Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How's this sound?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    NEeds more explanation?!? As far as what he wrote he is if he is on topic.The problem with the statement is clear regardless
    What do you mean it needs more explanation? You know how to read, right?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      What do you mean it needs more explanation? You know how to read, right?
      Yep! I can read, but a handwave simplistic statement means nothing. The response was for my statements and reflects my statements, unless there is more explanation as to why it does not.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
        Alan Watts was a very gifted communicator and philosopher in the 60's who did a lot to popularise Eastern mystical traditions. In his book, 'The Book on theTaboo against knowing who you are' he explained a hindu view like this:



        I found this idea interesting. It does contribute towards an explanation of the problem of evil and I find the idea of a playful and creative God very attractive.

        I don't 'believe' this is true. However it does make my list of things that 'might' be true and also my list of things that might be ok if they were true.

        I'd be interested in critiques of this 'myth'.
        Read this again in the theme that it is the games we play 'hide and seek' with the gods we create.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Yep! I can read, but a handwave simplistic statement means nothing. The response was for my statements and reflects my statements, unless there is more explanation as to why it does not.
          Who was hand waving what? What are you talking about?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            I am not sure of the connection you are looking for here equating conflict and violence in history related to the statement ', . . the Hindu and Buddhist hatred of differentiation and duality.' First. violence in the world is a very human thing throughout history for many reasons not related to this statement. Second, The reasons for violence in the Vedic and Buddhist cultures could be hardly be equated with 'I'll ever understand the Hindu and Buddhist hatred of differentiation and duality.' by the evidence in history. Third, Buddhism is the least violent in history then any other religion of the world. Fourth, The history of violence in the Vedic and Buddhist countries and regions of the world are mostly directly related to the history of invasion of Islam and western colonialism.

            An added note is that much of the conflict and violence in Africa and the Middle East can be traced back to colonialism, and the artificial colonial divisions of boundaries that became boundaries of countries, mixing and dividing different religious and ethnic groups for manipulation, divide, conquer and control resources.
            You said Buddhists and Hindus don't seem to hate anything. Jed is just pointing that they are as human and capable of violence and hatred as the rest of us.

            And for examples of Buddhist violence that has nothing to do with the West research the monks of the Enryaku-ji.
            O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

            A neat video of dead languages!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I am not sure of the connection you are looking for here equating conflict and violence in history related to the statement ', . . the Hindu and Buddhist hatred of differentiation and duality.'
              Indeed I was not making such a connection. I responded quite clearly to " I have studied Hinduism and Buddhism for many years, and never found them to hate anything." All the violence seen was not related to hate?
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                What do you mean it needs more explanation? You know how to read, right?
                Only when it suits him.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Who was hand waving what? What are you talking about?
                  yours; this statement by you does not mean anything in the context of the thread. Needs more explanation?!?!

                  He isn't. He's connecting it to your statement,
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Kelp(p) View Post
                    Hatred was too strong a word. I meant their rejection of it. In my admittedly limited knowledge, they seem to label duality as the fountain of all pain and suffering. "Realize that all is one and then you will be free of desire because you already have all that you need," things like that (that wasn't a quote of anything, just my attempt to sum up the teaching as I understand it).

                    Note: I'm not saying contentment and fulfillment is a bad thing. It's something I try to practice myself.
                    Seems to , , , is not a way to describe their view nor sum up the teaching. There is not hatred nor rejection here in the context of Buddhism and Vedic traditions. There is resolution of pain and suffering through their beliefs and methods.

                    If Allan Watts is the subject. It does not necessarily relate to the teachings of Buddhism and Vedic traditions anyway
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Kelp(p) View Post
                      You said Buddhists and Hindus don't seem to hate anything.
                      True.

                      Jed is just pointing that they are as human and capable of violence and hatred as the rest of us.
                      No, I said that.

                      And for examples of Buddhist violence that has nothing to do with the West research the monks of the Enryaku-ji.
                      .

                      So what?!?!?! The monks of Enryku-ji is not representative of Buddhist history, in fact they are only one sect of Japanese Buddhism, it is relevant representative, because western religions are 10 fold or more more violent then Buddhism.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-14-2014, 03:48 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        yours; this statement by you does not mean anything in the context of the thread. Needs more explanation?!?!
                        I don't understand your confusion. Are you not reading the posts in this thread chronologically?

                        Kelp wrote,

                        Originally posted by Kelp(p) View Post
                        I don't know if I'll ever understand the Hindu and Buddhist hatred of differentiation and duality.
                        You replied to Kelp by writing,

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I have studied Hinduism and Buddhism for many years, and never found them to hate anything.
                        Now, of course you were replying to a specific complaint of Kelp's about Hinduism and Buddhism, but your reply went beyond that specific complaint and claimed that you "never found them to hate anything, which is incredibly broad. So after reading your very broad absolute statement, Jedidiah wrote,

                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        Explain Hindu and Buddhist violence in the world.
                        Then you replied to Jedidiah and wrote,

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I am not sure of the connection you are looking for here equating conflict and violence in history related to the statement ', . . the Hindu and Buddhist hatred of differentiation and duality.'
                        But of course, Jedidiah was not replying to the point about differentiation and duality in Hinduism and Buddhism, but only to your very broad absolute remark that Hinduism and Buddhism never hates anything.

                        I attempted to help clarify this to you in the following post where I wrote that Jedidiah wasn't connecting his statement to the subject of differentiation and duality, but to your statement about Hinduism and Buddhism never hating anything.


                        Are you following now?

                        I wasn't trying to trip you up, or slip a fast one by you, or anything like that. I was attempting to help you understand what Jedidiah was saying. And I don't know where you got the idea I was handwaving something away. What exactly did you think I was handwaving away?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          I don't understand your confusion. Are you not reading the posts in this thread chronologically?

                          Kelp wrote,



                          You replied to Kelp by writing,



                          Now, of course you were replying to a specific complaint of Kelp's about Hinduism and Buddhism, but your reply went beyond that specific complaint and claimed that you "never found them to hate anything, which is incredibly broad. So after reading your very broad absolute statement, Jedidiah wrote,



                          Then you replied to Jedidiah and wrote,



                          But of course, Jedidiah was not replying to the point about differentiation and duality in Hinduism and Buddhism, but only to your very broad absolute remark that Hinduism and Buddhism never hates anything.

                          I attempted to help clarify this to you in the following post where I wrote that Jedidiah wasn't connecting his statement to the subject of differentiation and duality, but to your statement about Hinduism and Buddhism never hating anything.


                          Are you following now?
                          Actually not very well, and one liner posts usually fail to communicate, as well as an off topic excursion.

                          wasn't trying to trip you up, or slip a fast one by you, or anything like that. I was attempting to help you understand what Jedidiah was saying. And I don't know where you got the idea I was handwaving something away. What exactly did you think I was handwaving away?
                          Actually, I will stand by my original statement. The doctrines and beliefs in scripture and history of Vedic traditions and Buddhism is non-adversarial, and yes by these beliefs and traditions they do NOT hate anything. You can go back to Krishna's dialogue with Arjuna on the reasons of the warriors duty, and go forward through the Bahagvagita and Buddhist history and scripture, and find that this is at the very foundation of these belief systems. No Dualism and hatred of evil is inherent in these beliefs.

                          It is true, of course, that in history Hindu (Vedic tradtions) and Buddhist were involved in conflicts. The over all context through history was non-violent, particularly true of Buddhism.

                          Examples such as the monks of Enryaku-ji of Japan are not very good examples, because first you have a mixed culture of Buddhism and Shinto warrior traditions, and not representative of Buddhism.

                          Part of the problem is this has nothing to do with Allan Watts, nor the citation at the beginning of the thread.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-14-2014, 04:23 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Actually not very well, and one liner posts usually fail to communicate, as well as an off topic excursion.



                            Actually, I will stand by my original statement. The doctrines and beliefs in scripture and history of Vedic traditions and Buddhism is non-adversarial, and yes by these beliefs and traditions they do NOT hate anything. You can go back to Krishna's dialogue with Arjuna on the reasons of the warriors duty, and go forward through the Bahagvagita and Buddhist history and scripture, and find that this is at the very foundation of these belief systems. No Dualism and hatred of evil is inherent in these beliefs.

                            It is true, of course, that in history Hindu (Vedic tradtions) and Buddhist were involved in conflicts. The over all context through history was non-violent, particularly true of Buddhism.

                            Examples such as the monks of Enryaku-ji of Japan are not very good examples, because first you have a mixed culture of Buddhism and Shinto warrior traditions, and not representative of Buddhism.

                            Part of the problem is this has nothing to do with Allan Watts, nor the citation at the beginning of the thread.
                            Oh brother. shunya, I don't care about all of that. That has nothing to do with why I posted at all. All I was trying to do was show you why Jedidiah wrote what he wrote. That's all. I wasn't making an argument and I wasn't trying to help Jedidiah's argument. You know what. Never mind. You're making me mental.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Oh brother. shunya, I don't care about all of that. That has nothing to do with why I posted at all. All I was trying to do was show you why Jedidiah wrote what he wrote. That's all. I wasn't making an argument and I wasn't trying to help Jedidiah's argument. You know what. Never mind. You're making me mental.
                              All of that!?!?!? was the reason for my responses.

                              Try staying on topic and let's talk about Allan Watts, beginning with citation at the beginning of the thread.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                                No, I said that.
                                Indeed I was not making such a connection. I responded quite clearly to " I have studied Hinduism and Buddhism for many years, and never found them to hate anything." I told you that before and you are just ignoring the truth.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Curious, I have studied Hinduism and Buddhism for many years, and never found them to hate anything.
                                http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post120420
                                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X