Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[rowjimmy]

Now wait a minute . . .! How did I get here?

I know I was in some ridiculously huge pre-existing thread about the ethics of copyright violation and then -

POP!

here I am!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Also, although I am not quoting him in this post, Gideon mentioned something about religion being separate from the existence of god. That, I completely disagree with, unless you have some really different way of defining "religion."

Buddhism is a religion without "gods".

[hidari]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Buddhism is a religion without "gods".

Too much talk about Religion. Everyone know the answers is plain and simple:

42

Originally Posted by HarryT

Buddhism is a religion without "gods".

I thought it was a religion about beer?

Oh wait...that's Billy Buddishm.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Buddhism is a religion without "gods".

No, Buddhism is a philosophy without gods. It is only a "religion" when people (mostly who don't understand the distinction and some who are merely semanticly lazy) decide to call it one.

Actually happens because many people thought, and still think, that the Buddh is supposed to be a god figure that we worship.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

No, Buddhism is a philosophy without gods. It is only a "religion" when people (mostly who don't understand the distinction and some who are merely semanticly lazy) decide to call it one.

Is the ultimate aim of Buddhism not to elevate one's soul to the point where one achieves nervana and escapes from the "wheel of life"? Many might call that state becoming a "god".

One will find Buddhism on pretty much any list of major world religions. It certainly has all the trappings of a religion - temples and monks, to name but two. Is not a temple, by definition, associated with a religion?

[hidari]

Originally Posted by stxopher

I thought it was a religion about beer?

Oh wait...that's Billy Buddishm.

Many Buddhists that I know drink their share of the Beer Til....

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is the ultimate aim of Buddhism not to elevate one's soul to the point where one achieves nervana and escapes from the "wheel of life"? Many might call that state becoming a "god".

One will find Buddhism on pretty much any list of major world religions. It certainly has all the trappings of a religion - temples and monks, to name but two. Is not a temple, by definition, associated with a religion?

No ... it is a state of nothingness. That's what nirvana actually means. So, unless god=nothing, I don't see the connection.

Buddhist "temples" are more correctly called shrines, but then Western language and ideas have corrupted so much of what people think of Buddhism. If you ever want a great giggle, just watch the move "The King and I." The whole "Small Cabin of Uncle Tom" ... with Buddha in "heaven" making "miracles" is so seriously off the mark.

A small aside into "trappings" there are many groups and or people who have trappings associated with other groups. For example, human beings are not "infallible" .... the Catholic Pope supposedly is. Infallibility is in Western theology associated with gods (although not for the Greeks or Romans), so since the Pope has the trappings of godhood, is he a "god"?

And, you really have to be cautious in discussing Buddhism trying to use Western concepts and definitions. It's not that easy. It's a big reason why so few people who were raised in one of the traditional big three religions to understand Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism is no more a religion than atheism. Building a please where people can go to meditate and take philosophical instruction does not a religion make. Calling something (erroneously) a "religion" does not make it one. Not even when people who don't know any better do it over a long period of time.

Nirvana does not equal heaven. Nirvana is nothingness. A state of complete non-being .... no longer a part of the equation. In a religion, a god is very much a part of the equation, and in the big three the concept of eternal life reunified with the deity is the goal. For a Buddhist, eternal "life" is as close as we get to the Western concept of "hell."

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Buddhism is no more a religion than atheism.

As I understand it they hold things true without good reasons which makes it more of a religion than atheism.

I think calling it a philosophy gives it to much credit.

[Sparrow]

My sister attends a Catholic church where the parish priest is also a Buddhist - there's no contradiction in that from a Buddhist pov as far as I'm aware.
I think there are Buddhists of many religious faiths and none.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by tompe

As I understand it they hold things true without good reasons

But so does science - axioms are its articles of faith.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

As I understand it they hold things true without good reasons which makes it more of a religion than atheism.

I think calling it a philosophy gives it to much credit.

Actually, no "they" don't. And since I am one of "they" I know what I'm talking about. I have been a student of Buddhist philosophy for close to 42 years now.

The philosophy is very clear on one point, you do not hold something to be true without reason. In fact, even the Dalai Lama has stated that if the Buddha stated something that modern science has proven to be false, then a Buddhist should acknowledge that the Buddha was incorrect and cease to believe in the thing.

However, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however much it may be based on something you hold to be true ... without reason.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Actually, no "they" don't. And since I am one of "they" I know what I'm talking about. I have been a student of Buddhist philosophy for close to 42 years now.

The philosophy is very clear on one point, you do not hold something to be true without reason. In fact, even the Dalai Lama has stated that if the Buddha stated something that modern science has proven to be false, then a Buddhist should acknowledge that the Buddha was incorrect and cease to believe in the thing.

However, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however much it may be based on something you hold to be true ... without reason.

So rebirth does not mean rebirth for example? Is it just a symbol and have nothing to to with reality?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But so does science - axioms are its articles of faith.

Which axioms are you talking about?

Science does not hold things to be true (hold in our reality) without good reasons.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

My sister attends a Catholic church where the parish priest is also a Buddhist - there's no contradiction in that from a Buddhist pov as far as I'm aware.
I think there are Buddhists of many religious faiths and none.

The parish priest may be a student of Buddhist philosophy, however, if he were actually to call himself a Buddhist, then he would have to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, and that would be a very long stretch for most priests.

My lama once said that Jesus would have made an outstanding Buddhist, except for all that "God" and "Son of God" stuff. And, from what I have read, there is a great deal of Jesus's teachings that do dovetail nicely in with the Buddha's.

And, if you consider that the title "Buddha" means nothing more than "the enlightened one" .... I suppose in the Christian scheme of things Jesus was a sort of buddha-like individual.

However, Buddhism does not embrace (1) a deity, (2) heaven, (3) hell - except for that created by man on earth, and (4) attributes the same type of "soul" to all creatures, man and animals. None of these are concepts that you would find most parish priests teaching to their flock.