then but a 2nd Level Revisited New Baptist of the Church of Old Apostles or whatever your specific cult calls itself?

mota you are being an idiot. please understand that christian/muslim/judaic ideals do not APPLY o buddhism. it is more a philosophy then a relegion. it is non theistic but does not restrict the practicing of other faiths. it doesnt make shay or any1 else a hypocrite as you are suggesting. simply because the christians/muslims/jews are dethly afraid of being called heretics and punished by a god if they so much as VERE from the oh so holy ultimate truths taught by their messiahs, doesnt mean the wrest of the world has to follow the same nonsense. buddhism infact isnt even entirely composed of things buddha said. buddha was one among many who reached enlightenment, and yet other, who are a step below, {bodhisvatas} do add to the teachings of buddhism. its like, existensialism or any other school of philosophy. there will always be more than one philosopher and even then, no1 says you cant yourself think of stuff in that school. this is specially true seeing as so many teachings of buddhism can be practically applied in such a flexible way. and hey, buddha never even said, that it is wrong per ce for sum1 to leave buddhism. its just a path. stop applying the negetevities taught by christianity to buddhism.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But incredibly accurate.

You can't torque theistic teachings of a religion that you claim to be a member of. A Buddhist saying that the universe is alive is no different than a Muslim that believes in 2 gods. It's absurd because simply put; it means their not members of that religion.

You missed my point. And also didn't even begin to address it. All you did was reassert your opinion. If you want a monologue, talk to a mirror.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You missed my point. And also didn't even begin to address it. All you did was reassert your opinion. If you want a monologue, talk to a mirror.

That would be bad luck, because he would most likely brake the mirror.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If we apply that to any religion then there can't be different denominations everywhere. Dude, you don't follow every teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible, yet we would still consider you part of the whole of Christianity. Shakya might not follow every aspect of Buddha's teachings but he doesn't need to necessarily to be called Buddhist.

Really, it is kinda like a Christian that doesn't believe in the "put your daughter down when she disobeys you" part of the Bible not being a Christian at all, but some Coffee House Jesusist....no, wait...they are called Christian, aren't they?

Do you think the earth was created in 6 days, is approximately 6000 years old, had a God kill a huge bunch of men by drowning them, letting them be swallowed by the earth or rain fire on them, had a whole tribe wandering through a desert for 60 years in search of Israel, leaving behind no traces whatsoever, had a huge all encompassing flood killing everyone except for the animals on one boat and one family (yes, one family, makes incest look much more acceptable, eh? ... of course again, leaving behind NO ****ING EVIDENCE whatsoever), etc.

Do you believe all that or do you pick and mix with what all your leaders said afterwards?

Not to forget that you are not a Christian then but a 2nd Level Revisited New Baptist of the Church of Old Apostles or whatever your specific cult calls itself?

I don't believe the Earth was literally created in 6 days or that it's 6,000 years old. I also don't literally believe that Rottweilers and Himalayans are falling out of the sky when someone says "Its raining cats and dogs". Most people know a metaphor when they hear one.

Unlike Shaky, I don't tweak my religion's teaching about God and what God might be.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
mota you are being an idiot. please understand that christian/muslim/judaic ideals do not APPLY o buddhism. it is more a philosophy then a relegion. it is non theistic but does not restrict the practicing of other faiths. it doesnt make shay or any1 else a hypocrite as you are suggesting. simply because the christians/muslims/jews are dethly afraid of being called heretics and punished by a god if they so much as VERE from the oh so holy ultimate truths taught by their messiahs, doesnt mean the wrest of the world has to follow the same nonsense. buddhism infact isnt even entirely composed of things buddha said. buddha was one among many who reached enlightenment, and yet other, who are a step below, {bodhisvatas} do add to the teachings of buddhism. its like, existensialism or any other school of philosophy. there will always be more than one philosopher and even then, no1 says you cant yourself think of stuff in that school. this is specially true seeing as so many teachings of buddhism can be practically applied in such a flexible way. and hey, buddha never even said, that it is wrong per ce for sum1 to leave buddhism. its just a path. stop applying the negetevities taught by christianity to buddhism.

Like me and Devil King pointed out, he's a fad Buddhist.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You missed my point. And also didn't even begin to address it. All you did was reassert your opinion. If you want a monologue, talk to a mirror.

I did address it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would be bad luck, because he would most likely brake the mirror.

Ijole guey. That's something a 12-year-old would say.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't believe the Earth was literally created in 6 days or that it's 6,000 years old. I also don't literally believe that Rottweilers and Himalayans are falling out of the sky when someone says "Its raining cats and dogs". Most people know a metaphor when they hear one.

Unlike Shaky, I don't tweak my religion's teaching about God and what God might be.



Like me and Devil King pointed out, he's a fad Buddhist.



I did address it.



Ijole guey. That's something a 12-year-old would say.

Will you stop personally attacking me. I did report you.

I really don’t get what the thing is about being a “fad” or any religion, there are very few of any religion that follow it to the letter and even then there is different opinions of what the true faith is. One Christian/Muslim/Whatever calls the other fake because they don’t follow their views.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't believe the Earth was literally created in 6 days or that it's 6,000 years old. I also don't literally believe that Rottweilers and Himalayans are falling out of the sky when someone says "Its raining cats and dogs". Most people know a metaphor when they hear one.

Haha, sure. Christmas Christians do like to pick and mix. I don't blame you, your "God" said some pretty absurd shit.

God didn't say it, people did.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I did address it.

Really?! Coulda fooled me.

"These types are fake Buddhists."

"It's not the label that matters, it's the ability to reason for oneself and how you put those beliefs into practice. Labels are just convenient distinctions."

"Well, these people are still fake."

That's basically the convo we just had. Care to enlighten me further on how you addressed my point, or are we still going to keep trying to pound the square peg into a round hole? Are your thoughts so linear that you can't accept anything other than pre-determined historical religions as legitimate?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, so here is the premise of the question. You have a kid and you have to raise them as a religious person but this can not be your own belief, what religion would you choose and why?

Umm...Fundamentalist Christianity...that could be a laugh.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Umm...Fundamentalist Christianity...that could be a laugh.

Fundamentalist Christianity and Catholicism are the same religion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't believe the Earth was literally created in 6 days or that it's 6,000 years old. I also don't literally believe that Rottweilers and Himalayans are falling out of the sky when someone says "Its raining cats and dogs". Most people know a metaphor when they hear one.

Unlike Shaky, I don't tweak my religion's teaching about God and what God might be.



Like me and Devil King pointed out, he's a fad Buddhist.



I did address it.



Ijole guey. That's something a 12-year-old would say.

how do you know a metaphor when you hear one. the bible you read has been translated from greek which is a different language and had different styles of metaphors and semantics. jesus didnt speak greek to begin with which puts a second level to that claim. also, how do you differentiate between metaphor and factual statements in the bible? as i see it, there are many fantastical statements in the bible often havign to do with miraculous /physically impossible/supernatural things, so which ones do you try to reconcile with the natural reality that you se around you and which ones do you leave as they were{for instance, the resurrection of jesus is as physically impossible as the rapture or god creating the world in 6 days, yet you seem to think the first first one is fact while the second one is a metaphor}. seems to me that with the progressing psychological and logical complexity in the human race , the statements which obviously are nonsensical are said to be metaphors while others which are not complete logical contradictions are kept as literal. {e.g. there was no time before the universe was created and days on earth are an insignificant perceptual phenomenon dependant on time which didnt exist before creation. so it makes more sense to call this a metaphor{which still doesnt make sense since we dont know what the SYMBOLIC use of words like 7 days is referring to in actual reality} while resurrection of jesus does not challenge such basic concepts as space and time so it is left as it is.
in my oppinion, this is merely apologetic tries to reconcile the scriptures with the modern world which increasingly denies their validity. in reality, if a statement really IS true, then its meaning should be apparent and lucid to the readers WITHOUT the help of any scientific knowhow to reconcile it with. {e.g. if man was created from a congealed clot of blood, as is said in the quran, really refers to the process of creation of humans, than WITHOUT scientific knowhow, a person who reads it should be able to tell others the exact stages of human fetal development and how it looks. otherwise, it is just a vague enough statement that people can claim that the congealed clot of blood analogy refers to the fetus at so and so stage and perfectly describes it to a layman, while any more discoveries in the scientific theory would also simply be inculcated int he scriptural definition, which is vague enough to allow it. such statements in scriptures, hence have little to no validity}

also. your relegion and shaky's are worlds apart. you can be a christian and still be a buddhist according to the buddhist school of thought while it wud be unheard of in christianity. unlike christianity, buddh never preached to stop thinking or finding more and more out for themselves. the teaching are not set in stone and are a general guide to the world. buddhism has nothing much to say about god, it isnt deoendant on the idea and is non theistic neither opposing nor promoting it.

i do not think he is a fad buddhist, re rread my post, buddhism doesnt depend on the same type of fundamentals as christianity. the self righteousness found in christianity which drives followers to adhere to DOGMA and be quick to seperate themselves from other beleifs as well as label members heretics or hypocrites isnt present in any comparebale magnitude in buddhism as far as i know.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, so here is the premise of the question. You have a kid and you have to raise them as a religious person but this can not be your own belief, what religion would you choose and why? Zen Buddhism, because of zazen.

e d i t