Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But agnostics believe there maybe a god, but are not sure. Or they believe there may not be a god, but are not sure. This is a difficult needle to thread.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I made the other choice, because in my studies I discovered a different definition to the word God. If you ask me do I believe in the Christian god, I would tell you no. But I am not an atheist, because I know that God exists. What is this alternate definition? It’s found in a lot of older religions, like Hinduism, and Buddhism. In the Buddhism I practice, we would call this The Mystic Law of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. However, you may call it what you wish, and you do not have to believe in it or worship it. You are God, but so am I, and the rock, and the tree, and galaxy, and the multverse.
This is pantheistic nonsense. I suppose you could also call a shovel an ice cream machine, but it would not be an ice cream machine in any sense that any one understands it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
If they aren't sure, then they don't have a positive belief in god - hence they are atheists, atheism being the absence of a positive belief in God.
And technically, Buddhism is a form of Atheism.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is pantheistic nonsense. I suppose you could also call a shovel an ice cream machine, but it would not be an ice cream machine in any sense that any one understands it.
👆
The belief that the Creation and God are one indivisible entity is a Hindu one, not a Buddhist one.
Whenever Zen or Nichiren Buddhist texts mention god or anything resembling pantheism, its because they're borrowing and/or intentionally appealing to Shinto. They're both a bastardization of original Indian Buddhism, in which no god(s) play any part.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And technically, Buddhism is a form of Atheism.👆
The belief that the Creation and God are one indivisible entity is a Hindu one, not a Buddhist one.
Whenever Zen or Nichiren Buddhist texts mention god or anything resembling pantheism, its because they're borrowing and/or intentionally appealing to Shinto. They're both a bastardization of original Indian Buddhism, in which no god(s) play any part.
Nichiren Buddhism does not mention a god in any way. I was giving my opinion. However, The Mystic Law is a part of Nichiren Buddhism. You can find it in the Lotus Sutra.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is pantheistic nonsense. I suppose you could also call a shovel an ice cream machine, but it would not be an ice cream machine in any sense that any one understands it.
Pantheistic
A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
How is that nonsense? And how would you know, one way or the other?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Pantheistic
A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.How is that nonsense? And how would you know, one way or the other?
If one was to ask a theist if god is "the transcendent reality of which the material universe including human beings are only manifestations," he would most certainly reply that god is "the one supreme being that created and rules the Universe."
I suppose I could define god as "a utensil used for writing or drawing," but it would not follow from this that it is true.
Pantheists are free to hold that the former is the definition of god, but is certainly not god as anyone else understands the term, and the equivocation only serves to dilute its meaning, and confound the discourse.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nichiren Buddhism does not mention a god in any way. I was giving my opinion.
Even if it contradicts your text? The Lotus Sutra doesn't mention god, and yet you say you believe in one? Come on, man. That's like a Muslim saying "Ya know, I think there is more than one god.".
What's the point of claiming a certain religion if you're gonna blatantly ignore its basic rules? A Muslim may enjoy bacon now and then, but he must believe in only one god.
You're like a stereotypical white convert to Buddhism, as described in this excerpt from Stuff White People Like, Chapter 2: Religions That Their Parents Don't Belong To. http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/18/2-religions-that-their-parents-dont-belong-to/
Originally posted by King Kandy
I can't really think of anything that qualifies. I guess positive could be better stated as "affirmative", that is anyone who doesn't have an affirmative belief in god, is an atheist.
Isn’t “I’m an atheist” an affirmation?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If one was to ask a theist if god is "the transcendent reality of which the material universe including human beings are only manifestations," he would most certainly reply that god is "the one supreme being that created and rules the Universe."I suppose I could define god as "a utensil used for writing or drawing," but it would not follow from this that it is true.
Pantheists are free to hold that the former is the definition of god, but is certainly not god as anyone else understands the term, and the equivocation only serves to dilute its meaning, and confound the discourse.
Under the above definition of pantheist my beliefs would not fall. I do not believe that God is transcendent. I do not believe in a creation, even the big bang was not a creation; it was only an event in the multiverse. I do not believe that God is a supreme being because that has a connotation of supernatural, and I do not believe in the supernatural.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Even if it contradicts your text? The Lotus Sutra doesn't mention god, and yet you say you believe in one? Come on, man. That's like a Muslim saying "Ya know, I think there is more than one god.".What's the point of claiming a certain religion if you're gonna blatantly ignore its basic rules? A Muslim may enjoy bacon now and then, but he must believe in only one god.
You're like a stereotypical white convert to Buddhism, as described in this excerpt from Stuff White People Like, Chapter 2: Religions That Their Parents Don't Belong To.
So, the fact that I am white means something of significance to you?
I think you are confusing belief with worship. I believe there is a mountain called Everest, although I have never seen it with my own eyes. However, I do not worship it. The same can be said about God.
The Lotus Sutra does not say anything about Quantum Mechanics. Am I not allowed to believe in Quantum Mechanics? The fact is, as long as I do not misrepresent the philosophy of my religion, I can believe whatever I want too. We have devout Christians in our membership, who believe in Jesus and chant. There is no one telling them that they are wrong (with the exception of other Christians).
Originally posted by inimalist
what is there to believe in with quantum mechanics?
Are you confusing the word believe with worship? If not, there are physicists who do not believe in quantum mechanics. In my reading, I have ran across some of these alternate theories, but I'm not versed enough in them to discuss them in any intelligent way.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonSo, the fact that I am white means something of significance to you?
Did you not read the article I linked? It describes you perfectly. A White American who was raised Christian, and then adopted a new religion not invlolving Jesus.
In fact its a religion in which figurines of its founder makes for nice little home and lawn ornaments, and there's little faith or duty involved.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are confusing belief with worship. I believe there is a mountain called Everest, although I have never seen it with my own eyes. However, I do not worship it. The same can be said about God.The Lotus Sutra does not say anything about Quantum Mechanics. Am I not allowed to believe in Quantum Mechanics? The fact is, as long as I do not misrepresent the philosophy of my religion, I can believe whatever I want too. We have devout Christians in our membership, who believe in Jesus and chant. There is no one telling them that they are wrong (with the exception of other Christians).
A mountain that can be proven to exist, and god? That's a bad comparison. If a religious text makes a statement about god, or lacks one, you can't make it up on your own.
Christians in your membership? See, this is why Buddhism is only arguably a relgion.
1) No belief in god.
2) No stance on an afterlife.
3) Its founder never claimed to be on any higher mission.
4) Anyone can whimsically call themself one.
The Dalai Lama once said that anyone of any background can practice the Eightfold Path without necessarily being Buddhist. What? That's like a Muslim saying that anyone can practice the Five Pillars without converting; its just doesn't make sense, and makes Buddhism appear frail in its convictions (if it has any, that is.)
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Did you not read the article I linked? It describes you perfectly. A White American who was raised Christian, and then adopted a new religion not invlolving Jesus.In fact its a religion in which figurines of its founder makes for nice little home and lawn ornaments, and there's little faith or duty involved.
No. I considered it to be raciest. The fact that I am white has no barring on the discussion, and I will ignore it.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A mountain that can be proven to exist, and god? That's a bad comparison. If a religious text makes a statement about god, or lacks one, you can't make it up on your own. Christians in your membership? See, this is why Buddhism is only arguably a relgion.
All religious text are written by humans. No religion is divine. I have every right to search for the truth that is mine. This is specified by Buddha. We are told not to believe Buddha, but to find our own path.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
1) No belief in god.
A belief in a god is not required.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
2) No stance on an afterlife.
You have never heard of reincarnation?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
3) Its founder never claimed to be on any higher missionn.
One of the main reasons I am a Buddhist. The founder was human. I do not trust books written by gods, because gods do not write books. Books are only written by humans. That means if a book claims to be written by a god, someone is lying to you.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
4) Anyone can whimsically call themself one.
No. You have to request membership, however, I cannot see any reason you will be denied. If you are a person with evil intent, then the people in the religion will not associate with you. If you misrepresent the religion, the elders will have a word with you.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Dalai Lama once said that anyone of any background can practice the Eightfold Path without necessarily being Buddhist. What? That's like a Muslim can saying that anyone can practice the Five Pillars without converting; its just doesn't make sense, and makes Buddhism appear frail in its convictions (if it has any, that is.)
Therefore, the Dalai Lama must be “A White American who was raised Christian, and then adopted a new religion not involving Jesus”.
sigh... what do you truly know about Buddhism?
their are breathing exercise and meditational techniques as well as mental exercises not all of them stem and have to do with belief of bhuddism being a religion..
you dont have to be christian to think jesus was a cool cat and decide to live by his philosophy of specific example. ppl can read any and all religions and not be fully adherent let alone be it their personal belief.
my mom is catholic i was born catholic i went to Saturday and Sunday school for a few hours each weekend.. i am not christian nor catholic. i practiced and studied Buddhism as part of my Martial arts career prior to removing myself form Christianity not once did i consider that offensive or disrespectful to jesus or god.. b/c i never worshiped any of the Buddhas...
and my mom also has dozens of bhudda statues and oriental stuff b/c she thinks its neat and she knows all about what it is she buying and decorating with.... everything from keeping bad spirits, to good luck and health crap. partly b/c she researches it herself or b/c i have informed her.
also just b/c some like to view bhuddism as a religion and others claim it as not b.c it doesnt adhere to their own predisposed idea of what a religion should be is just ignorant. i personally view it as simply a philosophy of life nothing more nothing less and i am aware that others view it more then that.
so again jesus once said to turn the other cheek do not worship him gods church is every where not in stones and buildings. etc etc. does that some how negate the modern belief of christianity that goes against everything jesus said?
how about one retarded minister or racist f%^&$ or pope who says something that is just out right ignorant do they speak for the whole of religion, god and ppl? does that mean we dont take their religion seriously as a whole b/c of what one person says?
i am sure the pope's of the past has stated that we are all children of god and we try to find him in our own way regardless of religions tongues and various nations.. but they all have similar messages is that not similar to your example of the dalai lama?
Wild Shadow Check it out...