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.
What it means is that Arach in his determination to become the first theist atheist on the board is taking humanist morality (which he calls 'common sense') and then by changing the words of the commandments a bit can claim the credit of human morality for the commandments.
The fact is that The Bible takes human morality and perverts it to serve the authority of religion.
"Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
It is no accident that the most peaceful religions are the ones, like Buddhism, that have no concept of god."
Now while Terryj's post may be open to debate, your argument was that Buddhism itself has some doctrinal acceptance of killing that does not make it more doctrinally opposed to killing than the Abrahamic religions. Your arguments are more akin to the occasions where - at need - the commandments can be set aside out of sheer need to survive (I have the Maccabees fighting on the sabbath in mind) but the question of fighting and killing for the cause is hardly a problem.
With Buddhism the dogma is firmly against this and Japanese warrior monks and stories of moral dilemmas that are more to do with a Buddhist trying to live as a social being than a monk putting their religion ahead of anything, or indeed the way religion is used to support - or at times, undermine - State authority doesn't do anything to undermine the point that Terryj was making - though there may be other arguments.
So, there was the original observation to Terryj suggesting Buddhism wasn't as peaceful as OP claimed it to be.
To which your response was that perhaps militarism was an element acquired because of Shinto and not characteristic of Buddhism to begin with. I disagreed and pointed out the history of Buddhism that opened the door to this element way before Buddhism was introduced to Japan.
You remained unconvinced and suggested that, whatever the history, Buddhism had never found an excuse for taking a life. After some clarification from you, I pointed out why this assumption was wrong and gave a direct example of one such excuse from the Buddhist canonical text.
This is the point where, for some unknown reason, you decided to twist my position into 'Buddhism teaches that killing is ok' and then attempted to perform some mental acrobatic to dismiss canonical literature as something not strictly religious. And in this post again you entirely twist my words? Why is that?
Now, this is the last time I will say this - Buddhist doctrine is vague enough to permit an exception to its 'no killing of living creatures' imperative. This loophole is enshrined in the Buddhist canonical literature and has been used to justify (and continues to be used to justify) certain kind of killing way before Buddhism was introduced to Japan. This does NOT mean that Buddhism teaches that killing is OK or even broadly accepts it. It means that no matter what form the fundamental moral imperatives take (Buddhist Eightfold Path or Four Noble Truths; Ten Commandments; Starfleet Directive, etc) exceptions to these maybe found. The question is then does one exploit these exceptions as some Buddhist sects have done or caution against them, as Dalai Lama does. Whatever the answer, at least Buddhist Masters are intellectually honest enough to accept that their doctrine has a weakness, regardless of whether they do anything to fix it or not.
On that note I will bow out of our exchange for two reasons:
1) Whilst I tried to back up my responses to you with factual information and references, all I got in response were vague unsupported and often inaccurate disagreements. Well, I'm not here to convince you or anyone else. You disagree with me? C'est la vie. I don't expect you to take my word for it, which is why I referred you to other sources.
2) This exchange is no longer about an aspect of Buddhist doctrine but an attempt to twist my words into something that hasn't been said. I'm not gonna spend the remainder of this thread arguing over semantics when my posts speak for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, you've exhausted your objections to things I've said and are now trying to find ways to continue this argument on the basis of something that I've never claimed to begin with. Again, I'm not here to disabuse you of any kind misapprehension. I've said what I wanted to say, giving as much supporting information as I felt appropriate - what you do with that is up to you, but I most certainly don't need to entertain your incredulity any further.
What is 'vague' about the act of killing is bad as it damages your own Karma? True, Christianity has a prohibition against killing, but (like all these abrahamic religions) it is only a prohibition against killing unless God approves. In Buddhism there is no such get out. What you are doing is damaging your own Karma because of a concern for the world and its' ethical values. That you should shoot a Bull to stop it goring a matador (I wouldn't, for one ) is a 'sin' in Buddhism. because you killed. That something else is killing someone else is their affair. Karma is working out its own plan and you will suffer if you interfere.
The examples you cite are one reason why Mahayana wasn't an option for me. It confused the world with Buddhism. It confused human moral codes with the eightfold path. It confused what was morally right to do with what was right for your own salvation -plan. One might not like that, but that's the doctrine of Buddhism.
Now you may argue that a deed is good if you Think it is. So slitting the throat of serial killer you know of in the conviction that this is a good deed will go on your plus Karma, because karma doesn't know any better, does it? Unless it is able to assess your deeds and evaluate them itself, never mind what you thought about it. Which is why Karma is actually a cosmic mind and therefore a god, or it isn't and it ids subject to what humans think are good or bad deeds, which is effectively making Buddhism subject to humans codes of conduct, and not to a natural law. It was why i concluded that Buddhism cannot be true.
What is 'vague' about the act of killing is bad as it damages your own Karma? True, Christianity has a prohibition against killing, but (like all these abrahamic religions) it is only a prohibition against killing unless God approves. In Buddhism there is no such get out. What you are doing is damaging your own Karma because of a concern for the world and its' ethical values. That you should shoot a Bull to stop it goring a matador (I wouldn't, for one ) is a 'sin' in Buddhism. because you killed. That something else is killing someone else is their affair. Karma is working out its own plan and you will suffer if you interfere.
The examples you cite are one reason why Mahayana wasn't an option for me. It confused the world with Buddhism. It confused human moral codes with the eightfold path. It confused what was morally right to do with what was right for your own salvation -plan. One might not like that, but that's the doctrine of Buddhism.
Now you may argue that a deed is good if you Think it is. So slitting the throat of serial killer you know of in the conviction that this is a good deed will go on your plus Karma, because karma doesn't know any better, does it? Unless it is able to assess your deeds and evaluate them itself, never mind what you thought about it. Which is why Karma is actually a cosmic mind and therefore a god, or it isn't and it is subject to what humans think are good or bad deeds, which is effectively making Buddhism subject to humans codes of conduct, and not to a natural law. It was why I concluded that Buddhism cannot be true.
Your capacity for self-insight is excellent. Your antipathy to the cosmic mind is what drives all of your views and semi-philosophical ramblings.
What is 'vague' about the act of killing is bad as it damages your own Karma? True, Christianity has a prohibition against killing, but (like all these abrahamic religions) it is only a prohibition against killing unless God approves. In Buddhism there is no such get out. What you are doing is damaging your own Karma because of a concern for the world and its' ethical values. That you should shoot a Bull to stop it goring a matador (I wouldn't, for one ) is a 'sin' in Buddhism. because you killed. That something else is killing someone else is their affair. Karma is working out its own plan and you will suffer if you interfere.
The examples you cite are one reason why Mahayana wasn't an option for me. It confused the world with Buddhism. It confused human moral codes with the eightfold path. It confused what was morally right to do with what was right for your own salvation -plan. One might not like that, but that's the doctrine of Buddhism.
Now you may argue that a deed is good if you Think it is. So slitting the throat of serial killer you know of in the conviction that this is a good deed will go on your plus Karma, because karma doesn't know any better, does it? Unless it is able to assess your deeds and evaluate them itself, never mind what you thought about it. Which is why Karma is actually a cosmic mind and therefore a god, or it isn't and it ids subject to what humans think are good or bad deeds, which is effectively making Buddhism subject to humans codes of conduct, and not to a natural law. It was why i concluded that Buddhism cannot be true.
First, there is no "sin" in Buddhism. You are -- in my view -- attaching a sort of intelligence to karma, which --at least in the Theravada world -- is not there.
Furthermore, "salvation" does not exist in Buddhism...at least in Theravada Buddhism.
You can't say that Buddhism cannot be true, because all Buddhism is, is a bunch of "advices" that may help you reduce or eliminate your suffering.
It seems as if you are attempting to put a christian template on top of an Eastern philosophy.
On a slightly different topic, to the above, but still relating to the discussion. The Thais will often point out that (at least in Siam's Theravada tradition) no war has ever been fought in the name of Buddha. That does not mean that Buddhists have not gone to war. This is quite different from christianity where the onward christian soldiers routine is often cited as a reason to go to war.
Your capacity for self-insight is excellent. Your antipathy to the cosmic mind is what drives all of your views and semi-philosophical ramblings.
Your craftiness in intimating self deception in others while refusing to see it in yourself is almost in a class of its' own. Your craftiness in well poisoning any refusal to accept your faith- claims as fact together with dismissing any debunks out of hand with a slice of bias-accusation is quite remarkable. Your Faith in this fantasy that you have cobbled together is what drives everything you post and your projection of your own bias onto everyone who disagrees plus peeing on your opponents by claiming expertise in 'philosophy' when you dismiss the basic rules of logic when they don't suit you is by now well known. as is your sneering references to 'Sussed', 'debunked' 'bamboozle' in hopes to persuade people that they haven't seen though you when in fact poster after poster after poster has done just that. You are fooling no-one but yourself.
First, there is no "sin" in Buddhism. You are -- in my view -- attaching a sort of intelligence to karma, which --at least in the Theravada world -- is not there.
Furthermore, "salvation" does not exist in Buddhism...at least in Theravada Buddhism.
You can't say that Buddhism cannot be true, because all Buddhism is, is a bunch of "advices" that may help you reduce or eliminate your suffering.
It seems as if you are attempting to put a christian template on top of an Eastern philosophy.
On a slightly different topic, to the above, but still relating to the discussion. The Thais will often point out that (at least in Siam's Theravada tradition) no war has ever been fought in the name of Buddha. That does not mean that Buddhists have not gone to war. This is quite different from christianity where the onward christian soldiers routine is often cited as a reason to go to war.
The term 'salvation' actually appears in translations of Buddhist text '"Work out your own salvation with diligence". It means doing what you have to yourself to get off the wheel of rebirth. That's all it is - not being 'saved' by another being (though even Therevada supposes that you can buy off bad karma for others (1). 'Sin' in this respect simply means any action that adversely affects the progress towards escaping the wheel of rebirth.
Buddhism is based on a number of assumptions about Karma, and how it operates. I have a serious doubt about that. That's why i had to conclude that on all evidence its' tenets had to be in error. yes, i am asserting that, unless karma has a separate capacity to know and analyse all our deeds in as godlike a way as any Abrahamic deity, the whole good deed-bad deed thing cannot work and it is conditioned entirely by what humans collectively and individually -think of as good or bad deeds. We saw the paradox raised about killing in order to prevent deaths of others. That may be a god deed because it prevents multiple deaths, but a bad deed because the indiviual has killed and smutted him own karma. It may be praiseworthy in some views and even in the view of the person doing it, but Karma doesn't care about that.
You kill - bad deed. That natural process- karma. Either it had to evaluate motive and consequences in a way that is a cosmic mind - a 'god' in fact, or it is based on what people think of as good and bad deeds.
Phet, mate, the whole mechanism of the Buddhist tenets aren't stacking up for me.
(1) without which it would be a big beggar - gang rather than a big business.
The term 'salvation' actually appears in translations of Buddhist text '"Work out your own salvation with diligence". It means doing what you have to yourself to get off the wheel of rebirth. That's all it is - not being 'saved' by another being (though even Therevada supposes that you can buy off bad karma for others (1). 'Sin' in this respect simply means any action that adversely affects the progress towards escaping the wheel of rebirth.
Buddhism is based on a number of assumptions about Karma, and how it operates. I have a serious doubt about that. That's why i had to conclude that on all evidence its' tenets had to be in error. yes, i am asserting that, unless karma has a separate capacity to know and analyse all our deeds in as godlike a way as any Abrahamic deity, the whole good deed-bad deed thing cannot work and it is conditioned entirely by what humans collectively and individually -think of as good or bad deeds. We saw the paradox raised about killing in order to prevent deaths of others. That may be a god deed because it prevents multiple deaths, but a bad deed because the indiviual has killed and smutted him own karma. It may be praiseworthy in some views and even in the view of the person doing it, but Karma doesn't care about that.
You kill - bad deed. That natural process- karma. Either it had to evaluate motive and consequences in a way that is a cosmic mind - a 'god' in fact, or it is based on what people think of as good and bad deeds.
Phet, mate, the whole mechanism of the Buddhist tenets aren't stacking up for me.
(1) without which it would be a big beggar - gang rather than a big business.
1. I think it depends on what is meant by salvation. The general definition of salvation is: "preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss", which would go along very nicely with the goal of Buddhism, which is to reduce or eliminate suffering. On the other hand, the christian definition is quite a different kettle of fish (pun intended). Which meaning did the Pali refer to? I rather think it is not a word that is directly translated.
2. In a Buddhist sense you're misusing the term "sin". You need to pick a different word or phrase.
3. Again, you see karma as some judgement mechanism, when all it really is, is cause and effect. If it was some judgement mechanism, every negative act would be punished. But every negative act is not punished. People get away with stuff. But in a more general sense, if you do negative things, negativity will affect you (karma). If you do positive things, positivity will affect you (bun).
4. It's okay that Buddhism doesn't stack up for you. Maybe you need to learn to be more of a cherry picker and take wisdom where you find it. You don't have to buy the whole package.
1. I think it depends on what is meant by salvation. The general definition of salvation is: "preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss", which would go along very nicely with the goal of Buddhism, which is to reduce or eliminate suffering. On the other hand, the christian definition is quite a different kettle of fish (pun intended). Which meaning did the Pali refer to? I rather think it is not a word that is directly translated.
2. In a Buddhist sense you're misusing the term "sin". You need to pick a different word or phrase.
Perhaps so. I was being a bit tongue -in -cheek in using the term. 'bad deeds' might have been better. I'm sorry to mislead anyone.
Quote:
3. Again, you see karma as some judgement mechanism, when all it really is, is cause and effect. If it was some judgement mechanism, every negative act would be punished. But every negative act is not punished. People get away with stuff. But in a more general sense, if you do negative things, negativity will affect you (karma). If you do positive things, positivity will affect you (bun).
That is talking about a natural cause and effect which may be found more in wishful thinking than in actually getting what we deserve. In Buddhism however, Karma is a mechanism for allocating merit or demerit to affect how one is reborn. That is a supernatural entity, though supposedly a natural (uncognisant) one. But if a need for analysis and discrimination, not to mention an arguable need for omniscience, is the only way the system could work, we are back into the real of cosmic minds.
Quote:
4. It's okay that Buddhism doesn't stack up for you. Maybe you need to learn to be more of a cherry picker and take wisdom where you find it. You don't have to buy the whole package.
"belief" is less important than what data points are used and how they are linked together to form a belief. list what we know about the system we are in first. Then form a belief off of that list.
yeah, we all have a blind faith to a degree. like mine is the scientific method will help see what beliefs are more or less valid.
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.
can claim the credit of human morality for the commandments.
) is a 'sin' in Buddhism. because you killed. That something else is killing someone else is their affair. Karma is working out its own plan and you will suffer if you interfere. 
The term 'salvation' actually appears in translations of Buddhist text '"Work out your own salvation with diligence". It means doing what you have to yourself to get off the wheel of rebirth. That's all it is - not being 'saved' by another being (though even Therevada supposes that you can buy off bad karma for others (1). 'Sin' in this respect simply means any action that adversely affects the progress towards escaping the wheel of rebirth. 
