looks like its on with iraq
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,856
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Before I begin I'd like to point out that I do not disapprove of or look down on Christianity or Christians. Christianity has provided people with a lot of happiness, strong communities, and I believe that Jesus Christ was a great man who had a lot of insight.
What I am trying to say is that I think we've reached a critical time as human beings on this planet. Thousands, or even hundreds of years ago, we didn't have to deal with aggressive, powerful people who had the opportunity to alter the world in such a drastic way as people are able to now. Luckily, men like Adolf Hitler never had the power to split an atom and create this sort of devastation, but people do now. That's where the difference lies.
Having hatred at a time when you could only kill a group of people with primitive weapons is very different than having this same sort of hatred in the year 2003. I believe that we as human beings are at a state of total emergency, the type of emergency that requires fundamental changes in our attitudes. Continuing this hatred while nuclear warheads and nuclear secrets spread is mind boggingly terrifying. I can accept the fact that I as a mortal human being will die some day. I cannot accept the fact that the future of our planet is hanging on by a thin thread.
Yes, I do have the power to question the beliefs I have. Especially when younger, I questioned the beliefs my parents (and friends and such) held. Actually, I didn't. I questioned some of those that HELD those beliefs, that believed them, because I found faults in them. I figured that if religion was so perfect, the people should also be perfect. Naturally, this is not true and I learned to look past the people and see the good that a belief in God gave them (and has now given me). So yes, I've asked myself plenty of times all the questions you mention.
I believe that people can make themselves more perfect in the way you've described - perfect enough to live happily and increase the happiness of others. I as a Nichiren Daishonin Buddhist believe that every one of us has the power to make life altering changes to ourselves. I've experienced it. I've personally seen the sort of wisdom, compassion, and courage can come from studying the universal laws taught in the lotus sutra and infusing these qualities into one's character by spending 10-15 minutes chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo twice a day with focused determination. I know for a fact that anyone can experience the same thing, because our new members always show dramatic signs of growth every day they practice. I also know that if the 12 million people who practice Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism increased their numbers, the world would be a better and safer place. I'm not saying that Buddhist philosophy is better than others, but in my eyes I think it would be a step in the right direction.
Again I am not posting about this on this thread to advertise my beliefs or convert people into changing their lives, but my belief in this practice has improved my own life in more ways than you can imagine, and has the power to do the same for anyone.
You ask why I believe in a supernatural being. There are many reasons, but I'll give just one (it's the most recent). My wife is pregnant with our first baby, so naturally we've been learning a LOT about how the baby develops, etc, etc... What a miracle (and I don't use that word lightly) it is to see how a tiny thing develops into a human being. To believe that such a thing occurred by chance, without divine guidance and direction, is (in my mind) completely ludicrous. The tiny intricacies of a baby alone convince me that there is a God. I actually discussed other things in another thread quite some months ago, but if you want more, I can give you more (in PM, as this is getting off topic).
That is a perfectly valid argument and I totally understand what you are talking about. Phenomena like life itself, the evolution of a species that allow it to survive in changing environmental conditions, the existence of fragile ecosystems such as natural rainforests that require codependency of plant and animal life to survive - phenomena that allow us as creatures of this planet to exist in perfect harmony with one another and our environment and continue to reproduce and co-create. There are phenomena that science has no explanation for, and this is what religion itself addresses, along with other things. There's a book called Conversations with God that I think you might enjoy - I've read through some of it and it is compelling to say the least.
What you believe is your own choice. However, I could just as easily say that you are speaking from a mask of ignorance, having never experienced true Christianity or Christians. Who is to say?
I agree, but again the reason I believe fundamental change needs to take place is due to our current situation. I think that believing a person to be good or evil has a dramatic effect on the way we as human beings interact with each other.
Look at it this way. If you ate a bad apple, would you never try another apple again? Say you bought a bag of bad apples - does that mean that all apples are rotten? See, where you get one bad apple, you tend to get lots. To make the parallel perfectly clear, where you get one type of professing Christian, you tend to get a lot like him/her. So, you generally have a lot of the same thing in a certain place, but it doesn't mean that all are like that everywhere.
I didn't mean to come off as someone who thinks Christianity is wrong - I do believe that Christianity was used by people with power as an opiate of the masses to breed an acceptance for their lot amongs the common people. I do believe that some Christians are intolerant of other people, but that doesn't make Christianity wrong.
That said, what do you define as a "free thinker"? Someone who has no absolute?
Someone who searches from within himself or herself to find truth.
My perception is that you feel that the Bible limits Christians and so they are not free thinkers.
I believe that reading the bible and believing its content without any sort of evidence has an affect on the way a brain processes information it receives. Again this religion is based on the teachings of a great man and I think Christianity has the power to improve a person's life, but I also believe that by finding truth from within yourself has great benefits for yourself and others, even benefits that you wouldn't know exist.
If so, so be it, because I could see how it's true - it's not that we don't THINK freely, it's that we don't often BELIEVE the way others do. Having a different viewpoint does not make us less of "free thinkers". I would venture a guess and say that because we have so many of our views/beliefs already laid out in the Bible, you feel that makes us less than free thinkers. Again, this could be seen as true and I see your point. If someone asked me about a topic, the basis for my answer would most often be based on what I believe in scripture. Is that any different than you answering based on what you've read/learned? Just because my beliefs are written down, does that make them any less valid than yours, or more limiting? I'm sure yours are written down places, too, just not necessarily all in one volume or book.
That's where another difference lies - The Lotus Sutra was written by a man named Shakyamuni in what modern scholars believe to be the 5th or 6th century B.C. Shakyamuni was a prince of a tribe in India who strove to find answers for what he believed to be the four sufferings of human beings - birth, old age, sickness, and death. He left his palace as a young man and spent years in solitude to find answers to these questions, and spent his entire life writing sutras, or scriptures of wisdom. He first wrote "provisional sutras" which contained partial truths to universal laws of life. These provisional sutras were designed to nurture his followers' wisdom and prepare them to understand the Lotus Sutra, which he wrote only a few years before his death. Certain provisional sutras were adopted by some, but the Lotus Sutra was not because it was so complex that an unenlightened man could not understand it. Many sects of Buddhism arose and developed using the provisional sutras as their source of wisdom, but it was Nichiren Daishonin, who lived in the 13th century AD, who revealed that it was the Lotus Sutra that held the power to make a person enlightened. Nichiren Daishonin was persecuted endlessly by members of other sects, but after many years of studying in exile, he discovered that the power of the Lotus Sutra could be tapped by chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo. I've read hundreds of pages about what these 6 syllables mean, and even I do not understand it fully, but I can feel that I am tapping into its wisdom when chanting it. The state of Buddhahood is an incredibly blissful experience, and it exists within all of us - It only lies dormant when we don't pursue it.
The Lotus Sutra is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to allow any common man to become a Buddha. The bible is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to guide people toward living a good life under the eyes of God so that they can go to heaven when they die. (correct me if I'm wrong, you as a Christian know more about the bible than I do.)
Yes, I believe everything that is in the Bible. No, I don't believe everything my pastor tells me - if it doesn't line up with the Bible, I wouldn't believe it. The Bible is my ultimate guide, not my pastor.
I really think reading Conversations with God will have a positive effect on your life. The book is written by a man who claims that he was writing down questions that he didn't have answers for, and that 'something' was moving his pen and writing the answers for him, and that 'something' claims it was God. This sounds bogus, but if you read through the enormous amount of wisdom in this book, you will start to wonder. You'll see why I wrote this under your statement about the bible pretty early on in the book.
I think you have a perception that Christians believe that a person is either good (PERIOD) or bad (PERIOD). This is quite far from the truth. Any Christian should be able to tell you that we all have bad in us, since we're born in an imperfect world and body.; "Born in sin, shaped in iniquity, come into the world speaking lies", to paraphrase scripture. We don't say PEOPLE are necessarily bad or good (though oftimes it is quite evident), but rather we say ACTIONS are good or bad.
I believe that people need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, but I don't believe actions can be good or bad - just wise or foolish. In my eyes, making foolish decisions doesn't necessarily make someone bad. We all at some point look back on certain decisions we've made as children or adolescents and realize that a wiser choice could have been made.
I believe people are born a certain way, yes. However, no, I don't think they all remain that way forever. I believe that they can change.
Well as I said before, if a man was born without any senses and kept on life support for 18 years, I believe that this 18 year old person would not have a thought in his head because his brain was never exposed to any stimuli.
As far as a completely isolated person, if they are braindead and without senses, I have no idea if they have thoughts in their head or not. Ask a scientist or doctor that knows, for I surely don't
I'm confident that the answer would be no.
Partially, yes. However, the mind can override senses and allow YOU to define how you react to inputs.
I respectfully disagree - I believe that the inputs that have been received by your brain over your entire lifetime will shape your brain's ability to make choices and value judgements about the inputs that are being received right now as you read these words on your computer monitor. Even reading this sentence will ultimately have some sort of effect on your life in the near or distant future - that is the way I believe cause and effect works. Thoughts, that result from current or past external stimuli, plant seeds into your mind that will grow into manifest effect at some point in the future.
As you said yourself, the BRAIN makes the decisions. Also, I believe in a spiritual sense (the Holy Spirit) that can override everything in the body, allow us to ignore or overcome physical senses in order to grow and mature positively.
I believe that all of us have an "older, wiser" part of our brain that speaks to us when we need to make decisions. I believe different religions also have different explanations for this.
Without past experience, you are right, you wouldn't necessarily know what is right or wrong. As I said, with the plethora of moral teachings we inherently absorb each day, there is no way someone (aside from being shut up in a room without contact with the rest of the world) can help but know IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER the basic "right" or "wrong" in actions.
Every thought is a result of any of your five senses? What about dreams? What about imagination? Are these also always result of five senses? I don't think so. If imagination is governed by the five senses, we'd never be able to go beyond what we currently have.
This in itself would make a great debate. Freud spent a great deal of his life studying dreams and eventually wrote an entire book about them, but to put it concisely - I fall back onto my beliefs of cause and effect with this one. I think that every single nanosecond that your brain receives any sort of information through your 5 senses, it is stored as a cause, and will at some point, perhaps with influence from other causes, lead to an effect. The effect is the dream. If a 14 year old boy has a dream about the pretty blonde that sits next to him in History class, he couldn't have had it if the girl never existed. If a person has a dream about falling off of a cliff, he couldn't have had it if he'd never seen a cliff and didn't know what it looked like. Anyway this is way off on a tangent and I don't pretend to know a great deal about the way dreams work as well as Freud did, but I think it's impossible to picture something in your mind's eye if you haven't seen it or something like it before. I can picture what a nuclear explosion in the middle of downtown Los Angeles would look like because I know what a nuclear explosion looks like and I know what downtown L.A. looks like. I couldn't imagine this happening in New Delhi, because I don't really know what New Delhi looks like.
Oh, by all means, analyze away, try and fix it all. I have no problem with that and I concur - just because it's toast doesn't mean we should let it all go to the dogs (so to speak). I certainly didn't mean that - I only know that it's too far gone to fix.
How do you get rid of stupidity? For that matter, how about greed? Where is the line drawn between self-betterment and greed? How do you get rid of anger? These things are impossible to take out of most people.
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Your own statement ruins your chances of world peace. ONE MAN has the power to kill millions - this it true today and it'll be true forever. All it takes is one person (male or female) that isn't in the same frame of mind as all of the "compassionate" people, and the plan is ruined.
That's heart-breakingly true, but again I think it's worth a shot. How else could we go about removing this problem and not cause dozens of others?
On one thing we agree - we can't improve things unless we change something within us. On this I can wholeheartedly concur. There, we aren't so different after all. If this is your bottom line in your argument, I agree completely - I guess we only differ on how to implement that change.
Again, I agree - just because we screwed up the world permanently doesn't mean we should let things slide. As a Christian, I will always stand for what I believe is right and stand against that which I believe is wrong in this world. I'll do my part not to make things worse. Worth fighting for? Yes, I think so too - I'm just keeping myself realistic as to what I can expect in terms of changes...
Nope, I'm saying that while the situation may affect me personally, I'm not worried about it. My hope and faith (gotta love it
) lie elsewhere. I'll do what I can, but I'm not worried about it and I'm trusting in a better place beyond this world.
I think this is the major disagreement between our two beliefs. - although I am a man of reason and reincarnation was an enormous pill for me to swallow, I don't believe that this world is temporary and neither are other planets in other solar systems in other galaxies. I believe that we as creatures are temporary and when we die we'll be in a state of non-existence, waiting for an opportunity to take the form of life once again. This is part of "Myoho" in Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Anyway, it goes way beyond this but I'm off on a bit of a tangent again.
Just for clarification, I didn't say you were ignorant - I said you were speaking out of ignorance. There is a difference. I certainly didn't mean to offend you. Naive? Yes, I did say that but I can't help but think it true. Certainly not a personal attack (and I'm sorry if it appeared to be one).
Point taken, I realize that I don't know everything there is to know about Christianity but my mother's side of the family is Christian and I do have Christian friends that give me a good idea about what it is.
No, I wasn't offended by your comments, just a bit dismayed that you spoke as you did without a proper grasp of Christianity. The blame may not be yours (and I'm not trying to assign blame), but again, I have to say that you spoke out of ignorance. I guess my problem is more with you making definitive comments without the personal commitment that I (and others) have, along with the experiences we have had that prove you can be/are wrong in what you said.
Again, point taken - I know that I don't know everything, but I consider myself to be pretty a pretty knowledgeable 21 year old, but when the word "ignorant" is used to describe someone's views, it can be taken personally.
Believe me, I didn't get emotional - I've been called stoic, mainly because of my Germanic background (you know the type - blondhaired, steel-blue eyes, calm, impassive at times, though I have been known to cry a time or two
). I was horrified when 9/11 occurred, for sure, but I'm just as horrified at the millions that Americans kill through abortion each year (one baby every 24 seconds...or was it 26 seconds? One of the two - I heard it on the radio this morning). Which is more blatant? Not trying to turn the conversation down another alley, but it's just some food for thought.
Another disagreement I suppose. Like you I believe that life begins when sperm fertlizes an egg, but I also believe that when a fetus dies, its "spirit" or "entity" will be reborn in the near future. If that was a hard pill to swallow for me, I'm sure it's an even harder one for you - Maybe you can educate me about something. When a fetus is killed by a doctor, does it go to heaven or hell?
Anger is not only a result of injustice or a challenged ego. Anger can be a result of ignorance by another party (perhaps that's a type of injustice) or as a result of a moral boundary being crossed. It can be because of pain or suffering (stubbing a toe, for instance). It can be caused by a hateful remark (arguably an injustice, though not definitively), death, etc, etc... Hundreds of reasons, I'm sure.
I believe that ignorance by another party, a moral boundary being crossed or a hateful remark can go into the 'injustice' category, and if death causes anger then I believe the death itself was caused by injustice, and I believe anger resulting from stubbing a toe is a result of one's ego getting the better of him A year ago my grandmother died very suddenly after chemotherapy for a tumor arising from a recently discovered case of pancreotic cancer. Among my feelings of sadness were also feelings of anger, perhaps both from injustice and from my ego being challenged. Injustice being "Why did her doctor recommend chemotherapy when she could have had more time to live if she had not undergone it" and also because my grandmother had been a part of my life since day one, I never thought about her dying someday, and perhaps my ego was telling me that "It can happen to anyone, but not her or anyone else in my family or group of friends".
Good reply, though - keep it coming!
We may not agree on everything, but if nothing else we can hopefully enlighten the other person in some way and, if all else fails, agree to disagree on everything else.
I agree, you're an intelligent guy and debating about philosophy and world affairs with intelligent people is something that I love to do. It may take some time to write these replies, but it's all for the better!
What I am trying to say is that I think we've reached a critical time as human beings on this planet. Thousands, or even hundreds of years ago, we didn't have to deal with aggressive, powerful people who had the opportunity to alter the world in such a drastic way as people are able to now. Luckily, men like Adolf Hitler never had the power to split an atom and create this sort of devastation, but people do now. That's where the difference lies.
Having hatred at a time when you could only kill a group of people with primitive weapons is very different than having this same sort of hatred in the year 2003. I believe that we as human beings are at a state of total emergency, the type of emergency that requires fundamental changes in our attitudes. Continuing this hatred while nuclear warheads and nuclear secrets spread is mind boggingly terrifying. I can accept the fact that I as a mortal human being will die some day. I cannot accept the fact that the future of our planet is hanging on by a thin thread.
Yes, I do have the power to question the beliefs I have. Especially when younger, I questioned the beliefs my parents (and friends and such) held. Actually, I didn't. I questioned some of those that HELD those beliefs, that believed them, because I found faults in them. I figured that if religion was so perfect, the people should also be perfect. Naturally, this is not true and I learned to look past the people and see the good that a belief in God gave them (and has now given me). So yes, I've asked myself plenty of times all the questions you mention.
I believe that people can make themselves more perfect in the way you've described - perfect enough to live happily and increase the happiness of others. I as a Nichiren Daishonin Buddhist believe that every one of us has the power to make life altering changes to ourselves. I've experienced it. I've personally seen the sort of wisdom, compassion, and courage can come from studying the universal laws taught in the lotus sutra and infusing these qualities into one's character by spending 10-15 minutes chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo twice a day with focused determination. I know for a fact that anyone can experience the same thing, because our new members always show dramatic signs of growth every day they practice. I also know that if the 12 million people who practice Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism increased their numbers, the world would be a better and safer place. I'm not saying that Buddhist philosophy is better than others, but in my eyes I think it would be a step in the right direction.
Again I am not posting about this on this thread to advertise my beliefs or convert people into changing their lives, but my belief in this practice has improved my own life in more ways than you can imagine, and has the power to do the same for anyone.
You ask why I believe in a supernatural being. There are many reasons, but I'll give just one (it's the most recent). My wife is pregnant with our first baby, so naturally we've been learning a LOT about how the baby develops, etc, etc... What a miracle (and I don't use that word lightly) it is to see how a tiny thing develops into a human being. To believe that such a thing occurred by chance, without divine guidance and direction, is (in my mind) completely ludicrous. The tiny intricacies of a baby alone convince me that there is a God. I actually discussed other things in another thread quite some months ago, but if you want more, I can give you more (in PM, as this is getting off topic).
That is a perfectly valid argument and I totally understand what you are talking about. Phenomena like life itself, the evolution of a species that allow it to survive in changing environmental conditions, the existence of fragile ecosystems such as natural rainforests that require codependency of plant and animal life to survive - phenomena that allow us as creatures of this planet to exist in perfect harmony with one another and our environment and continue to reproduce and co-create. There are phenomena that science has no explanation for, and this is what religion itself addresses, along with other things. There's a book called Conversations with God that I think you might enjoy - I've read through some of it and it is compelling to say the least.
What you believe is your own choice. However, I could just as easily say that you are speaking from a mask of ignorance, having never experienced true Christianity or Christians. Who is to say?
I agree, but again the reason I believe fundamental change needs to take place is due to our current situation. I think that believing a person to be good or evil has a dramatic effect on the way we as human beings interact with each other.
Look at it this way. If you ate a bad apple, would you never try another apple again? Say you bought a bag of bad apples - does that mean that all apples are rotten? See, where you get one bad apple, you tend to get lots. To make the parallel perfectly clear, where you get one type of professing Christian, you tend to get a lot like him/her. So, you generally have a lot of the same thing in a certain place, but it doesn't mean that all are like that everywhere.
I didn't mean to come off as someone who thinks Christianity is wrong - I do believe that Christianity was used by people with power as an opiate of the masses to breed an acceptance for their lot amongs the common people. I do believe that some Christians are intolerant of other people, but that doesn't make Christianity wrong.
That said, what do you define as a "free thinker"? Someone who has no absolute?
Someone who searches from within himself or herself to find truth.
My perception is that you feel that the Bible limits Christians and so they are not free thinkers.
I believe that reading the bible and believing its content without any sort of evidence has an affect on the way a brain processes information it receives. Again this religion is based on the teachings of a great man and I think Christianity has the power to improve a person's life, but I also believe that by finding truth from within yourself has great benefits for yourself and others, even benefits that you wouldn't know exist.
If so, so be it, because I could see how it's true - it's not that we don't THINK freely, it's that we don't often BELIEVE the way others do. Having a different viewpoint does not make us less of "free thinkers". I would venture a guess and say that because we have so many of our views/beliefs already laid out in the Bible, you feel that makes us less than free thinkers. Again, this could be seen as true and I see your point. If someone asked me about a topic, the basis for my answer would most often be based on what I believe in scripture. Is that any different than you answering based on what you've read/learned? Just because my beliefs are written down, does that make them any less valid than yours, or more limiting? I'm sure yours are written down places, too, just not necessarily all in one volume or book.
That's where another difference lies - The Lotus Sutra was written by a man named Shakyamuni in what modern scholars believe to be the 5th or 6th century B.C. Shakyamuni was a prince of a tribe in India who strove to find answers for what he believed to be the four sufferings of human beings - birth, old age, sickness, and death. He left his palace as a young man and spent years in solitude to find answers to these questions, and spent his entire life writing sutras, or scriptures of wisdom. He first wrote "provisional sutras" which contained partial truths to universal laws of life. These provisional sutras were designed to nurture his followers' wisdom and prepare them to understand the Lotus Sutra, which he wrote only a few years before his death. Certain provisional sutras were adopted by some, but the Lotus Sutra was not because it was so complex that an unenlightened man could not understand it. Many sects of Buddhism arose and developed using the provisional sutras as their source of wisdom, but it was Nichiren Daishonin, who lived in the 13th century AD, who revealed that it was the Lotus Sutra that held the power to make a person enlightened. Nichiren Daishonin was persecuted endlessly by members of other sects, but after many years of studying in exile, he discovered that the power of the Lotus Sutra could be tapped by chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo. I've read hundreds of pages about what these 6 syllables mean, and even I do not understand it fully, but I can feel that I am tapping into its wisdom when chanting it. The state of Buddhahood is an incredibly blissful experience, and it exists within all of us - It only lies dormant when we don't pursue it.
The Lotus Sutra is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to allow any common man to become a Buddha. The bible is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to guide people toward living a good life under the eyes of God so that they can go to heaven when they die. (correct me if I'm wrong, you as a Christian know more about the bible than I do.)
Yes, I believe everything that is in the Bible. No, I don't believe everything my pastor tells me - if it doesn't line up with the Bible, I wouldn't believe it. The Bible is my ultimate guide, not my pastor.
I really think reading Conversations with God will have a positive effect on your life. The book is written by a man who claims that he was writing down questions that he didn't have answers for, and that 'something' was moving his pen and writing the answers for him, and that 'something' claims it was God. This sounds bogus, but if you read through the enormous amount of wisdom in this book, you will start to wonder. You'll see why I wrote this under your statement about the bible pretty early on in the book.
I think you have a perception that Christians believe that a person is either good (PERIOD) or bad (PERIOD). This is quite far from the truth. Any Christian should be able to tell you that we all have bad in us, since we're born in an imperfect world and body.; "Born in sin, shaped in iniquity, come into the world speaking lies", to paraphrase scripture. We don't say PEOPLE are necessarily bad or good (though oftimes it is quite evident), but rather we say ACTIONS are good or bad.
I believe that people need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, but I don't believe actions can be good or bad - just wise or foolish. In my eyes, making foolish decisions doesn't necessarily make someone bad. We all at some point look back on certain decisions we've made as children or adolescents and realize that a wiser choice could have been made.
I believe people are born a certain way, yes. However, no, I don't think they all remain that way forever. I believe that they can change.
Well as I said before, if a man was born without any senses and kept on life support for 18 years, I believe that this 18 year old person would not have a thought in his head because his brain was never exposed to any stimuli.
As far as a completely isolated person, if they are braindead and without senses, I have no idea if they have thoughts in their head or not. Ask a scientist or doctor that knows, for I surely don't
I'm confident that the answer would be no.
Partially, yes. However, the mind can override senses and allow YOU to define how you react to inputs.
I respectfully disagree - I believe that the inputs that have been received by your brain over your entire lifetime will shape your brain's ability to make choices and value judgements about the inputs that are being received right now as you read these words on your computer monitor. Even reading this sentence will ultimately have some sort of effect on your life in the near or distant future - that is the way I believe cause and effect works. Thoughts, that result from current or past external stimuli, plant seeds into your mind that will grow into manifest effect at some point in the future.
As you said yourself, the BRAIN makes the decisions. Also, I believe in a spiritual sense (the Holy Spirit) that can override everything in the body, allow us to ignore or overcome physical senses in order to grow and mature positively.
I believe that all of us have an "older, wiser" part of our brain that speaks to us when we need to make decisions. I believe different religions also have different explanations for this.
Without past experience, you are right, you wouldn't necessarily know what is right or wrong. As I said, with the plethora of moral teachings we inherently absorb each day, there is no way someone (aside from being shut up in a room without contact with the rest of the world) can help but know IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER the basic "right" or "wrong" in actions.
Every thought is a result of any of your five senses? What about dreams? What about imagination? Are these also always result of five senses? I don't think so. If imagination is governed by the five senses, we'd never be able to go beyond what we currently have.
This in itself would make a great debate. Freud spent a great deal of his life studying dreams and eventually wrote an entire book about them, but to put it concisely - I fall back onto my beliefs of cause and effect with this one. I think that every single nanosecond that your brain receives any sort of information through your 5 senses, it is stored as a cause, and will at some point, perhaps with influence from other causes, lead to an effect. The effect is the dream. If a 14 year old boy has a dream about the pretty blonde that sits next to him in History class, he couldn't have had it if the girl never existed. If a person has a dream about falling off of a cliff, he couldn't have had it if he'd never seen a cliff and didn't know what it looked like. Anyway this is way off on a tangent and I don't pretend to know a great deal about the way dreams work as well as Freud did, but I think it's impossible to picture something in your mind's eye if you haven't seen it or something like it before. I can picture what a nuclear explosion in the middle of downtown Los Angeles would look like because I know what a nuclear explosion looks like and I know what downtown L.A. looks like. I couldn't imagine this happening in New Delhi, because I don't really know what New Delhi looks like.
Oh, by all means, analyze away, try and fix it all. I have no problem with that and I concur - just because it's toast doesn't mean we should let it all go to the dogs (so to speak). I certainly didn't mean that - I only know that it's too far gone to fix.
How do you get rid of stupidity? For that matter, how about greed? Where is the line drawn between self-betterment and greed? How do you get rid of anger? These things are impossible to take out of most people.
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Your own statement ruins your chances of world peace. ONE MAN has the power to kill millions - this it true today and it'll be true forever. All it takes is one person (male or female) that isn't in the same frame of mind as all of the "compassionate" people, and the plan is ruined.
That's heart-breakingly true, but again I think it's worth a shot. How else could we go about removing this problem and not cause dozens of others?
On one thing we agree - we can't improve things unless we change something within us. On this I can wholeheartedly concur.
There, we aren't so different after all. If this is your bottom line in your argument, I agree completely - I guess we only differ on how to implement that change.Again, I agree - just because we screwed up the world permanently doesn't mean we should let things slide. As a Christian, I will always stand for what I believe is right and stand against that which I believe is wrong in this world. I'll do my part not to make things worse. Worth fighting for? Yes, I think so too - I'm just keeping myself realistic as to what I can expect in terms of changes...
Nope, I'm saying that while the situation may affect me personally, I'm not worried about it. My hope and faith (gotta love it
) lie elsewhere. I'll do what I can, but I'm not worried about it and I'm trusting in a better place beyond this world.I think this is the major disagreement between our two beliefs. - although I am a man of reason and reincarnation was an enormous pill for me to swallow, I don't believe that this world is temporary and neither are other planets in other solar systems in other galaxies. I believe that we as creatures are temporary and when we die we'll be in a state of non-existence, waiting for an opportunity to take the form of life once again. This is part of "Myoho" in Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Anyway, it goes way beyond this but I'm off on a bit of a tangent again.
Just for clarification, I didn't say you were ignorant - I said you were speaking out of ignorance. There is a difference. I certainly didn't mean to offend you. Naive? Yes, I did say that but I can't help but think it true. Certainly not a personal attack (and I'm sorry if it appeared to be one).
Point taken, I realize that I don't know everything there is to know about Christianity but my mother's side of the family is Christian and I do have Christian friends that give me a good idea about what it is.
No, I wasn't offended by your comments, just a bit dismayed that you spoke as you did without a proper grasp of Christianity. The blame may not be yours (and I'm not trying to assign blame), but again, I have to say that you spoke out of ignorance. I guess my problem is more with you making definitive comments without the personal commitment that I (and others) have, along with the experiences we have had that prove you can be/are wrong in what you said.
Again, point taken - I know that I don't know everything, but I consider myself to be pretty a pretty knowledgeable 21 year old, but when the word "ignorant" is used to describe someone's views, it can be taken personally.
Believe me, I didn't get emotional - I've been called stoic, mainly because of my Germanic background (you know the type - blondhaired, steel-blue eyes, calm, impassive at times, though I have been known to cry a time or two
). I was horrified when 9/11 occurred, for sure, but I'm just as horrified at the millions that Americans kill through abortion each year (one baby every 24 seconds...or was it 26 seconds? One of the two - I heard it on the radio this morning). Which is more blatant? Not trying to turn the conversation down another alley, but it's just some food for thought.Another disagreement I suppose. Like you I believe that life begins when sperm fertlizes an egg, but I also believe that when a fetus dies, its "spirit" or "entity" will be reborn in the near future. If that was a hard pill to swallow for me, I'm sure it's an even harder one for you - Maybe you can educate me about something. When a fetus is killed by a doctor, does it go to heaven or hell?
Anger is not only a result of injustice or a challenged ego. Anger can be a result of ignorance by another party (perhaps that's a type of injustice) or as a result of a moral boundary being crossed. It can be because of pain or suffering (stubbing a toe, for instance). It can be caused by a hateful remark (arguably an injustice, though not definitively), death, etc, etc... Hundreds of reasons, I'm sure.
I believe that ignorance by another party, a moral boundary being crossed or a hateful remark can go into the 'injustice' category, and if death causes anger then I believe the death itself was caused by injustice, and I believe anger resulting from stubbing a toe is a result of one's ego getting the better of him
A year ago my grandmother died very suddenly after chemotherapy for a tumor arising from a recently discovered case of pancreotic cancer. Among my feelings of sadness were also feelings of anger, perhaps both from injustice and from my ego being challenged. Injustice being "Why did her doctor recommend chemotherapy when she could have had more time to live if she had not undergone it" and also because my grandmother had been a part of my life since day one, I never thought about her dying someday, and perhaps my ego was telling me that "It can happen to anyone, but not her or anyone else in my family or group of friends".Good reply, though - keep it coming!
We may not agree on everything, but if nothing else we can hopefully enlighten the other person in some way and, if all else fails, agree to disagree on everything else. I agree, you're an intelligent guy and debating about philosophy and world affairs with intelligent people is something that I love to do. It may take some time to write these replies, but it's all for the better!
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally posted by Lee355
Before I begin I'd like to point out that I do not disapprove of or look down on Christianity or Christians. Christianity has provided people with a lot of happiness, strong communities, and I believe that Jesus Christ was a great man who had a lot of insight.
Before I begin I'd like to point out that I do not disapprove of or look down on Christianity or Christians. Christianity has provided people with a lot of happiness, strong communities, and I believe that Jesus Christ was a great man who had a lot of insight.
What I am trying to say is that I think we've reached a critical time as human beings on this planet. Thousands, or even hundreds of years ago, we didn't have to deal with aggressive, powerful people who had the opportunity to alter the world in such a drastic way as people are able to now. Luckily, men like Adolf Hitler never had the power to split an atom and create this sort of devastation, but people do now. That's where the difference lies.
Having hatred at a time when you could only kill a group of people with primitive weapons is very different than having this same sort of hatred in the year 2003. I believe that we as human beings are at a state of total emergency, the type of emergency that requires fundamental changes in our attitudes. Continuing this hatred while nuclear warheads and nuclear secrets spread is mind boggingly terrifying. I can accept the fact that I as a mortal human being will die some day. I cannot accept the fact that the future of our planet is hanging on by a thin thread.
I too can accept the fact that I'll die (maybe - the Bible speaks of a rapture, a time when we'll go straight to heaven/be with God without seeing death. I believe that time is very soon.). However, I can also accept the fact that the future of the earth is hanging by a thin thread because I know that, some day, some time, it'll be destroyed with fire (according to what I believe in scripture). That said, it will then be re-built to last for eternity. Thus, I don't have to worry about another life here on earth as it is - I only look to the time after death where I experience eternal life, period, regardless of the state of the earth. Handy, eh?
I believe that people can make themselves more perfect in the way you've described - perfect enough to live happily and increase the happiness of others. I as a Nichiren Daishonin Buddhist believe that every one of us has the power to make life altering changes to ourselves. I've experienced it. I've personally seen the sort of wisdom, compassion, and courage can come from studying the universal laws taught in the lotus sutra and infusing these qualities into one's character by spending 10-15 minutes chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo twice a day with focused determination. I know for a fact that anyone can experience the same thing, because our new members always show dramatic signs of growth every day they practice. I also know that if the 12 million people who practice Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism increased their numbers, the world would be a better and safer place. I'm not saying that Buddhist philosophy is better than others, but in my eyes I think it would be a step in the right direction.
Again I am not posting about this on this thread to advertise my beliefs or convert people into changing their lives, but my belief in this practice has improved my own life in more ways than you can imagine, and has the power to do the same for anyone.
Again I am not posting about this on this thread to advertise my beliefs or convert people into changing their lives, but my belief in this practice has improved my own life in more ways than you can imagine, and has the power to do the same for anyone.
There's a book called Conversations with God that I think you might enjoy - I've read through some of it and it is compelling to say the least.
I've heard of it but never read it. Perhaps I'll look into it. Thanks!
I didn't mean to come off as someone who thinks Christianity is wrong - I do believe that Christianity was used by people with power as an opiate of the masses to breed an acceptance for their lot amongs the common people. I do believe that some Christians are intolerant of other people, but that doesn't make Christianity wrong.
As for intolerant Christians, could you clarify on that? What exactly does an "intolerant Christian" do? Just curious here, as I don't want to reply before I know exactly what you're talking about.
I said: That said, what do you define as a "free thinker"? Someone who has no absolute?
You said: Someone who searches from within himself or herself to find truth.
You said: Someone who searches from within himself or herself to find truth.
Fair enough. Christians search within themselves to find what is "wrong" ("foolish", as you say) in their lives (using the Bible as a guide in what we should (or shouldn't) be), then ask God to remove it. Obviously they make a conscious effort to not give that certain thing any control in their life. However, we do not search within ourselves for the answers, as to me (and I hope you don't take this personally) that means that your answers are limited. How much do you know? You're only 21 (I'm only 23, so I'm not talking down to you or anything
). Your answers will only go as far as you go in what you know. Just seems a bit counterproductive, as I can only assume that your answers could also be wrong (assuming that you don't know everything, and what you do know isn't necessarily right). You may find harmony with what's within you, but does that make you "wise" or "foolish" (or "right" or "wrong")? If so, how do you know which is which? I've heard the saying, "You can be sincerely wrong". How would you get around that?
I believe that reading the bible and believing its content without any sort of evidence has an affect on the way a brain processes information it receives. Again this religion is based on the teachings of a great man and I think Christianity has the power to improve a person's life, but I also believe that by finding truth from within yourself has great benefits for yourself and others, even benefits that you wouldn't know exist.
Again, you say finding truth from within yourself has great benefits, but what about finding truth from one that knows even more than you? Is that not greater? (I'm not wanting to get into a p*ssing match as to who is more right or what is better, I'm just asking a rhetorical question)
That's where another difference lies - The Lotus Sutra was written by a man named Shakyamuni in what modern scholars believe to be the 5th or 6th century B.C. Shakyamuni was a prince of a tribe in India who strove to find answers for what he believed to be the four sufferings of human beings - birth, old age, sickness, and death. He left his palace as a young man and spent years in solitude to find answers to these questions, and spent his entire life writing sutras, or scriptures of wisdom. He first wrote "provisional sutras" which contained partial truths to universal laws of life. These provisional sutras were designed to nurture his followers' wisdom and prepare them to understand the Lotus Sutra, which he wrote only a few years before his death. Certain provisional sutras were adopted by some, but the Lotus Sutra was not because it was so complex that an unenlightened man could not understand it. Many sects of Buddhism arose and developed using the provisional sutras as their source of wisdom, but it was Nichiren Daishonin, who lived in the 13th century AD, who revealed that it was the Lotus Sutra that held the power to make a person enlightened. Nichiren Daishonin was persecuted endlessly by members of other sects, but after many years of studying in exile, he discovered that the power of the Lotus Sutra could be tapped by chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo. I've read hundreds of pages about what these 6 syllables mean, and even I do not understand it fully, but I can feel that I am tapping into its wisdom when chanting it. The state of Buddhahood is an incredibly blissful experience, and it exists within all of us - It only lies dormant when we don't pursue it.
The Lotus Sutra is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to allow any common man to become a Buddha. The bible is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to guide people toward living a good life under the eyes of God so that they can go to heaven when they die. (correct me if I'm wrong, you as a Christian know more about the bible than I do.)
The Lotus Sutra is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to allow any common man to become a Buddha. The bible is a scripture that contains wisdom, but its purpose is to guide people toward living a good life under the eyes of God so that they can go to heaven when they die. (correct me if I'm wrong, you as a Christian know more about the bible than I do.)
Just as a bit of clarification: Christians believe that they start as sons/daughters of God (before sin occurred), they are born in this earth in a faulty state, and, after leaving this earth, will go back to being in God's presence as His sons and daughters (if we follow God's instructions). Hence, the Bible isn't just about living a good life on earth, it's about getting back to our original state. After sin was introduced in the garden of Eden, man "fell", lost his power on earth. Adam (the first man) had control of all on the earth - he was a "god", if you will. He was made in the likeness of God and had the power commensurate with the position. Thus, the Bible is a way of salvation, a way to restore us to our original position. That way/path involves changing, becoming more Christ-like, etc, etc... Thus, I don't think our purposes in belief are so different - yours is to become a Buddha (I'm assuming that's similar to a god or son/daughter of God) and ours is to go back to our original position as a son/daughter of God.
I really think reading Conversations with God will have a positive effect on your life. The book is written by a man who claims that he was writing down questions that he didn't have answers for, and that 'something' was moving his pen and writing the answers for him, and that 'something' claims it was God. This sounds bogus, but if you read through the enormous amount of wisdom in this book, you will start to wonder. You'll see why I wrote this under your statement about the bible pretty early on in the book.
I believe that people need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, but I don't believe actions can be good or bad - just wise or foolish. In my eyes, making foolish decisions doesn't necessarily make someone bad. We all at some point look back on certain decisions we've made as children or adolescents and realize that a wiser choice could have been made.
Well as I said before, if a man was born without any senses and kept on life support for 18 years, I believe that this 18 year old person would not have a thought in his head because his brain was never exposed to any stimuli.
I respectfully disagree - I believe that the inputs that have been received by your brain over your entire lifetime will shape your brain's ability to make choices and value judgements about the inputs that are being received right now as you read these words on your computer monitor. Even reading this sentence will ultimately have some sort of effect on your life in the near or distant future - that is the way I believe cause and effect works. Thoughts, that result from current or past external stimuli, plant seeds into your mind that will grow into manifest effect at some point in the future.
I believe that all of us have an "older, wiser" part of our brain that speaks to us when we need to make decisions. I believe different religions also have different explanations for this.
This in itself would make a great debate. Freud spent a great deal of his life studying dreams and eventually wrote an entire book about them, but to put it concisely - I fall back onto my beliefs of cause and effect with this one. I think that every single nanosecond that your brain receives any sort of information through your 5 senses, it is stored as a cause, and will at some point, perhaps with influence from other causes, lead to an effect. The effect is the dream. If a 14 year old boy has a dream about the pretty blonde that sits next to him in History class, he couldn't have had it if the girl never existed. If a person has a dream about falling off of a cliff, he couldn't have had it if he'd never seen a cliff and didn't know what it looked like. Anyway this is way off on a tangent and I don't pretend to know a great deal about the way dreams work as well as Freud did, but I think it's impossible to picture something in your mind's eye if you haven't seen it or something like it before. I can picture what a nuclear explosion in the middle of downtown Los Angeles would look like because I know what a nuclear explosion looks like and I know what downtown L.A. looks like. I couldn't imagine this happening in New Delhi, because I don't really know what New Delhi looks like.
) and is exactly my point. How do we come up with new things that are "out of the blue", nothing like what is around, if we can only make things out of what we sense with our five physical senses? What if something requires a completely new component, unheard of and unknown? It requires abstract thought, something without definition really.[QUOTE][B]I said: How do you get rid of stupidity?
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,856
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
After reading through some of my last posts I feel I should apologize for labelling Christianity as an 'opiate of the masses'. Those are harsh words for the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people, and I hope nobody was offended.
I have to disagree here. While it is true that immediate death of millions of people is possible, it was still possible a long time ago, just not with such immediacy. When you look at the battles in the early days of Roman power (take the time around Constantine, for instance), you had battles where 100 000+ people were killed in a day or two (Carrhae comes to mind, though I believe that was a single day and wasn't quite up to 100 000 people). Compared to the world population at the time, that's a devastating number. I would submit the idea that the amount of people you can kill is only important in a relative sense - those that can kill the most are the most powerful, even if centuries ago the number was 100 000 in a day, as compared to millions in a day, today. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan altered their world drastically. The Egyptians ruled with absolute power around 4000BC. But really, this isn't a point of debate (at least not in this topic) so I'll shut up now.
That's a great point, and I had a feeling this would come up
While human lives are precious, something inside of me is drawing a line between mutilating hundreds of thousands of people with sharp objects and detonating chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads over populated areas. I understand that we all place varying values on human lives and the overal well-being of our species and our planet, and this is where the difference lies. I think the threat of an N/B/C attack on the United States or any of our allies is very real. It might (hopefully) not happen in our lifetime, but as technology and the human population progresses, the threat will grow.
I watched Bush's State of the Union address and I must admit that his reasoning is valid and it has forced me to question the feasibility of pacifism in general. I fully support our decision to enter into World War II to fight Hitler, and that is not very different than our current situation with Saddam. This man does have powerful weapons and does have an enormous hatred for Americans and Jews in Israel. He does seek domination of the Middle East and I realize that the problem will grow if nothing is done about it.
So, which leads to a better outcome? Option 1 is to ignore the problem and futilely try to use diplomacy, while sending U.N. weapons inspectors on a scavenger hunt to find weapons that Saddam was supposed to hand over to begin with, allowing Saddam time to prepare an attack that will make us regret not taking action in the first place. Option 2 is to sacrifice American and Iraqi lives to remove this man from power and hopefully be done with the problem for good. What worries me is Saddam's nature as a human being. As he is backed further into a corner, I believe he will inflict massive casualties to human beings and massive damage to the environment in the process. The other worry is the threat of this war spreading past Iraq's borders as both the Republican Guard and displaced Iraqi citizens flee the United States war machine. Best case scenario: Saddam flees the country and the United States helps the Iraqi citizens by successfully setting up a Democratic government. I suppose all we can do is hope for the best.
Killing is killing. As I said before, the one that can kill the most, the quickest, is generally perceived as the most powerful, regardless of whether the time period is minutes or days and the number of casualties in the tens of thousands of tens of millions. However, I do agree that we are at a state of total emergency, but I don't believe the human race/earth can snap out of it fast enough.
Being far away from both America and the Middle East for 5 weeks gave me an opportunity to view this situation from the sidelines. The more I analyzed, the more I realized that we as a species are screwed either way. That's a pretty grim reality to deal with, and while it's beneficial for our immediate situation to make valiant efforts to remove our current lineup of powerful madmen and scour the Earth for terrorist cells, I predict that it'll dig us a deeper hole in the long run. That's where pacifism comes in I suppose. I'm not telling everyone to abandon their beliefs and become peaceful, I'm just saying that it's our only option if we want our race to survive on this planet.
Religions come into this with each of their different levels of value placed on human life and the life of the planet, as well as value placed on our lifetimes and the lifetimes of future generations. This of course has an enormous effect on the actions we take.
I too can accept the fact that I'll die (maybe - the Bible speaks of a rapture, a time when we'll go straight to heaven/be with God without seeing death. I believe that time is very soon.). However, I can also accept the fact that the future of the earth is hanging by a thin thread because I know that, some day, some time, it'll be destroyed with fire (according to what I believe in scripture). That said, it will then be re-built to last for eternity. Thus, I don't have to worry about another life here on earth as it is - I only look to the time after death where I experience eternal life, period, regardless of the state of the earth. Handy, eh?
I think I could use a dose of enlightenment on this subject - What proof is there that heaven and hell exist, and that the Earth will be destroyed with fire? Where will the fire come from?
I can't disagree that is has, is, and will be used improperly. That said, can't the same thing be said for Buddhism? It's a fact of life in any sort of belief (or non-belief, even). As for intolerant Christians, could you clarify on that? What exactly does an "intolerant Christian" do? Just curious here, as I don't want to reply before I know exactly what you're talking about.
I can't seem to think of any improper uses of Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism, but I believe that Mormons in general are intolerant of other religions, and that there is in some cases a differential value of lives placed on Christians and Muslims, or Caucasians and Arabs.
Fair enough. Christians search within themselves to find what is "wrong" ("foolish", as you say) in their lives (using the Bible as a guide in what we should (or shouldn't) be), then ask God to remove it. Obviously they make a conscious effort to not give that certain thing any control in their life. However, we do not search within ourselves for the answers, as to me (and I hope you don't take this personally) that means that your answers are limited. How much do you know? You're only 21 (I'm only 23, so I'm not talking down to you or anything ). Your answers will only go as far as you go in what you know. Just seems a bit counterproductive, as I can only assume that your answers could also be wrong (assuming that you don't know everything, and what you do know isn't necessarily right). You may find harmony with what's within you, but does that make you "wise" or "foolish" (or "right" or "wrong")? If so, how do you know which is which? I've heard the saying, "You can be sincerely wrong". How would you get around that?
Good questions, but to fully answer this I'd need to write a several hundred page book, and even then I couldn't explain where the wisdom comes from, much like the way a person couldn't understand the way an apple tastes from having it only described with words.
As Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism does not contradict with science in any way, it is easy to accept the concepts of its teachings because this knowledge is blatantly 'correct' to a person that believes in reason itself. It teaches that reality is only what your mind believes it to be. These teachings delve very very deep into the nature of the human thought pattern. Understanding these universal laws and being in the state of Buddhahood allows a human being to be on a higher plane of existence where he/she seems to experience a bird's eye view of the world itself, penetrating the superficial and truly understanding what reality is. This experience feels almost godlike, and enables one to understand that they have the power to improve their state of existence by creating positive change within themselves and their environment. It empowers one with the ability to see what causes will lead to real positive effects to their realities and the realities of others. This is why many Buddhists always make powerful efforts to make their lives and the lives of others 'better', and are very often happy. It encourages people to chase their dreams and experience new things. As you can imagine this goes on and on and on, so I'll leave it at that
Fair enough. However, again, just taking the four Gospels of Jesus' life (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), one could (I believe) know exactly what we should be like as Christians. As pretty much everyone acknowledges that Jesus was a real person (his miracles are a point of debate, but I'm not arguing that one), his own teachings on what we should be stand alone as a credible reference of Christianity. In other words, that is evidence enough for me (if I need it).
Again, you say finding truth from within yourself has great benefits, but what about finding truth from one that knows even more than you? Is that not greater? (I'm not wanting to get into a p*ssing match as to who is more right or what is better, I'm just asking a rhetorical question)
Understanding what reality is as a Buddhist and understanding what reality is as a non-Buddhist are two completely different things. It affects your ability to focus on what everything truly is, and that ability and wisdom are the same exact thing.
Interesting, and thanks for the background (let's me know where you're coming from). What exactly is a Buddha? I thought there was only one Buddha. Also, do you believe in a divinity or spiritual being with all power?
A Buddha is simply a person who is enlightened. Shakyamuni and Nichiren Daishonin were both Buddhas due to their enlightened state of existence, but any person has the ability to achieve the same goal. Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism teaches that the state of Buddhahood lies dormant within all of us, and can only be tapped by chanting. I realize that this probably sounds like bullshit, but it's true. It works.
Wise/foolish or good/bad - it's semantics, really. We mean the same thing, I believe. As I said, we don't judge a person, we judge actions...and those actions don't necessarily judge the person. While I believe that we are inherently foolish/bad, I don't believe that a person that does something bad is necessarily a bad person. We all make mistakes.
I agree, it is semantics. While it's difficult to say that Adolf Hitler wasn't a bad person, it's easier to understand if we know about the causes that led to the effect of his actions.
Where do we get it? How does it get its wisdom? If this actually exists and is older, doesn't that mean that it would make decisions without inputs? How can it be shaped by inputs if it is older than we are? If it existed before we did, it merely has what it has, without inputs to determine things. Doesn't that mean that decisions would be made without any real "shaping" by sensory information?
Of course not older, but I would call this my inner self - The part of my mind that uses reason and past experience to tell me which courses of action are the best to take. I don't always follow its advice, but I do realize that it knows what's best for me. When I decide to VTEC past the speed limit or go sideways around corners on wet roads, my desire for instant gratification overrides this wiser part of myself, but I still do it anyway
You could imagine it, but it wouldn't necessarily be right. Therein lies the fault with your argument (I think ) and is exactly my point. How do we come up with new things that are "out of the blue", nothing like what is around, if we can only make things out of what we sense with our five physical senses? What if something requires a completely new component, unheard of and unknown? It requires abstract thought, something without definition really.
I guess what we're trying to figure out is where creativity comes from. Why does one person seem to have the ability to paint a beautiful work of art and another doesn't, and why does one person play the violin at age 9 better than an experienced 30 year old? Your answer may be "God gave this person that ability", but I believe it all has to do with determination. I believe that we all have the ability to do anything, it really just comes down to how focused we all are on our goals and what we do with our time during the day. When I was 5 or 6 years old my family & friends couldn't believe how good I was at math. It wasn't that I was just naturally born with or gifted with that ability, I just played video games as a kid, which improve one's ability to do simple math problems very quickly
Mm kay. Again, personal opinion so no point in debating it.
Fact. I have proof.
Well, aside from enforcing this belief and forcing people to accept and practice it, this can't be done. Also, enforcing it would require causing problems. You'd cause problems (which would never go away) trying to remove another. Talk about cause and effect...
What problems would be caused? This practice is only introduced to people by others with close relationships that care deeply enough to improve the lives of others around them - We don't advertise or go on missions to convert others, because we have respect for their beliefs and we understand that they believe that their religion is correct.
Fair enough, though I have to admit, I don't see how it's easier to believe reincarnation than the Bible, or miracles, etc, etc...
I've read many many pages about this, but it basically states that just as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, neither can life. Energy and life both simply change from different "states" of existence.
I guess we need to define "injustice".
Injustice: 1.Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice. 2. A specific unjust act; a wrong.
These nouns denote acts or conditions that cause people to suffer hardship or loss undeservedly. An injustice is a violation of a person's rights; the term can also refer to unfair treatment of another or others (all from dictionary.com)
Fair enough on the moral boundary thing, though I guess I was saying that a perception of what is "right" (which is what morality is) is not the same as "what is right" legally.
As far as losing a loved one through death (sorry for your loss, btw), I can't agree that this is an injustice. How could it be? I can see it being PERCEIVED as one ("Why did they have to die? I NEEDED them", etc, etc), but is it really? We don't have a right to have someone live forever, do we? As for stubbing the toe, I would say that physical pain is why we're angry and again, how is physical pain (self inflicted, no less) an injustice? Again, this isn't a point of debate on the topic, so I'll leave it at that. We can agree to disagree, I suppose.
These were just emotions that sprang up. I rarely ever felt angry, and we all knew that the doctor was very intelligent and was doing what she truly believed was best for her. I don't believe that physical pain can cause anger. The belief that we are invulnerable to pain, illness, and death stems from the ego.
Keep it coming (you can always switch to PM if you want - it's all good).
Writing in this thread works for me, unless of course I'm still pissing off Christians
I have to disagree here. While it is true that immediate death of millions of people is possible, it was still possible a long time ago, just not with such immediacy. When you look at the battles in the early days of Roman power (take the time around Constantine, for instance), you had battles where 100 000+ people were killed in a day or two (Carrhae comes to mind, though I believe that was a single day and wasn't quite up to 100 000 people). Compared to the world population at the time, that's a devastating number. I would submit the idea that the amount of people you can kill is only important in a relative sense - those that can kill the most are the most powerful, even if centuries ago the number was 100 000 in a day, as compared to millions in a day, today. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan altered their world drastically. The Egyptians ruled with absolute power around 4000BC. But really, this isn't a point of debate (at least not in this topic) so I'll shut up now.
That's a great point, and I had a feeling this would come up
While human lives are precious, something inside of me is drawing a line between mutilating hundreds of thousands of people with sharp objects and detonating chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads over populated areas. I understand that we all place varying values on human lives and the overal well-being of our species and our planet, and this is where the difference lies. I think the threat of an N/B/C attack on the United States or any of our allies is very real. It might (hopefully) not happen in our lifetime, but as technology and the human population progresses, the threat will grow.
I watched Bush's State of the Union address and I must admit that his reasoning is valid and it has forced me to question the feasibility of pacifism in general. I fully support our decision to enter into World War II to fight Hitler, and that is not very different than our current situation with Saddam. This man does have powerful weapons and does have an enormous hatred for Americans and Jews in Israel. He does seek domination of the Middle East and I realize that the problem will grow if nothing is done about it.
So, which leads to a better outcome? Option 1 is to ignore the problem and futilely try to use diplomacy, while sending U.N. weapons inspectors on a scavenger hunt to find weapons that Saddam was supposed to hand over to begin with, allowing Saddam time to prepare an attack that will make us regret not taking action in the first place. Option 2 is to sacrifice American and Iraqi lives to remove this man from power and hopefully be done with the problem for good. What worries me is Saddam's nature as a human being. As he is backed further into a corner, I believe he will inflict massive casualties to human beings and massive damage to the environment in the process. The other worry is the threat of this war spreading past Iraq's borders as both the Republican Guard and displaced Iraqi citizens flee the United States war machine. Best case scenario: Saddam flees the country and the United States helps the Iraqi citizens by successfully setting up a Democratic government. I suppose all we can do is hope for the best.
Killing is killing. As I said before, the one that can kill the most, the quickest, is generally perceived as the most powerful, regardless of whether the time period is minutes or days and the number of casualties in the tens of thousands of tens of millions. However, I do agree that we are at a state of total emergency, but I don't believe the human race/earth can snap out of it fast enough.
Being far away from both America and the Middle East for 5 weeks gave me an opportunity to view this situation from the sidelines. The more I analyzed, the more I realized that we as a species are screwed either way. That's a pretty grim reality to deal with, and while it's beneficial for our immediate situation to make valiant efforts to remove our current lineup of powerful madmen and scour the Earth for terrorist cells, I predict that it'll dig us a deeper hole in the long run. That's where pacifism comes in I suppose. I'm not telling everyone to abandon their beliefs and become peaceful, I'm just saying that it's our only option if we want our race to survive on this planet.
Religions come into this with each of their different levels of value placed on human life and the life of the planet, as well as value placed on our lifetimes and the lifetimes of future generations. This of course has an enormous effect on the actions we take.
I too can accept the fact that I'll die (maybe - the Bible speaks of a rapture, a time when we'll go straight to heaven/be with God without seeing death. I believe that time is very soon.). However, I can also accept the fact that the future of the earth is hanging by a thin thread because I know that, some day, some time, it'll be destroyed with fire (according to what I believe in scripture). That said, it will then be re-built to last for eternity. Thus, I don't have to worry about another life here on earth as it is - I only look to the time after death where I experience eternal life, period, regardless of the state of the earth. Handy, eh?
I think I could use a dose of enlightenment on this subject - What proof is there that heaven and hell exist, and that the Earth will be destroyed with fire? Where will the fire come from?
I can't disagree that is has, is, and will be used improperly. That said, can't the same thing be said for Buddhism? It's a fact of life in any sort of belief (or non-belief, even). As for intolerant Christians, could you clarify on that? What exactly does an "intolerant Christian" do? Just curious here, as I don't want to reply before I know exactly what you're talking about.
I can't seem to think of any improper uses of Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism, but I believe that Mormons in general are intolerant of other religions, and that there is in some cases a differential value of lives placed on Christians and Muslims, or Caucasians and Arabs.
Fair enough. Christians search within themselves to find what is "wrong" ("foolish", as you say) in their lives (using the Bible as a guide in what we should (or shouldn't) be), then ask God to remove it. Obviously they make a conscious effort to not give that certain thing any control in their life. However, we do not search within ourselves for the answers, as to me (and I hope you don't take this personally) that means that your answers are limited. How much do you know? You're only 21 (I'm only 23, so I'm not talking down to you or anything
). Your answers will only go as far as you go in what you know. Just seems a bit counterproductive, as I can only assume that your answers could also be wrong (assuming that you don't know everything, and what you do know isn't necessarily right). You may find harmony with what's within you, but does that make you "wise" or "foolish" (or "right" or "wrong")? If so, how do you know which is which? I've heard the saying, "You can be sincerely wrong". How would you get around that?Good questions, but to fully answer this I'd need to write a several hundred page book, and even then I couldn't explain where the wisdom comes from, much like the way a person couldn't understand the way an apple tastes from having it only described with words.
As Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism does not contradict with science in any way, it is easy to accept the concepts of its teachings because this knowledge is blatantly 'correct' to a person that believes in reason itself. It teaches that reality is only what your mind believes it to be. These teachings delve very very deep into the nature of the human thought pattern. Understanding these universal laws and being in the state of Buddhahood allows a human being to be on a higher plane of existence where he/she seems to experience a bird's eye view of the world itself, penetrating the superficial and truly understanding what reality is. This experience feels almost godlike, and enables one to understand that they have the power to improve their state of existence by creating positive change within themselves and their environment. It empowers one with the ability to see what causes will lead to real positive effects to their realities and the realities of others. This is why many Buddhists always make powerful efforts to make their lives and the lives of others 'better', and are very often happy. It encourages people to chase their dreams and experience new things. As you can imagine this goes on and on and on, so I'll leave it at that
Fair enough. However, again, just taking the four Gospels of Jesus' life (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), one could (I believe) know exactly what we should be like as Christians. As pretty much everyone acknowledges that Jesus was a real person (his miracles are a point of debate, but I'm not arguing that one), his own teachings on what we should be stand alone as a credible reference of Christianity. In other words, that is evidence enough for me (if I need it).
Again, you say finding truth from within yourself has great benefits, but what about finding truth from one that knows even more than you? Is that not greater? (I'm not wanting to get into a p*ssing match as to who is more right or what is better, I'm just asking a rhetorical question)
Understanding what reality is as a Buddhist and understanding what reality is as a non-Buddhist are two completely different things. It affects your ability to focus on what everything truly is, and that ability and wisdom are the same exact thing.
Interesting, and thanks for the background (let's me know where you're coming from). What exactly is a Buddha? I thought there was only one Buddha. Also, do you believe in a divinity or spiritual being with all power?
A Buddha is simply a person who is enlightened. Shakyamuni and Nichiren Daishonin were both Buddhas due to their enlightened state of existence, but any person has the ability to achieve the same goal. Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism teaches that the state of Buddhahood lies dormant within all of us, and can only be tapped by chanting. I realize that this probably sounds like bullshit, but it's true. It works.
Wise/foolish or good/bad - it's semantics, really. We mean the same thing, I believe. As I said, we don't judge a person, we judge actions...and those actions don't necessarily judge the person. While I believe that we are inherently foolish/bad, I don't believe that a person that does something bad is necessarily a bad person. We all make mistakes.
I agree, it is semantics. While it's difficult to say that Adolf Hitler wasn't a bad person, it's easier to understand if we know about the causes that led to the effect of his actions.
Where do we get it? How does it get its wisdom? If this actually exists and is older, doesn't that mean that it would make decisions without inputs? How can it be shaped by inputs if it is older than we are? If it existed before we did, it merely has what it has, without inputs to determine things. Doesn't that mean that decisions would be made without any real "shaping" by sensory information?
Of course not older, but I would call this my inner self - The part of my mind that uses reason and past experience to tell me which courses of action are the best to take. I don't always follow its advice, but I do realize that it knows what's best for me. When I decide to VTEC past the speed limit or go sideways around corners on wet roads, my desire for instant gratification overrides this wiser part of myself, but I still do it anyway
You could imagine it, but it wouldn't necessarily be right. Therein lies the fault with your argument (I think
) and is exactly my point. How do we come up with new things that are "out of the blue", nothing like what is around, if we can only make things out of what we sense with our five physical senses? What if something requires a completely new component, unheard of and unknown? It requires abstract thought, something without definition really.I guess what we're trying to figure out is where creativity comes from. Why does one person seem to have the ability to paint a beautiful work of art and another doesn't, and why does one person play the violin at age 9 better than an experienced 30 year old? Your answer may be "God gave this person that ability", but I believe it all has to do with determination. I believe that we all have the ability to do anything, it really just comes down to how focused we all are on our goals and what we do with our time during the day. When I was 5 or 6 years old my family & friends couldn't believe how good I was at math. It wasn't that I was just naturally born with or gifted with that ability, I just played video games as a kid, which improve one's ability to do simple math problems very quickly
Mm kay. Again, personal opinion so no point in debating it.
Fact. I have proof.
Well, aside from enforcing this belief and forcing people to accept and practice it, this can't be done. Also, enforcing it would require causing problems. You'd cause problems (which would never go away) trying to remove another. Talk about cause and effect...
What problems would be caused? This practice is only introduced to people by others with close relationships that care deeply enough to improve the lives of others around them - We don't advertise or go on missions to convert others, because we have respect for their beliefs and we understand that they believe that their religion is correct.
Fair enough, though I have to admit, I don't see how it's easier to believe reincarnation than the Bible, or miracles, etc, etc...
I've read many many pages about this, but it basically states that just as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, neither can life. Energy and life both simply change from different "states" of existence.
I guess we need to define "injustice".
Injustice: 1.Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice. 2. A specific unjust act; a wrong.
These nouns denote acts or conditions that cause people to suffer hardship or loss undeservedly. An injustice is a violation of a person's rights; the term can also refer to unfair treatment of another or others (all from dictionary.com)
Fair enough on the moral boundary thing, though I guess I was saying that a perception of what is "right" (which is what morality is) is not the same as "what is right" legally.
As far as losing a loved one through death (sorry for your loss, btw), I can't agree that this is an injustice. How could it be? I can see it being PERCEIVED as one ("Why did they have to die? I NEEDED them", etc, etc), but is it really? We don't have a right to have someone live forever, do we? As for stubbing the toe, I would say that physical pain is why we're angry and again, how is physical pain (self inflicted, no less) an injustice? Again, this isn't a point of debate on the topic, so I'll leave it at that. We can agree to disagree, I suppose.
These were just emotions that sprang up. I rarely ever felt angry, and we all knew that the doctor was very intelligent and was doing what she truly believed was best for her. I don't believe that physical pain can cause anger. The belief that we are invulnerable to pain, illness, and death stems from the ego.
Keep it coming (you can always switch to PM if you want - it's all good).
Writing in this thread works for me, unless of course I'm still pissing off Christians
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally posted by Lee355
After reading through some of my last posts I feel I should apologize for labelling Christianity as an 'opiate of the masses'. Those are harsh words for the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people, and I hope nobody was offended.
After reading through some of my last posts I feel I should apologize for labelling Christianity as an 'opiate of the masses'. Those are harsh words for the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people, and I hope nobody was offended.
Just kidding - I can see your point in the original statemtent in that it DOES and HAS (and probably will) apply to some, you just can't apply it to everyone[B][QUOTE]That's a great point, and I had a feeling this would come up
I watched Bush's State of the Union address and I must admit that his reasoning is valid and it has forced me to question the feasibility of pacifism in general. I fully support our decision to enter into World War II to fight Hitler, and that is not very different than our current situation with Saddam. This man does have powerful weapons and does have an enormous hatred for Americans and Jews in Israel. He does seek domination of the Middle East and I realize that the problem will grow if nothing is done about it.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,856
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
This thread has evolved from a political debate to a religious one, so I've started a new thread. I'll reply to your last post sometime tonight or tomorrow, I need to get some fresh air
-Lee
-Lee
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 851
Likes: 1
From: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
geez, i thought you guys would never let up!
couple thoughts....
if this was about oil, why wouldn't we have taken it back in 92. it would have been so easy to come up with some pretext to occupy kuwait or iraq for an extended period of time and drained them dry. i believe that those who put forth that justification would always find a way to assign (oliver stone like) sinister or immoral motives to even the most noble american initiatives.
second, hussein needs to be terminated (not arranged asylum) as he cannot be allowed to continue the documented slaughter of millions of his citizens (or are american lives more important than those innocents in iraq) as well as his support of international terrorism.
we need to support our president and those troops who will be charged to carry out this task.
couple thoughts....
if this was about oil, why wouldn't we have taken it back in 92. it would have been so easy to come up with some pretext to occupy kuwait or iraq for an extended period of time and drained them dry. i believe that those who put forth that justification would always find a way to assign (oliver stone like) sinister or immoral motives to even the most noble american initiatives.
second, hussein needs to be terminated (not arranged asylum) as he cannot be allowed to continue the documented slaughter of millions of his citizens (or are american lives more important than those innocents in iraq) as well as his support of international terrorism.
we need to support our president and those troops who will be charged to carry out this task.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,856
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Ouch, my thread was locked! 
The one thing I love about message boards is the ease of clearly expressing views about touchy subjects such as religion and politics. What harm is caused by intelligent conversations?
The one thing I love about message boards is the ease of clearly expressing views about touchy subjects such as religion and politics. What harm is caused by intelligent conversations?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post