Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by Graham

Not quite the same as sex-trafficking though, is it? Given that they are Buddhist monks, how would you expect them to try to raise the kids in their care?

Graham

Heres something else...

Richard Gombrich has argued that the Buddha did not intend to do away with slavery:

Though it could well be argued that the Buddha made life in the world more worth living, that surely was an unintended consequence of his teaching. To present him as a sort of socialist is a serious anachronism.

He never preached against social inequality, only declared its irrelevance to salvation.

He neither tried to abolish the caste system nor to do away with slavery.

While a famous sermon, the Sāmañña-phala Sutta, stresses the practical benefits for a slave in leaving his servitude and joining the Order, in fact runaway slaves were not allowed to join the Order.

Moreover, though in ancient India there was no caste or other form of social ranking within the Order itself, the Order soon came to own (lay) slaves.
Richard F. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, 1988

In fact the restrictions placed on monks required them to have some form of servant in monastic communities. So for example if monks were to obey the rule barring the cooking and storing of food, they would need somebody to do it for them. Some Buddhist commentaries warn that slaves are not allowed, unless they are called "called monastery servants (ārāmika) or legalisers (kappiya-kāraka)".

Gombrich also notes that:

at one point the Vinaya commentary says in so many words that kings gave slaves to monasteries, and that they could not be ordained unless they had first been freed. Inscriptions record that people gave money for the specific purpose of maintaining monastic slaves – and offered the resulting merit to all living beings.Richard F. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, 1988

If granting endowments to maintain slaves at monasteries was considered meritorious, freeing them from slavery was considered even more meritorious. Thus the device of offering slaves to monasteries provided a two-fold way for the acquisition of merits.Rahula, Walpola (1956), History of Buddhism in Ceylon: the Anuradhapura Period, Colombo. Quoted in Gombrich

Some kings in Ceylon offered themselves to the monastic community "as slaves and then redeemed themselves, thus combining a symbolic gesture of total humility with extreme munificence".

In 9th century China Buddhist institutions are reputed to have employed 150,000 slaves , who were taken over by the Taoist Emperor Wu-tsung in 845 as part of his action against the Buddhist community.

In some parts of South East Asia Buddhist locations were a sanctuary for those fleeing more oppressive forms of slavery:

Where Buddhist monastic orders had claimed political retreats from state military power, their estates and temple complexes became sanctuaries where peasants sought the exemption from state conscription and corvée that 'slavery' to a privileged individual or institution provided.Gwyn Campbell, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004

Pagoda slaves

In some Buddhist cultures a male slave would become free if their owner allowed them to become a Buddhist monk.

In Kampuchea a person could be made a 'Pagoda Slave' if they were found guilty of certain crimes - as could members of their family up to seven degrees removed. Pagoda slaves did domestic and maintenance work on temple sites. While pagoda slaves might have a relatively easy life for a slave they ranked very low on the social ladder and had an extra disadvantage:

Pagoda slaves, who were supposed to belong only to Buddha, could not be redeemed.Gwyn Campbell, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004

Because pagoda slaves could not be redeemed their children inherited slave status. Pagoda slaves were found mostly in what are now Burma and Thailand.

Pagoda slaves weren't only 'criminals' or the descendants of slaves; people could be given to monasteries for slave use.

Among Buddhist reformers of slavery was King Thibaw of Burma, a former monk. He paid 40,000 rupees in 1883 to buy the freedom of many slaves; 1,000 of those he freed are said to have become Buddhist monks and novices.

[Graham]

It's also worth noting that being a Buddhist monk is not necessarily a permanent commitment particularly for young boys.

In Thailand and Burma, it is common for boys to spend some time living as a monk in a monastery. Most stay for only a few years and then leave, but a number continue on in the ascetic life for the rest of their lives.

Graham

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

You're getting mixed up with words my friend... Christians don't feel that the word meditation, has the same connotations as Buddhists. (They might have told you that in Rome) But I wouldn't trust Rome just cause Rome is Rome. Ha! Satan's been working on that place for some time...

Oh yeah and I have talked to plenty of monks and hermits about these things and think its funny to... As Asia's waking up economically, so people are getting converted. God Bless...

Please don't make me think you are trolling.
Meditation is performed by Catholic hermits, Ortodox hermits, Lutheran hermits, Saint Paul's sons hermits, Adventist hermits and a few more that I don't remember.
Now, whatever is the sect that you belong to, since I have already listed all the major ones with the highest number of followers I'm sure you'll say that you don't belong to any of the above. If you are willing to say that all the above Christian sects and branches are on the wrong side, then you are implying that the branch you belong to is one of the minoritarian ones; which means that you can't claim that "millions of people have the truth".

Fun fact: the Christian branch with the highest number of followers is Catholicism, which is based in Rome, so going with your definition of "proof" those have more reason than you; funnier fact, in the world there are more muslim than christians (Islam covers a great part of Asia, including a good portion of India and China, plus the whole northern part of Africa), so, always according to your idea that if more people believe in that they are right, this means that Islam is THE right religion and Allah is the true God.

Funnier fact: in India (second country in the world for population) there are more Islam followers than christians: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India
Funnier fact even: in China, the most populated country in the world, there are more islam followers than christians: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

But since your answers, so far, are always limited to "You're wrong" or "that's not true" instead of "you're wrong BECAUSE..." or "that's not true BECAUSE...", I'll just say bye and unfollow this thread because I smell a troll.
I had far more interesting, and far, far better documented discussions with REAL religious people, of any religious orientation, than with you. And they were usually more tolerant than you, and I don't mean more tolerant towards atheists, but more tolerant towards other philosophies and religions. Yeah, I'm speaking about how you bash & spit on Eastern cultures and compare it to the most evil things in the world. Pride is one of the seven Deadly Sins, and I'm amazed at how loud you claim your Christianity and how little you ACT like a Christian. I'm sure you are able to take up your copy of the Bible and read Isaiah 14:12-15, where the prophet tells about how Lucifer was cast from the heavens down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit, because of his sin of Pride.

Goodbye, have a nice day everyone.

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by Graham

It's also worth noting that being a Buddhist monk is not necessarily a permanent commitment particularly for young boys.



Graham

I guess if everyone started taking up Buddhism we'd just have to institute slavery in western countries..

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Heres something else...

Richard Gombrich has argued that the Buddha did not intend to do away with slavery

And neither did Christianity. Slavery was pretty much universal in the ancient world. There certainly isn't one word in the Bible condemning slavery. I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Christian children are being spiritually victimized. "We've heard stories of even Christian kids being put into Buddhist temples and monasteries. They're trying to get these Christian kids to renounce Jesus Christ and raise them as Buddhist monks."

'Christian children' - it saddens me to think that was how I was thought of once.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Heres something else...

Richard Gombrich has argued that the Buddha did not intend to do away with slavery:

...

If that is indeed the case, then it reinforces why Buddhists are taught to question all teaching.

Times change. It took a long hard struggle to rid much of the world of slavery. Americans, for example, would rightly reject the concept of slavery now, even though it was practised in quite recent history compared to the time of Buddha.

Graham

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

It's tempting. There is after all, as has been pointed out, no reason for me not to blow people up.

One could make a convincing argument for blowing it up if one is convinced that it would lead to greater happiness for the majority than not doing so.

(personally, I'm not convinced. I think we need something like the Lords to act as checks and balances to the Government. Whether it should be the current format, or all elected, or part elected part not.)

Originally Posted by terrazoids

I'm glad you think life is wonderful... but its going to get even better after your dead.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Slightly unfortunate turn of phrase if you don't mind me saying so.

Sorry, for some reason I can't stop giggling over that. I realise that it could be taken to mean that terrazoids thinks I am a negative presence, and therefore everyone's life will get better once I am no longer in it; and that s/he probably/possibly meant it as there is an afterlife/heaven which I will enjoy even more. But - probably because we've just been talking about horror movies at work - my mind is now suggesting that it could also be read that I'll come back as a zombie and hjave fun terrorising people.

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Please don't make me think you are trolling.
Meditation is performed by Catholic hermits, Ortodox hermits, Lutheran hermits, Saint Paul's sons hermits, Adventist hermits and a few more that I don't remember.
Now, whatever is the sect that you belong to, since I have already listed all the major ones with the highest number of followers I'm sure you'll say that you don't belong to any of the above. If you are willing to say that all the above Christian sects and branches are on the wrong side, then you are implying that the branch you belong to is one of the minoritarian ones; which means that you can't claim that "millions of people have the truth".

Fun fact: the Christian branch with the highest number of followers is Catholicism, which is based in Rome, so going with your definition of "proof" those have more reason than you; funnier fact, in the world there are more muslim than christians (Islam covers a great part of Asia, including a good portion of India and China, plus the whole northern part of Africa), so, always according to your idea that if more people believe in that they are right, this means that Islam is THE right religion and Allah is the true God.

Funnier fact: in India (second country in the world for population) there are more Islam followers than christians: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India
Funnier fact even: in China, the most populated country in the world, there are more islam followers than christians: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

But since your answers, so far, are always limited to "You're wrong" or "that's not true" instead of "you're wrong BECAUSE..." or "that's not true BECAUSE...", I'll just say bye and unfollow this thread because I smell a troll.
I had far more interesting, and far, far better documented discussions with REAL religious people, of any religious orientation, than with you. And they were usually more tolerant than you, and I don't mean more tolerant towards atheists, but more tolerant towards other philosophies and religions. Yeah, I'm speaking about how you bash & spit on Eastern cultures and compare it to the most evil things in the world. Pride is one of the seven Deadly Sins, and I'm amazed at how loud you claim your Christianity and how little you ACT like a Christian. I'm sure you are able to take up your copy of the Bible and read Isaiah 14:12-15, where the prophet tells about how Lucifer was cast from the heavens down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit, because of his sin of Pride.

Goodbye, have a nice day everyone.

Yes you're right about pride... but look to yourself. You're casting around like an authority on religion. Your attempting to have the last word adn put me down so bad that I won't bounce back. Your calling me wrong and using 'fun' facts. But as usual its easier to insult someone than actually talk with them. I'm open to all kinds of ideas as I've amply demonstrated. But slavery is wrong, and countries based on Buddhism seem to have a lot of it. As for conversations, you haven't yet conversed with me. You've posted about four times each time getting angrier and angrier....

Gee makes me laugh... Small pots boil quickly I guess. Pride is one of the deadly sins but also one of the most amusing cause it sure is easy to identify.

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And neither did Christianity. Slavery was pretty much universal in the ancient world. There certainly isn't one word in the Bible condemning slavery. I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make.

Yeah but Christian nations saw the evil and overcame it by themselves... Buddhist nations needed .... a full on Communist Invasion!! to take care of their problem! Like I said earlier, God pits the transgressors against eachother in eternal war... Heh thats why athiests are always fighting amongst themselves ... trying to figure out whos right... Guess what... None of ya's right!

Who knows maybe a buddhist nation's gonna invade those commies right on back one day... Just a sad old cycle.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

But slavery is wrong, and countries based on Buddhism seem to have a lot of it.

Your belief that slavery is wrong is actually at odds with what the Bible teaches, terrazoids. Eg, in Ephesians 6:5-9, Paul urges slaves to obey their masters in the same way that they obey Christ, while Colossians 4:1 tells slave owners to treat their slaves justly. But nowhere - not once - is their any condemnation of slavery.

The belief that slavery is wrong has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Who knows maybe a buddhist nation's gonna invade those commies right on back one day... Just a sad old cycle.

Unlike the early Christians, who were commies from the start:
"And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2, verses 44 and 45.

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Unlike the early Christians who were commies from the start:
"And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2, verses 44 and 45.

No way... Commies are godless athiests. It says so right there in old Marx...

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your belief that slavery is wrong is actually at odds with what the Bible teaches, terrazoids. Eg, in Ephesians 6:5-9, Paul urges slaves to obey their masters in the same way that they obey Christ, while Colossians 4:1 tells slave owners to treat their slaves justly. But nowhere - not once - is their any condemnation of slavery.

The belief that slavery is wrong has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

I stated earlier that God did not write the bible. Its true that in the ancient world, slavery was widespread. Pauls comment can be understood in light of the culture he lived in at the time. He had an idea that social strife was not the way to solve the worlds problems. Advocating slaves to rebel against their masters would not achieve heaven on earth just as advocating the Tibetans to rise up against the commie invaders also wouldn't serve this world. Jesus taught the simple message of overcoming love to all people and your examples fit right into that. The slave loves his master... and the master loves his slave. Now on the strength of that this eventually led to slavery being defeated as it was in the western world. That is Gods way. Not the warlike ways or arguing and fighting that athiests prefer.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Wow there are all kinds of folks on this thread. I have the feeling that a lot of people who do have strong faith are afraid to speak up about it because of the viscous attacks from some of the more vocal members.

Don't say "faith" when you mean "Christianity." I am deeply religious; religion is, perhaps, the central point around which the rest of my life revolves. People of strong faith who aren't monotheists likely aren't much speaking up because this kind of discussion bores most of them; arguments about whether one particular deity exists are fairly pointless. (I have no aversions to pointless arguments, when I've got time for them.)

Originally Posted by terrazoids

I won't talk about my personal experiences on this forum, but suffice it to say that I've been through trials and doubts in my life, but now I know. God speaks to people personally.

You have evidence that a god speaks to *you* personally. Do you have evidence that the same god speaks to *everyone?*

Originally Posted by sweevo

Using logic:

There's zero evidence any gods exist.

There's zero evidence the specific god you believe in exists.

That makes the belief in the god you believe in... well... insane.

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. So are eyewitness accounts & personal experiences. They're not considered reliable evidence in court, but they aren't necessarily false.

If I claim that (1) I have a spouse, (2) whose hair is longer than yours and (3) could beat you at chess -- what evidence do I have? What evidence could I provide, over the internet, for this person's existence?

Disproving claims 2 & 3 doesn't disprove claim 1. If, in fact, I do not have a spouse, but have been living with a single person for so long that all our friends call us husband & wife, that doesn't mean the person doesn't exist, just that I've described our relationship inaccurately. (I have a spouse. I'd be willing to bet his hair is longer than yours because that's the way the statistics go. Few women and almost no men have hair longer than his. It is not unlikely he could beat you at chess, but I wouldn't make bets in that direction against a totally unknown person.)

I'm always fascinated by atheists' willingness to claim that the majority of humanity throughout history has been entirely delusional on a matter that affected their lives deeply, rather than accept that their descriptions might be inaccurate.