Originally posted by Paprika
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines
Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.
World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.
This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.
And as usual, the forum rules apply.
Forum Rules: Here
World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.
This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.
And as usual, the forum rules apply.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Being a religion of peace
Collapse
X
-
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostThis is something I can see happening. Makes sense that Shunyadragon disagrees with the original interpretation. It's not the Jesus he wants to see I guess.
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View PostLuke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing....
@Cerebrum123
Thank you for taking the time to explain...appreciate it.
@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)
You are correct that Buddhists do not fight "for Buddha" but they do fight for Dharma (Law) and this concept has been abused by those in power (Kings) to justify fighting ---and Buddhist kingdoms have fought with each other. This idea to fight for the Law/righteousness/defending right principles---is not that different from Sam Harris saying we have to fight for our ideas, or George Bush saying they are fighting for democracy...etc....
also, there are a few passages in Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana Sutra) that are not pretty....
But, if one were to interpret "scripture" broadly, then the Talmud has restraints on human violence in Sanhedrin which says killing an individual is like killing a whole community, and Christianity has the Catechism (CCC2307-2314) which elaborates on the idea of Just war and conduct in war. Islam has the Quran---(Which may come as a surprise to some) but the Quran restricts war to 2 (defensive) occassions, 1) Oppression and 2) the breaking of treaty terms. The Quran/Islam also specifies humane behavior to non-combatants and prisoners of war and prohibits destruction of property as well as advocates for the most speedy conclusion to war in order to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. Historically, all religious people have ignored their own wisdom teachings/philosophies when they found them inconvenient....For example...Americans used to find torture unethical and they had restraints for torture---but when they found this inconvenient---they overturned these restraints and torture was practiced....
So if history and scripture are the criteria...then one can say Buddhism is the same as many other philosophies---it is people who interpret scripture and act in history---and people have a similar general disposition. But if we were to base the criteria on the practice of peace---then Buddhism would be better than Judaism or Christianity because it has the mystical discipline...(But so does Islam and Hinduism)
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View Postit.
@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)
Yes, there is a blending of Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism in Japanese culture, but there is a real distinction between Shinto and Buddhism in Japan. There is less distinction with the influence of Confucianism and Taoism, but there are temples and orders in Japan that are distinctive. Buddhism and various schools of distinctive Buddhist Arts like Aikido founded by Morihei Ueshiba, are distinctly peaceful and even to some extent pacifist in Japanese history. They were definitely persecuted during World War II.Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-10-2015, 09:16 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI am not sure where you get it that your interpretation was the original 'interpretation.' Can you enlighten me of a reference that would have been 'original.'
Sure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:
And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:
If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here.Last edited by Jesse; 05-10-2015, 04:13 PM."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
@Shuny
Japan---Yes, you are right that temples and festivals are distinct but could this be because of their social functions rather than philosophical rigidity/exclusivity? If there is one area that Buddhism excels at above all other religions/philosophies is that of peaceful assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence.....
Martial Arts---the various martial arts (which were originally more of a spiritual practice than the "sport" they are considered today) is a good example of the influence of Buddhism as well as its blending/assimilation..?..and Aikido, while it is distinctive, is also a fusion?---It uses the power/force of Qi/Chi ? ("The way of harmony of Ki"--though apparently some practitioners understand Ki/Qi as (laws of) physics))
(The Indian martial arts (South India) had both a defensive and offensive aspect.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View PostLuke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing....
"1.
a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson." This includes things like the fables told by Aesop.
And if you ever wish for me to try to help you understand Christianity again we can simply return to our old thread.Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5
Comment
-
@Pentecost
I have some questions....but the NT is not my sacred book and I don't want to offend Christians just to satisfy my curiosity....
If you are not offended...perhaps you could answer?....(and...Aesops is much easier to understand!!!....)
...It seems the story is like this----
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
12-15---the whole---he-was-made-king business a) How is it relevant? b) who does the King, the delegation symbolize?
26---"those who have nothing---even what they have will be taken away"---Doesn't this contradict the other passages that speak of God giving to the meek/poor/humble etc?...or Mathew 6:31-34 that says not to worry if you have nothing because God will provide and to trust in God.....
27---and how is that passage relevant---or even related---to the story? other than the mention of the King---it does not seem to speak to or even add to the story at all....
The parable---seems to encourage profit, ambition, desire---which would contradict 1 John 2:15-17 which advises people against worldly desires and gain.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View Post@Shuny
Japan---Yes, you are right that temples and festivals are distinct but could this be because of their social functions rather than philosophical rigidity/exclusivity? If there is one area that Buddhism excels at above all other religions/philosophies is that of peaceful assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence.....
Shinto remains the foundation of Japanese traditional religion and yes, separate from Buddhism. Japanese militarism is rooted in Shinto beliefs, not Buddhist. It is not a matter of rigidity nor exclusivity that separates Buddhism from Shinto. It is fundamental doctrine.
Martial Arts---the various martial arts (which were originally more of a spiritual practice than the "sport" they are considered today) is a good example of the influence of Buddhism as well as its blending/assimilation..?..and Aikido, while it is distinctive, is also a fusion?---It uses the power/force of Qi/Chi ? ("The way of harmony of Ki"--though apparently some practitioners understand Ki/Qi as (laws of) physics))
(The Indian martial arts (South India) had both a defensive and offensive aspect.)
Along with the previous book, Bodisattva Warriors, I recommended I recommend The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar to get a better over all picture of the nature and history of Chinese Shaolin historyLast edited by shunyadragon; 05-11-2015, 08:11 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostSure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:
And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:
If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes, parables may be misused. I will leave this as an open question at present, but Marcion commentary above does not necessarily led to an 'original' interpretation of what you proposed."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View Post@Pentecost
I have some questions....but the NT is not my sacred book and I don't want to offend Christians just to satisfy my curiosity....
If you are not offended...perhaps you could answer?....(and...Aesops is much easier to understand!!!....)
...It seems the story is like this----
The noble who left his own estates symbolizes God seeming to not pay attention to his servants which was a common perception of the time because the Lord had been silent to the people of Israel for the past 400 years. They are coming to Jerusalem which in the minds of many of Jesus's followers indicated a soon coming revolution against Rome. The citizens who hate Jesus and begrudge his claims of being the Messiah (let alone divine) would have sent a delegation to a higher authority protesting local rulers, really this section of the parable is not moral in nature, so much as it is stating to whom the parable is addressed to.
26---"those who have nothing---even what they have will be taken away"---Doesn't this contradict the other passages that speak of God giving to the meek/poor/humble etc?...or Mathew 6:31-34 that says not to worry if you have nothing because God will provide and to trust in God.....
27---and how is that passage relevant---or even related---to the story? other than the mention of the King---it does not seem to speak to or even add to the story at all....
The parable---seems to encourage profit, ambition, desire---which would contradict 1 John 2:15-17 which advises people against worldly desires and gain.....
I know of alternative teachings, but this one is the one that makes the most sense. Jesus tells the people who believed in him and those who hated Jesus that the day of Judgement when Jesus comes back will result in both rewards and punishments. Rewards for good stewards who grow the Lord's Kingdom (some of those who believed in Jesus) and punishments for those who oppose it either actively (those who sent the delegation) or passively (those who do not invest in the Kingdom of God).
I was a little distracted as I wrote this response so I hope it makes sense, I will not be offended if you ask for clarification.Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment