Is religion evil?

[Mike Windu]

Here's a thought; rather than bashing religion incessantly, perhaps you might want to back up your claims. This is, after all, a debate, and I suggest you start debating.

 

Your incoherent ramblings mean nothing if you can't at least bring yourself to justify why you think religion is "made out stupidity, corruption, and igorance"...

[Windu Chi]

Here's a thought; rather than bashing religion incessantly, perhaps you might want to back up your claims. This is, after all, a debate, and I suggest you start debating.

 

Your incoherent ramblings mean nothing if you can't at least bring yourself to justify why you think religion is "made out stupidity, corruption, and igorance"...

What the hell are you talking about? I have already justified my reasons. Having you been reading my posts?

[TK-8252]

Don't give me that; there's a difference between faith and religion.

 

I often hear the terms used interchangeably. "The Christian religion" or "the Christian faith" etc.

 

Maybe YOU wouldn't, but there's plenty of people who'd blow themselves up city blocks for their country/state/girlfriend at a whim. It's a lot more than just religion; these people are often glorified.

 

But they're not doings those things... every suicide bombing has been in the name of god. Is it just a coincidence?

 

 

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not bashing ALL religion... just the kind that makes this country run by a bunch of religious zealots and makes the Middle East and Africa into killing grounds, and spreads suicide bombing into Europe and the U.S.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well that's the danger whenever you have the people in charge all with some special interest. Imagine if the American government was made up of members of Earth First, or they had all converted to Muslim, to be fair militant Islam as there is nothing wrong with the Muslim faith itself. Or if they were all huge fans of hip hop and reality TV, OH THE HUMANITY!

[Mike Windu]

But they're not doings those things... every suicide bombing has been in the name of god. Is it just a coincidence?

 

Every time I drink soda, I use my mouth. Is it just a coincidence?

 

Suicide bombings =/= religious facet

 

Ask a Muslim girl if she feels like going out to kill someone in the name of God today.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but chances are... she doesn't.

 

Is there a correlation between suicide bombings and religion? Sure. Can you remove that correlation? Sure.

 

What if religion consisted of worshipping omnipotent pink llamas?

 

Killing in the name of llamas?

[TK-8252]

Suicide bombings =/= religious facet

 

But why is it only done by people who are religious fanatics?

 

Why aren't there people blowing themselves up in the name of atheism? Or liberty? Or democracy? Fighting for these things is entirely different from intentionally killing yourself in a terrorist act to advance them. No soldier on the front lines is saying "yes, I want to die and become a martyr for my country." He'll say "yes, I'm willing to die for my country... but I have a wife and children to think about." Religious fanatics seem to think that killing themselves and others in the name of god is the most important thing one can do. More important than their own life. More important than their family.

 

Ask a Muslim girl if she feels like going out to kill someone in the name of God today.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but chances are... she doesn't.

 

Muslim girls aren't typically the ones that do the suicide bombing, but there have been cases where women are used. If said Muslim is native to the Middle East, ask that question to a young Muslim male living in Iraq or Pakistan and you may get an answer of "yes" to such a question.

 

Is there a correlation between suicide bombings and religion? Sure. Can you remove that correlation? Sure.

 

Can be removed... it never has been.

 

What if religion consisted of worshipping omnipotent pink llamas?

 

Oh... you mean like a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

Killing in the name of llamas?

 

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Ask a Muslim girl if she feels like going out to kill someone in the name of God today.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but chances are... she doesn't.

But she is not representative of all Muslims. Just that she is of sound enough mind to realize such a thing would be wrong, doesn't mean that there can't be a limited number of her fellow Muslims who are not.

 

But mythologies have a big thing to say. Sure, politics give you your enemy to start with. But it's the mythologies of Christianity or Islam (or what-have-you) that tell you to bomb, shoot, and otherwise terrorize those enemies rather than working towards a peaceful end. Look at the web site supporting Paul Hill. They're all religious to the extreme.

[Windu Chi]

 

 

Muslim girls aren't typically the ones that do the suicide bombing, but there have been cases where women are used. If said Muslim is native to the Middle East, ask that question to a young Muslim male living in Iraq or Pakistan and you may get an answer of "yes" to such a question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another that thing I have notice as it have occurred to me of my current observation of terrorists.

 

It seems to me that these suicide bombers commit suicide because of sex and sweets.

 

They believe, the Muslim males that they are going to receive 70 virgins and milk and honey in their version of heaven forever.

 

You surely are'nt promise those types gifts in the Christian version of heaven.

 

I see why more males of the world are converting to Islam.

 

But it won't ever convince me no matter what gifts religions offer to join their faith.

[Nancy Allen``]

Well, after two or three virgins you'd probably be wanting someone who knew what they were doing.

 

Seriously, the Israelites were promised a land of milk and honey.

[Mike Windu]

...um

 

So... Muslim girls aren't representative of all Muslims... but suicide bombers are.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

(In case you were wondering, I used a Muslim girl because there's a very intelligent one in my AP literature class, and so far she hasn't tried to kill anyone. She's even friends with (gasp) a Jew!)

 

I am quite tired of people resorting to the most extreme cases of fanaticism in order to prove their point. Just in case you weren't aware, there are more Muslims in the world who aren't crazy killers.

 

OMG NO WAI?! WHERE?!

 

Well gee... there's about a gazillion of them, some might even be in your own neighborhood! OMG WATCH OUT FOR DA TERRORISTS!!!!111

 

Similar to the "oh those fanatics aren't Christians/Muslim/etc" argument, except reversed. "Oh those normal people aren't Christians/Muslim, but only the people who do bad things are because they clearly are representative of their religion."

 

Get off the anti religious bent, please.

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

What difference does it make if the correlation has never been removed, if it can be removed?

 

In case you aren't too good at putting 2+2 together, it means that the correlation is not an ultimatum and thus is not characteristic of religion.

 

BUT NOBODY ELSE HAS EVER THOUGHT OF USING SUICIDE BOMBING!1111

 

"The first modern suicide bombing—involving explosives deliberately carried to the target either on the person or in a civilian vehicle and delivered by surprise—was in 1981; perfected by the factions of the Lebanese Civil War and especially by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka" ~ Wiki (want another source? I'm sure I could find it in about 2 seconds, but I'd rather not search for "suicide bombing" on google...)

 

"Following World War II, Viet Minh "death volunteers" fought against the French colonial army by using a long stick-like explosive to detonate French tanks, as part of their urban warfare tactics."

 

edit - re edit - being nice

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So... Muslim girls aren't representative of all Muslims... but suicide bombers are.

 

Just in case you weren't aware, there are more Muslims in the world who aren't crazy killers.

I said one girl wasn't representative, yes. But that does not mean I think the suicide bombers are.

 

And I know most Muslims are nice people. Several of my friends are Islamic.

 

I am quite tired of people resorting to the most extreme cases of fanaticism in order to prove their point.

And that point stands: Mythologies can and do make people do evil things. It's not the only thing that can push people over the edge and make them kill themselves and others, but it certainly is one of them.

 

Similar to the "oh those fanatics aren't Christians/Muslim/etc" argument, except reversed. "Oh those normal people aren't Christians/Muslim, but only the people who do bad things are because they clearly are representative of their religion."

I wrote nothing of the sort.

[toms]

Anyway, organized religion can be good since it's, well, organized. Sure, some people may believe in the same deity, but they might not grow in their spiritual faith if they solely prayed alone. While in what you call a group, people can discover more about their faith through the experience of others.

 

And THAT is the danger. If you are "growing" in your faith more by listening to other people than you are by listening to your internal beliefs then surely that must be wrong.

 

How can you hear what god is saying to YOU when everyone else is telling you what THEY think god is saying?

 

Whenever people get together in groups a number of interesting human dynamics come into play. People want to belong.. so they will go along with things they might not ordinarily do. Some people are naturally charismatic leaders, others are naturally followers. nce you have a group you also have "the others" outside the group. All these are bad things when it comes to faith.

 

That is why so many bad things have been done in the name of religion.. because charismatic leaders so forcefully project THEIR view of what god wants you to do, that people can no longer hear THEIR view of what god wants them to do. And the effect is like a mob.. people get swept up in things and do and say things they would never normally do.

Of course this effect isn't solely restricted to religious groups and religious demagogues.. it equally occurs in football crowds, lynch mobs, political rallys, and so on.

 

I amy be wrong, but i think that the ONLY major religion that has NEVER committed any violent acts is buddhism.. and I believe that is because hey place much more of an emphasis on going somewhere quiet and listening to what god is telling you.. rather than getting together in a group and having someone else tell you what god wants.

 

Even in christianity, those who seem most closely connected to god are the monks and nuns who simply take some quiet time to be alone with god.. rather than getting together in big ceremonies that are more about getting worked up than listening to god. Heck.. even jesus went out into the wilderness to fast and meditate when he wanted guidance.. he didn't get all his followers together in some sort of ceremony or rally.

 

Next time you want to grow in faith.. try going to the mountains and spending some quiet time with your faith.. rather than going to a church and risking it being led astray or corrupted by someone else's misguided faith.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I personally dislike organized religion as it's not free-thinking. It's just sitting there listening to a guy going "this is what you are to believe!". Sure, you may say that "you can listen and then make up your own mind", but when that's not the purpose of the preaching, and you go there every Sunday, open-mindedness is not the end result.

 

I amy be wrong, but i think that the ONLY major religion that has NEVER committed any violent acts is buddhism.. and I believe that is because hey place much more of an emphasis on going somewhere quiet and listening to what god is telling you.. rather than getting together in a group and having someone else tell you what god wants.

Actually, I think Buddhist monks fought for Korea when the Japanese invaded (in the 1500's). So... no.

[Spider AL]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY TOMS:

 

I amy be wrong, but i think that the ONLY major religion that has NEVER committed any violent acts is buddhism.. and I believe that is because hey place much more of an emphasis on going somewhere quiet and listening to what god is telling you.. rather than getting together in a group and having someone else tell you what god wants.

Bit of a straw man there, Toms me old chum. No "Religion" has ever "committed violent acts," because religions are merely abstract delusions. People commit violent acts in the NAME of religion. Religions are, as I stated earlier in the thread, neither good nor evil. People are good or evil.

 

But it's certainly true that when compared to Christianity or Islam, Buddhism has had LESS major atrocities committed in its name. Even the legendary Shaolin monks never went around handing out kung-fu whoop*ss to people "In Buddha's name". They did it in the Emperor's name.

 

But once again Buddhism is NOT a religion, as one does NOT pray to a deity in Buddhism, nor does one have to even believe in a deity, to practice Buddhism. Buddhism is, once and for all, not a religion. So it's an unfair comparison.

 

It's difficult to be a fanatical Buddhist. If one is a Buddhist fanatic one shaves one's head, dons an orange robe and sits around meditating a lot on the meaning of human suffering. If on the other hand one is a Muslim fanatic, one blows things up (or at least fantasises about it), and if one is a Christian fanatic, one spouts inane gibberish about turtles supporting the world in seven days or something, and declares war on middle eastern countries.

 

J/k.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY TOMS:

 

and I believe that is because hey place much more of an emphasis on going somewhere quiet and listening to what god is telling you.. rather than getting together in a group and having someone else tell you what god wants.

No god. Buddhism not religion.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

 

And that point stands: Mythologies can and do make people do evil things. It's not the only thing that can push people over the edge and make them kill themselves and others, but it certainly is one of them.

Nope. Myths and legends do not "make" people do anything. Nor are they a factor in making people do evil in the way that you're implying.

 

Religion can be used as a tool to influence people. That does not mean that the religion itself influences them. It is still the will of another human being trying to exert power over a fellow creature, regardless of the form of the tool employed.

 

Ignorance makes people do evil, and while religion does not drive ignorance away, it does not CAUSE people to be ignorant. Their own laziness does that.

 

Self interest causes people to do evil, and while religion does not expunge self-interested motivations from people, it does not CREATE those motivations either.

 

The bottom line is people are good or evil (If there is such a thing as good or evil) in their natures or by choice. They are either wilfully ignorant or they make the effort to learn. That is their choice. You may argue: "But people in closeted religious communities don't have the chance to learn". But they do. What separates ex-religious people from people who are still trapped in the web of orthodox islam or orthodox judaism? Why, a choice, of course. Some choose to leave, to look outside or to question their elders. I don't accept that religion or any form of indoctrination destroys a person's free will, and I don't believe that having a religious family excuses you from taking RESPONSIBILITY for your own mind, and your own life.

 

In the end, we have free will. Evil people do evil, and Good people do good. Good people do not do evil, for once they have done evil, they are evildoers. They are evil. They just didn't reveal their evil beforehand.

[SkinWalker]

But once again Buddhism is NOT a religion, as one does NOT pray to a deity in Buddhism, nor does one have to even believe in a deity, to practice Buddhism. Buddhism is, once and for all, not a religion. So it's an unfair comparison.

 

Just to clarify, Theravada Buddhism fits the description you've given above, but Mahayana Buddhism does appear to encourage the prayer and worship of Buddha as a deity or supernatural entity and in this, the largest sect of Buddhism, god is often looked for in Buddhism while on the path to Nirvana.

 

Theravada Buddhism, often considered the truest and purest form of the philosophy, does indeed present an atheist philosophical position and is one of the philosophical tenets that humanism was born from.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Bit of a straw man there, Toms me old chum. No "Religion" has ever "committed violent acts," because religions are merely abstract delusions. People commit violent acts in the NAME of religion. Religions are, as I stated earlier in the thread, neither good nor evil. People are good or evil.

Do you apply that reasoning to other systems of beliefs, too, like Nazism or Communism? "Nazism is not evil, people are evil"?

[rccar328]

I amy be wrong, but i think that the ONLY major religion that has NEVER committed any violent acts is buddhism.. and I believe that is because hey place much more of an emphasis on going somewhere quiet and listening to what god is telling you.. rather than getting together in a group and having someone else tell you what god wants.

From Reuters:

Monks brawl in Sri Lanka

[toms]

I knew i should have left that paragraph out. Still, ignoring that paragraph if you will, i think the rst of my post is valid.

 

If there were no chruches, no mosques, no christian evangelical tv channels TELLING people how th believe.. and it was just people havnig their own internal debates and conversations with god then I think the world would be a much better place.

People go to church because they want to be a part of a group, which makes them feel stronger and less alone.. but what they often get is a preacher putting HIS interpretations on the religion, interpretations that are no more vaild than their interpretations, except he says them louder. Interpretations that can be influenced by his personal issues.

 

There are lots of issues today that aren't really religious issues at all, but have been turned into religious issues by religious leaders who are allowing their own personal views to influence their teachings. Then their flocks "grow" in their belief by incorporating those mistaken beliefs and the whole religion gets off track.

 

The ones (christian or muslim) running around aren't the ones who have the closest relationship with their god.. they are the ones who have the most charismatic preachers.. who can profoundly alter their beliefs.

Look at these potential bombers in the Uk. They all once had moderate beliefs.. then they went to church and their faith "grew".. in the way that the preacher wanted it to.

 

I dount they could hear their own beliefs or god or concience or whatever you want to call it over all the noise...

[Spider AL]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

 

Just to clarify, Theravada Buddhism fits the description you've given above, but Mahayana Buddhism does appear to encourage the prayer and worship of Buddha as a deity or supernatural entity and in this, the largest sect of Buddhism, god is often looked for in Buddhism while on the path to Nirvana.

 

Theravada Buddhism, often considered the truest and purest form of the philosophy, does indeed present an atheist philosophical position and is one of the philosophical tenets that humanism was born from.

And once again I must remind you that the "big raft" of Mahayana is not Buddhism. Lighting incense a few times a week while visualising some deity or other is not following the teachings of Buddha, any more than killing someone in God's name is true Christianity.

 

I could worship a particularly green and attractive cabbage and call my worship "Buddhism", but that clearly wouldn't make it so. Mahayana is the same.

 

Buddhism is following the teachings of Buddha. Even following the path of Buddha. Christianity is following the teachings of Christ.. This is why most Christians today are un-christian. They are on their own equivalent of the big raft.

 

And no, the NUMBER of people who believe that Mahayana is true Buddhism is irrelevant. They're all misguided and foolish in this respect. Regardless of their majority status.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

 

Do you apply that reasoning to other systems of beliefs, too, like Nazism or Communism? "Nazism is not evil, people are evil"?

Communism is not inherently evil. If implemented in a certain way, it might indeed function quite well as a system of governance. But that's the point, isn't it. Political extremism is evil. Political ideas are always welcome, no matter how outlandish they are.

 

Ah, and you played the Hitler card. As for Nazism, Nazism wasn't a belief system, nor even a system of governance, it was a totalitarian ideology- very much like neoconservatism- and it was based on inherently immoral ideas. Are you seriously comparing the mythical teachings of Christ or Mohammed with an ideology defined by the genocidal actions of a more-than-fascist warmongering junta from the thirties?

 

What makes nazism evil was that it was originally defined by an evil group of people as an active attempt to gain political and international dominion over others, to commit racial genocide and to subsume the free will of its own populace beneath a sea of lies and propaganda.

 

It really does not compare. So this part of your question is really quite irrelevant. You might as well have asked "Do you apply the same reasoning to cabbage?"

 

I like cabbage.

[Mike Windu]

Excuse me sir, but as a former Mahayana Buddhist myself I don't appreciate your claim that Mahayana Buddhism is not Buddhism.

 

People seem to misconstrue the aspects of Mahayana Buddhism... so allow me to summarize this very quickly.

 

Buddha =/= God

 

In fact he would be closer to Jesus in the Western World than God himself. Buddha is a helper or a visualizer to the path of Nirvana, which would be what equals God.

 

Lighting incense a few times a week, to my knowledge is to acknowledge Buddha and acknowledge his wisdom, and ask that a bit of that wisdom help you.

 

A lot of people may pray to the Buddha for direct assistance, but that's not the way it is.

 

Ever heard of a candlelight vigil? Substitute candle for incense and bam.

 

In any case, we light incense for my grandfather, as well. (he's dead). It's more of a respect thing than anything else like prayer.

 

Though I'm no longer a Buddhist, just thought I'd clarify this, as unnecessary attacks on any religion are in poor taste, good sir.

 

Let the debate continue.

[Spider AL]

Excuse me sir, but as a former Mahayana Buddhist myself I don't appreciate your claim that Mahayana Buddhism is not Buddhism.

Regardless, my claim is true, for the reasons stated above. If you wish to debate those reasons, please do so.

 

In fact he would be closer to Jesus in the Western World than God himself. Buddha is a helper or a visualizer to the path of Nirvana, which would be what equals God.

Nirvana does not equal "God". Nirvana is a conceptualisation of an end to material suffering and repetitive reincarnation into this world. Nirvana is closer to being oblivion than it is to being some white-bearded skydaddy. And Buddha is no emmisary from some deity, he was allegedly a man who walked a path and chronicled his path so that others could follow. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Lighting incense a few times a week, to my knowledge is to acknowledge Buddha and acknowledge his wisdom, and ask that a bit of that wisdom help you.

And that is not Buddhism. If you want the wisdom of Buddha to help you, Go and read some of it. Burning incense is an irrelevance. You may feel as though you are in some way "paying your respects", but if you want to show respect for Buddha's wisdom, do some of the things he recommends, like casting away desire. Igniting an odourful twig isn't what I'd call a useful pastime. If Buddha ever existed and he were around to tell you, I'm sure he'd say to do something more useful. Hasten and strive, and all that.

 

Though I'm no longer a Buddhist, just thought I'd clarify this, as unnecessary attacks on any religion are in poor taste, good sir.

For a start, Buddhism is not a religion.

 

I try to follow the teachings of Buddha. In this respect, I am a true Buddhist. I am also a true Christian, because I try to follow the teachings of Christ. But I am also an atheist, and I subscribe to none of the nonsense of big-raft organised cults such as Catholicism, Islam or Mahayana "Buddhism". And frankly, I don't feel in the least bit contrite about attacking such fraudulent and wasteful institutions.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Ah, and you played the Hitler card.

If I said Christianity was as bad as Nazism, I'd be. I'm not.

 

As for Nazism, Nazism wasn't a belief system, nor even a system of governance, it was a totalitarian ideology- very much like neoconservatism- and it was based on inherently immoral ideas.

They're both systems, however. I'm not saying Christianity and Nazism are comparable moral-wise, but they're both ideologies.

 

There are a lot of immoral ideas in the Bible, too (such as the hatred towards homosexuals). When Fred Phelps follows them, apparently that's not the Bible's fault. Yet when neo-Nazis follow Hitler's "teachings", suddenly it's his fault.

 

I'm not saying Christianity's as bad as Nazism. Nowhere near it.

You might as well have asked "Do you apply the same reasoning to cabbage?

But of course I do! Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, and Chairman Mao all loved cabbage! Clearly there's a connection:p!

[SkinWalker]

And once again I must remind you that the "big raft" of Mahayana is not Buddhism. Lighting incense a few times a week while visualising some deity or other is not following the teachings of Buddha, any more than killing someone in God's name is true Christianity.

 

I could worship a particularly green and attractive cabbage and call my worship "Buddhism", but that clearly wouldn't make it so. Mahayana is the same.

 

Buddhism is following the teachings of Buddha. Even following the path of Buddha. Christianity is following the teachings of Christ.. This is why most Christians today are un-christian. They are on their own equivalent of the big raft.

 

And no, the NUMBER of people who believe that Mahayana is true Buddhism is irrelevant. They're all misguided and foolish in this respect. Regardless of their majority status.

 

I'm reminded of those who offer the bigoted perspective that certain sects of christianity aren't actually "christian." I've seen accusations that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, even Catholics aren't actually christian. But, in the end, they're just christians. Different flavors, to be sure, christian nonetheless.

 

The same is true with Mahayana Buddhism. Call it what you will, Spider, but the *are* Buddhists. There's not a text on religion, anthropology of religion, or sociology of religion, that I'm aware that posits otherwise. Moreover, Mahayanists adhere to some of the main tenets of Buddhism, including the 8 Fold Path and the 4 Noble Truths as well as Nirvana. Not to mention that Buddha himself is of primary importance.

 

In the end, you can keep calling them whatever you wish or don't wish, but it would be like calling a sphere a cube: no matter how many times you say "cube," corners won't appear. Mahayanism *is* a form of Buddhism.

[Spider AL]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

 

I'm reminded of those who offer the bigoted perspective that certain sects of christianity aren't actually "christian." I've seen accusations that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, even Catholics aren't actually christian. But, in the end, they're just christians. Different flavors, to be sure, christian nonetheless.

Those who follow the teachings of Christ can be called Christian people, regardless of their denomination. Most modern "christians" do not qualify as christian people, for the simple reason that they do not even attempt to emulate Christ's basic moral examples. Take George Bush as an example. The same goes for Buddhists. Only those who follow the path of Buddha can truly be called Buddhist.

 

Some very christian people can be members of an organised church. But they are christian DESPITE the church, not BECAUSE of it. The same goes for Buddhists once again, a practioner of Mahayana may indeed be following the path of Buddha, but he will be doing so DESPITE Mahayana, not BECAUSE of it.

 

Very emotive term, by the way: Bigoted. Spare me. There's nothing bigoted about my dislike of organised religions, or more accurately, religious organisations.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

 

The same is true with Mahayana Buddhism. Call it what you will, Spider, but the *are* Buddhists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. Are you saying that if a group of cabbage worshipping esquimeaux (sic) call their leafy green religious practices "Buddhism" then that makes them Buddhists?

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

 

There's not a text on religion, anthropology of religion, or sociology of religion, that I'm aware that posits otherwise.

First of all, that's completely irrelevant to ANY aspect of the argument. Secondly, I recall many discussions of the relative worth of Mahayana both in print, among Buddhists and indeed, even on this forum. You and I both participated in the last time this topic was discussed here. This is not a new debate nor a new idea. I'm sure it's been discussed since Mahayana was formed as a sect, in fact.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

 

Moreover, Mahayanists adhere to some of the main tenets of Buddhism, including the 8 Fold Path and the 4 Noble Truths as well as Nirvana.

The fact that they use some of the same terminology as Buddha did in his teachings does not mean that they're adhering to the principles behind those teachings now, does it. Regurgitating the four noble truths by rote does not mean one applies the principle of the truths in one's daily life, nor does it mean that one is doing all the introspective self-analytical meditation that characterises the Buddhist way. And as we've seen in this thread, people can use the word "Nirvana" without at all ascribing the correct meaning to it. The plain fact of the matter is that Mahayana may indeed do some things right, I can't speak for the practices of every Mayahana tulku or temple honcho or whatever. But those right things will always be totally outweighed by all the mystic, religious airy-fairy guff wrong things that make up the rest of Mahayana's practices.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

 

Not to mention that Buddha himself is of primary importance.

As an idol! An object of worship! That is not Buddhism. Buddha would be spinning in his celestial resting place, presuming he ever existed. Mahayana Buddhists routinely believe in celestial messengers, praying to Buddha for help or guidance, and that Buddha is in some way extant and omniscient. Total guff, in other words.

 

A lot like Jeet Kune Do. Bruce Lee wrote in his notes that Jeet Kune Do was his way of understanding ALL martial arts. It was his philosophy of LEARNING. It was NOT in itself a martial art. It should not be taught as a martial art, and if people were to start saying that Jeet Kune Do is this set of techniques, or it is that set of techniques, then he would have the name of Jeet Kune Do wiped out forever, because that was not what the philosophy was intended for.

 

Immediately after his death, nearly all his old students and some people who had never met him started claiming to "teach JKD", when they were really just teaching some moves.. People still practice this so-called art to this day... but they're not learning Jeet Kune Do, and what they're attending is not a "Jeet Kune Do class". To learn the way of Jeet Kune Do, one must quite simply read Lee's works, and try to grasp his martial philosophy.

 

It is almost a direct parallel to the topic of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. One is the true way, as it was intended, the other is a poor mockery of the way, regardless of how many half-understood snippets of the real way it contains.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY SKINWALKER:

 

In the end, you can keep calling them whatever you wish or don't wish, but it would be like calling a sphere a cube: no matter how many times you say "cube," corners won't appear. Mahayanism *is* a form of Buddhism.

I personally think that you're the one who's misguided in this respect. If you really believe that rituals, gold statue idolatry, incense burning and prayer to deified semi-mythical figures have ANYTHING to do with the teachings of Buddha, then you should re-evaluate.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

 

They're both systems, however. I'm not saying Christianity and Nazism are comparable moral-wise, but they're both ideologies.

What do you mean by "They're both systems"? And they're not both political ideologies, one is a religion based on the teachings of a moralist who got nailed to a tree, and the other is a totalitarian fascist doctrine of deceit and ethnic cleansing. Completely different. Incomparable.

 

And yes, even attempting to compare them in this context was playing the Hitler Card.

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

 

There are a lot of immoral ideas in the Bible, too (such as the hatred towards homosexuals). When Fred Phelps follows them, apparently that's not the Bible's fault. Yet when neo-Nazis follow Hitler's "teachings", suddenly it's his fault.

There's a clear distinction. If people follow Christ's example, it's unlikely that they'll even be allowed to hate anyone.

 

When people follow Hitler's example, they ohh... I dunno... murder millions of people, conquer nations, start armed conflicts... Make rousing speeches...

 

You get the picture.

 

The bible is not very Christian at times, is it. It's commonly accepted among non-fanatics and academics that the old testament is merely a relic of the preceding doctrine of Judaism. The old Hebrew laws were quite red in tooth and claw. The most specifically anti-homosexual passages are in Leviticus, which is a book of the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, as I understand it.

 

And any member of an organised church who values the principles of the Old Testament over Christ's teachings in the new, must surely be called un-christian. An example: A man who believes in "an eye for an eye" but does not believe in "turning the other cheek". Can't really be called a "christian man", now, can he?

 

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DAGOBAHN EAGLE:

 

But of course I do! Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, and Chairman Mao all loved cabbage! Clearly there's a connection!

Damn right! The cabbage is evil.

[Kurgan]

Skinwalker voted 11 times? You cheater!