Frikkinjerk on 16/4/2006 at 07:39

---

First, I have to tell you that there are different schools of Buddhist philosophy. Some believe in souls, some don't. Souls are considered eternal, while in Buddhism nothing is eternal - everything is ephemeral. Even the you that's here today is different from the you that was here a year ago. All the cells in your body have been replaced, your opinions about some things have changed, your state of mind changes - everything about you changes. There is no Convict that is constant - you don't inherently exist.

In Buddhism everything is connected transcendentally. There is no seperation between you, me, or objects in our world. The Hindus call it Brahman; a supreme consciousness of which everything is a part of. For Buddhist's it's Ultimate Reality, or Buddha-nature.

There is no beginning and no end. Like the seasons in a year, everything moves in cycles. You're conceived, you're born, you live, you die - wash, rinse, repeat. Same thing with the universe. Buddhist cosmology is very rich and the big bang theory is part of that. There was nothing, then the bang, evolution, and eventually the universe will return to a void-like state and the cycle will repeat.

Buddhism believes that reincarnation does not have to bring us back to this world, or even this universe. Reincarnation doesn't have to happen at all, actually.

Again, there are different schools of thought in Buddhism. Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen. Even within those schools there are different lineages which foster different practices, or have different ideas about particular points. For instance, in Theravada the practioner would seek liberation - nirvana. In Mahayana, the goal is to become a Bodhisattva - a being that delays liberation to return to this world to help others. The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of Avalokitesvara; the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

siegella on 16/4/2006 at 15:53

---

I think it was the too much time spent on the computer questions that makes me Not So Much of a Viking... oh yeah, and I like to bathe. :cheeky:

<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td><img src="http://images.quizfarm.com/1104366020shopper.jpg"></td><td> You scored as <b>No So Much of a Viking</b>. Thou art not so much of a viking. Cooking the vittles for thy menfolk would be the best occupation for thy skills.<br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>No So Much of a Viking</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='75' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>75%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Not a Viking at All</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='71' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>71%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Iffy Viking</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='50' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>50%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Total Viking</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='46' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>46%</font></td></tr><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Somewhat-Viking</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='46' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>46%</font></td></tr></td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=1036'>How Viking Are You?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>

TheGreatGodPan on 19/4/2006 at 01:20

---

No, that's just the way I am.
I just consider it good policy to restrict discussion in a thread to what is in that thread.
Perhaps in relative terms, but if you've read my comments on threads discussing economics, I care very little about the relative and more about the absolute. Although I suppose a more accurate way of phrasing it is that I care less about A vs. B than A in one possibility versus A in another and so on.
Sorry, I think in a manner different than you and can't quite understand the way in which you think and the most proper way (in your view) to respond to you.
If I've mad fallacious arguments, point them out. I don't see where your charge of sophistry originates from.
Do you mean my religious beliefs, or my belief that Wicca is silly?

Yeah, but if you want to engage in a theological discussion, Fett is a better bet. I'm comparatively ignorant. There are self-professed Christians that might differ, but I would say the majority accepts those.
Yes.

Well, I would say that much of the miracles of the Bible are not so much impossible events but extremely improbable (of course probability of deterministic events depends on our knowledge of the situation). There are very few who believe the universe has always existed in some sort of "steady state" or something like that, so I just attribute its creation to a creator, which is a very sketchy concept about which we have pitiable knowledge (as the book of Job points out). Original sin is an ethical concept: we can say that certain acts are sinful and that it is in the nature of people to sin. Beyond that I don't have much of a position, so talk to a theologian about that one. The virgin birth and the resurrection are not that far beyond the realm of modern science (test-tube kids, restarted hearts and that creepy dog video you can find by searching this forum). Once it is acknowledged that there are a multitude of things we do not know or understand (I would say on such an order that what we do know is virtually nothing in comparison), such events seem much more credible.
I'll just restrict it to "un-silly" without the "very" qualifier.
I can't discuss silly without humor.
I don't believe the concepts of numbers or gender or species or whatever can be applied to God.
Gender is a product of evolution and reproduction, which as I said I do not believe apply to God. I have a question about your "many gods" thing. If someone believed that we are all just the dream of magic beetle, would they believe in one beetle if they believed it is only that beetle that dreams us, but that other magic beetles also dream different dreams? And yes, I did steal that from "Bart Simpson's Guide to Life" but an answer would clarify your question more for me.
The devil is in the details. I try to answer in a truthful manner when I'm not joking around, and if I do not address your main argument it is likely because I misread what you wrote.

A major strain of Christian thinking begins with the Calvinistic belief in pre-destination, which forms a good part of my beliefs. But going into free-will vs. determinism vs. OH NO QUANTUM MECHANICS INDICATES THAT FATE IS DICTATED BY RANDOM SUBATOMIC EVENTS is a thorny issue that would probably derail us here. My point was that Christianity seems to have worked out pretty well for Europe, and then you seemed to indicate it didn't count due to a lack of choice. What I want to hear from you is how Christianity retarded the progress of the furthest progressed part of the planet.

Don't underestimate the doctrinal diversity of Christianity.
Might the choices also be pre-determined?
I, personally, don't think the Arian controversy is a big theological deal. I don't know how different things would have been, but I tend to think the impact of things like that council are overstated and it is only our desire for simplicity that we place such importance on them.
Can't say, but I'd lean toward smaller than is usually stated.

How do we define theological superiority? But like I said, I don't have any real beef with Arians, Monophysites, Hussites and so on. I've certainly got areas in which I differ with Catholic dogma (as I suspect most Catholics do), but I think the more important aspect of it was its organization.
If only a butterfly hadn't flapped its wings in China hundreds of years ago!



Considering the massive slaughter that took place in the 20th century without religious backing (called the (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm) Hemoclysm by Matthew White)

If Europe had "arrested development" I say give me all the arrested development you have!
I don't see what industry has to do with the Church, but a lot of the most important figures in it were "dissenters" (the source of today's fundies) from the Anglican Church. But I bet (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html) Thomas Woods and (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400062284/qid=1115906131/sr=8-4/ref=pd_csp_4/002-6746189-3068009?n=283155) Rodney Stark would love to love to enlighten you further. So, if the continent where Christianity had the greatest impact was also where the Industrial Revolution began, how do you conclude that it would have occurred sooner in its abscence?

Gingerbread Man on 19/4/2006 at 01:58

---

It's a disease carried by those who never learned how to debate properly. Usually one would listen to a viewpoint, craft a comprehensive rebuttal that was readable in itself rather than a collection of talking-points and contradiction at the point-by-point level, then sit back and await the next round.

But no. We have become three-second attention-span boobs who worship the sound bite and the itemised counter-argument.

As in most things, I blame the Internet. Because the alternative is too sinister to be suggested.

Wyclef on 19/4/2006 at 15:42

---

no no u wrong no u r wrong
:mad:
haha boobs get out