Others have beat me to it, but I guess I could at least offer you a reference source. See Zen at War, by Daizen Victoria.
What?
Have you ever even paged through the Old Testament?
Suffice it to say, they were a slaveholding society and the death penalty is very much still a part of Christian law. These books are canon, which means that to be a Christian (in any mainstream sect at least) you have to consider them authoritative - though the extent of that authority, of course, differs.
The reference to Buddhist wars in Japan is interesting; I’ll have to read up on the subject before I can fully accept them as separate from Japan’s long history of political fighting. But thank you, that’s a fascinating place to start.
But in reference to this quote - I didn’t claim that Buddhism is never oppressive; if you examine my prior posts in this thread, I was merely responding to a specific claim. Like I said, I detest the way Buddhism is characterized in the west and I’m not under the impression that it’s any more peaceful than most other religions. Tibet is a particularly notable case, of course - I’m not terribly versed in the history of Asia but the various sins of Tibetan Buddhism are not exactly obscure.
Um, is that your way of saying, “I was mistaken”? Just askin’ is all.
Liberal, if I didn’t know better I’d ask if you were trying to start something in GD.
If you feel the desire to see me kneel and atone for being mistaken about something, well, I don’t see why you expect some sort of apology for having my ignorance slightly diminished - I don’t consider learning something new to be a source of shame. I made no assertion about the nature of Buddhism at all - so why would I have to admit being mistaken? Every reference I made was a request for more information. If you feel I was inappropriate in even making such a request, take it to the pit, and prepare to offer a convincing explanation.
Liberal, you have developed a nasty habit lately of following me around to point out imaginary errors in my posts (or character, as may be.) I’m hereby asking you to cease and desist, or at least be selective enough to find the actual errors.
I’m afraid you’re a bit paranoid perhaps. Statistically, my posting history scarcely coincides with yours. If you do not wish to clarify your bloviation about Buddhism, that is your privilege. As I said, I was just asking.
And as I said, I asked for information about Buddhism. I don’t see why you consider it unclear. If you wish to discuss it further, you may email me - my address is in my profile - or you may start a pit thread.
If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize. The book I recommended might have the information you’re seeking.
Belief in the validity of the old and new testament is not a requirement of Christianity. It is only required by some churches, hence my statement “many many Christian churches impose more requirements on their believers that are of questionable morals”.
Christianity is better “as a concept” because it is valid to be a Christian and reject all the bad bits in Christian writing, it is not nearly so valid for a Muslim to reject the bad bits in the Qu’ran due to the Islamic beleif that the Qu’ran is the actual inviolate word of Allah. Only those Christians who insist that the Bible is inviolate suffer from the same probelm about the evil things said within the Bible.
I apologize for taking up space in this debate without adding anything to it, but I wanted to thank Bippy for this clearly-worded observation which really got me thinking.
Why thankyou <BLUSHES>. I really have never met a Muslim half as evil as some Christians that I have met (and written threads to this effect before now), but the inviability inherant in the beleif of how the Qu’ran was written does seem a weakness within the Islamic faith’s heart that would make a muslim version of polycarp fit in less well within their Islamic religion than our Christian polycarp fits in and is accepted within the Christian religion.
I hope that Islam accepts the evidence that is forming that the Qu’ran is not a perfect copy of the word of God/Allah given to Mohammed. Evidence of discrepancies even though slight in ancient Qu’rans might help this, plus understanding how meanings of words change over time (and how the words could have been affected simply by having been used within the Qu’ran) and knowledge that Arabic is a Human language and so cannot hold the perfect truth due to its Human limitations. I would then hope for a more liberal Islam to be accepted as the most religious form of Islam.
The same hopes as hold for Christianity, though at least with Christianity the view that an English translation of Greek texts is somehow the inviolate word of God/Allah is so much more obviously foolish is I hope an advantage for Christians.
You may recall that Jesus said if you hate are guilty of murder. In that case the fundies are still killing people.
I wonder whether the claims that Muslims are less likely to be addicted to drugs and more likely to stay in school have anything to do with the fact that many young Muslims who are currently in school or exposed to drugs are the children of immigrants, and first-generation Americans are as a whole far more law-abiding and sober in actions.
I actually think the Muslim emphasis on personal integrity and defense of one’s faith and person is a really healthy outlook, much more so than the “meek” nature of some Christians. Is it just me, or are there a few cultural parallels between Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity? Both these groups seem to emphasize personal pride over turning the other cheek, and both depict the central figure as a strong warrior, instead of a victim. For instance, many Greek churches have statues depicting Jesus in his “angrier” periods; I have seen a few of Jesus weilding a sword.
I also like that Muslims don’t anthropomorphize God, because to me thinking of God as a human, or even as a being whose “thought processes” even remotely resemble human ones, is silly.
Or perhaps, it’s possible that religiously-active people of any religion are less likely to engage in illegal or immoral activites (let’s assume for argument?) In this country, I’d say that someone who self-identifies as Christian is less likely to be “religously-active” than someone who self-identifies as Muslim, as many people would just sort of off-handedly call themselves Christians due to it being the majority religion in this country.
Therefore, if my premises are correct, those who self-identify as Muslim in this country are more likely to not engage in illegal or immoral activities. I have no opinion on my first premise, but I’m pretty sure about the second: the numbers of those who self-identify as Muslims for cultural or other reasons is probably dwarfed by those who call themselves Christians out of laziness or tradition or inertia.
Kinda depends how you view a superior being. I’m of the opinion that any entity capable of creating the Universe would appreciate his children dancing the night away at a Blue’s and BBQ bar. Some folks are dead set against it (pun intended).
You make a very good point; the Qur’an seems to mandate a government based upon religious law, while in the Jewish and Christian worlds, such ideas have virtually no currency anymore. I think you’re right in what you said.
But I wonder whether perceptions of the issue will change in a few hundred years. There are secular governments in Islamic-majority countries - Turkey being most prominent, of course. If mosque and state are uncoupled in more areas, then in a few hundred years I wonder if the concept of adherence to the Qur’an will grow to acknowledge that it is limited as a governmental tool. That’s just my own speculation, of course.
I’d just like to point out that, pop culture simulacra notwithstanding, Christianity does not anthropomorphize God. Rather, it’s the other way around — it spiritualizes man. Being made in God’s image does not mean that God is bipedal, but that man is essentially spirit. And Jesus calling God “Father” has nothing to do with ancestry, but with the nature of God’s love.
Interesting discussion. Of course I find religion in general to be an interesting topic. I don’t think anyone has all the answers, but hopefully through discussion we can come up with better ones. I think the rule of laws and religions is fascinating, especially in Islam and christainity. I think the people of islamic faith in this country are probably pretty strong adherents just because they are the minority. Yet, I think their religion in general has a more strict emphasis on adherence to the laws set out in the Koran, pray three times a day facing Mecca, ect… In my last job I saw that practiced by a coworker during break. With the new testament the emphasis was shifted from such an emphasis on the laws. That was part of the revolutionary nature of christainity in judaism, or at least from my understanding. The pharisees would berate Jesus for breaking some law such as not working on the Sabbath when healing someone. His reply was that doing good was the most important law. I think christainity sometimes comes across as living in grace so then no laws need to be followed because one can always fall back on grace, but I think the basic tenant if actually followed is a pretty good one because it takes away the legalistic nature of religion that can lead to man made laws that lose sight of the spirit of God which is about love and goodness. If one tries to live by the spirit of the law then it is even more strict in that simply hating others even if one doesn’t act on it is wrong. I like christainity for that reason, that emphasis on following a spirit of love and charity towards others which if truly followed calls for even more acts of kindness and goodness than a highly legalistic viewpoint and allows for human understanding and laws to grow as we understand God’s spirit better.