Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why don't more folks embrace Buddhism, whose history has lesser violence and imposition than many others. Does a religion need more aggressiveness spread itself far and wide?
It seems a lot of ppl cannot live without religion, if that is the case, why don't more choose Buddhism, which can solve many of the problems today, at least we wouldn't have to argue over such things like homosexuality.
I think the problem is that a person can't just suddenly "believe" in Buddhism, for one, any more than someone can suddenly just "believe" Christianity (that would be me).
It's no different for Buddhism so you'd need to cut non-Buddhists some slack on this one.
Also, I don't think Buddhism is a religion per se but more of a practice. Or a way of living/system of practices to deal with human life. Isn't that right? (Feel free to correct me.) In other words, there isn't a named Buddhist "big god" (creator God), right? Siddhartha Buddha and Guatama Buddha and the other Buddhas were considered to be inspired but not gods in their own right the way Jesus is considered to be a literal part of God. I'm pretty sure you can be Buddhist but have your own concept of God. So it might be a little not-quite-committed for some people to handle.
As for your argument that there is less violence with Buddhism, again, you can't really just go grocery shopping for a religion and say, "This one has more love! This one has less violence! This one has fewer calories and is less filling! Okay. I believe." (Trust me, as a constant "searcher" this is one thing I know for sure.)goo
Religion is the means to an end, to gain salvation, so it makes sense to 'shop' for one. If one wants peacefulness, why not look at the history of a religion's 'peacefulness'.
It seems to me if all homosexuals convert to buddhism, they can't be condemn anymore (well by the bible, that is) cause they are under a different god/religion.
Because accepting a faith isn't about which one I like the best or which makes me feel good. It's about which I believe to be true, warts and all.
The Dalai Lhama (probably modern Buddhism's most prominent public figure) has written and spoken against homosexuality.
Please don't confuse the modern American touchy-feelie granola Buddhism with real Buddhism. The Buddhist ideal is no easy life.
he was pretty ok on homosexuality actually. A little wishy wahsy though
'If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity], and neither is harmed, why should it not be acceptable?" He has repeatedly affirmed his belief that gays and lesbians should be accepted by society, although he has also stated that for Buddhists homosexual behaviour is considered sexual misconduct, meaning that homosexual sex is acceptable for society in general but not in Buddhism or for Buddhists.[14] As he explains in his book Beyond Dogma: "homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact." However, more recently (1997) he has said that the basis of this teaching was unknown to him and that he has "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context."'
Why don't more folks embrace Buddhism, whose history has lesser violence and imposition than many others. Does a religion need more aggressiveness spread itself far and wide?
It seems a lot of ppl cannot live without religion, if that is the case, why don't more choose Buddhism, which can solve many of the problems today, at least we wouldn't have to argue over such things like homosexuality.
Jesus said "I am the way, the life and no one comes to the Father except through me". I can live without religion but I cannot live without God.
Religion is the means to an end, to gain salvation, so it makes sense to 'shop' for one. If one wants peacefulness, why not look at the history of a religion's 'peacefulness'.
It seems to me if all homosexuals convert to buddhism, they can't be condemn anymore (well by the bible, that is) cause they are under a different god/religion.
I don't get your second sentence.
As for the first one, yes, religion is the *practice* of what you already believe as a means to getting to God, whatever your concept is. But generally, the belief is already there. In other words, a person might be Christian but not sure of who she fits in with under that umbrealla. So she might check out a Presbyterian church and a Methodist church and in that way, yes, would be shopping around. But that's not the same as *looking for belief*. You *believe* the Buddhist principles and practices or you don't. You can't "invent" belief in yourself all of a sudden out of the blue just because logistically it seems to make sense. To me the Ten Commandments seem to logistically and practically make sense (not killing, not lusting after someone else's spouse, etc.) but that doesn't mean I am suddenly Jewish.
I hope this makes sense. I'm trying to explain it clearly.
Are you yourself Buddist? If so, you should be aware that your OP seems to be somewhat on the aggressive/accusatory side and that definitely isn't the Buddhist way. Nobody's perfect but based on the general theme of your words thus far, I can't imagine you're a Buddhist. I could be wrong but am interested to know either way. As a true Buddhist you'd know that people need to find their own paths depending upon where they are in their own personal evolution and that in that context, the very religions you're condemning do in fact have their own place in people's lives and are therefore important. You don't have to *believe in* another person's religion, *for yourself*, but generally, as a Buddhist you would believe in the legitimacy and need for those religions for certain people. Just not for yourself at this particular time.
As for the first one, yes, religion is the *practice* of what you already believe as a means to getting to God, whatever your concept is. But generally, the belief is already there. In other words, a person might be Christian but not sure of who she fits in with under that umbrealla. So she might check out a Presbyterian church and a Methodist church and in that way, yes, would be shopping around. But that's not the same as *looking for belief*. You *believe* the Buddhist principles and practices or you don't. You can't "invent" belief in yourself all of a sudden out of the blue just because logistically it seems to make sense. To me the Ten Commandments seem to logistically and practically make sense (not killing, not lusting after someone else's spouse, etc.) but that doesn't mean I am suddenly Jewish.
I hope this makes sense. I'm trying to explain it clearly.
Are you yourself Buddist? If so, you should be aware that your OP seems to be somewhat on the aggressive/accusatory side and that definitely isn't the Buddhist way. Nobody's perfect but based on the general theme of your words thus far, I can't imagine you're a Buddhist. I could be wrong but am interested to know either way. As a true Buddhist you'd know that people need to find their own paths depending upon where they are in their own personal evolution and that in that context, the very religions you're condemning do in fact have their own place in people's lives and are therefore important. You don't have to *believe in* another person's religion, *for yourself*, but generally, as a Buddhist you would believe in the legitimacy and need for those religions for certain people. Just not for yourself at this particular time.
I am not a buddhist.
I am saying for those who must have a religion but cannot reconcile their differences with scripture, why not choose one that does, like Buddhism, and the historical advantages of it having less violence doesn't sound too bad either.
Also, I do think its time Buddhism start being aggressiveness in its pursuit of followers too, its losing out to other religions.
Why don't more folks embrace Buddhism, whose history has lesser violence and imposition than many others. Does a religion need more aggressiveness spread itself far and wide?
Oh, you know, actually, I think I do know the answer (firm answer) to this one, anyway. With its belief that people are continuously evolving (usually over a period of lifetimes), Buddhism does NOT prostyletize and also does not "need" new followers. It doesn't "need" to spread itself far and wide. In Buddhism, the teachers are there but there is pretty much a belief that when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. This means a person has to get to a certain point in his own evolution to actually seek out Buddhism, and at that point things will converge to help him further. But he has to be 100% ready with no pushing or he won't be able to accept the teachings anyway, so what good would it be to prostyletize/spread the word?
I don't think Buddhists are too worried about dying out or anything due to not spreading the word. The word is already there and Buddhists have faith that it will reach the right people at the right time and not a minute sooner and never a minute too late.
I am saying for those who must have a religion but cannot reconcile their differences with scripture, why not choose one that does, like Buddhism, and the historical advantages of it having less violence doesn't sound too bad either.
Also, I do think its time Buddhism start being aggressiveness in its pursuit of followers too, its losing out to other religions.
Oh, I see.
Well, again, it is a matter of belief, of the heart, and you can't just choose that...I'm sorry...you just can't. In this case you're saying the reward is less violence. Well, all belief systems have their reward. For example, Christianity offers eternal life as its reward. You're taking one aspect of Buddhism--a tendency toward non-violence--and saying that should be anyone's deciding factor. If you actually look into the practice, it's very long, requires a whole lot of meditation, is eternally evolving, and doesn't have definite end-result answers (except the end-end result, Nirvana). It also requires that many of the people you're talking about--Christians, since they just make up the majority of the West, period--stop believing that Christ is The Way. You're not talking about picking up on some great beliefs, you're talking about eliminating a belief that these people have had forever. I'm answering these questions under the assumption that you really are asking out of curiosity and wanting to know, and not just finding a way of sidling in a diss. Therefore, I am honestly trying to explain why people wouldn't "just" choose Buddhism.
I can't believe anyone could think anyone could "just" choose any belief system. I have to think the end result would be shallow at worst and misguided at best. If you're not a Buddhist, why aren't you a Buddhist? What you ask of others, I feel you should be ready to take care of yourself.
I could be misinterpreting your motives and if so, apologies.
As far as it being time for Buddhism to get pushy, that's impossible--being pushy about itself goes 100% against Buddhism. That's like saying it's time for vegetarians to start eating meat but still be vegetarians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
