Christians VS. Buddist

[adamkadmon 0]

If your were going to stake someone and your two choices were identical in every way, would you pick a buddist or a christian, and the christian wouldn't be protistant?

[ivan 0]

:DA very strange question! The short answer is I wouldn't stake anybody, but at least Buddhism is based on rational, systematic self-observation and makes no demands that articles of faith be accepted. The Buddhist practitioner meditates to magnify his/her awareness of pre-existing conditions within the self which are the cause of suffering and the stark separation from reality. Buddhism is not exactly a religion nor is it merely a philosophy. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

[oldadmin 0]

Thank you for posting this in the appropriate category

[Munky 0]

I'd stake Dracula...I'm against intolerance towards Religion so killing anyone for their Religion would seem kind of... Adolf Hitlerish to me.

[ivan 0]

[Metaphysician 0]

Never the buddhist. Buddhism isn't much of a "religion." And it's an extremely poor excuse for a philosophy. The buddhist reminds me of the logical positivist and the postmodernist in that his beliefs, whatever they turn out to be, tend to be completely inconsistent. Were it not for the many moral and practical virtues buddhism possesses it would be of no interest.Almost never the Christian. Because of a complete lack of understanding of what "faith" means in the Bible, like Ivan above most Christians think faith is an unreasoned leap in the dark outside of all evidence. And they live their lives like this. This does not encourage a person in developing his reasoning abilities. Few Christians rise above this, but things are changing for the better it seems. Can I be sorry that I'm NOT sorry if I offend someone?I'm an equal opportunity offender.I merely say what I believe is true, everyone should do the same. If you think I'm wrong, refute me. I'll be glad to consider your arguments.

[ivan 0]

Buddhism isn't much of a "religion."

Quite right. Buddhism is not exactly a religion, although instrumentally it is often approached as a religion, mainly by rural peoples in need of devotional rituals and the like.

And it's an extremely poor excuse for a philosophy. The buddhist reminds me of the logical positivist and the postmodernist in that his beliefs, whatever they turn out to be, tend to be completely inconsistent.

A rather strange comment. The logical postivist and post-modern approaches to language are practically opposites of one another. Would you please elaborate on precisely what you mean, for our benefit? Inconsistent how, or with what?

Were it not for the many moral and practical virtues buddhism possesses it would be of no interest.

This is completely irrelevant to the relative value, or lack thereof, of Buddhism.

Because of a complete lack of understanding of what "faith" means in the Bible, like Ivan above most Christians think faith is an unreasoned leap in the dark outside of all evidence.

Another curious statement. I think it is quite clear, however, what it means to accept something on faith. Did he say "evidence"?LOL! I will gleefully await your reply.

[Metaphysician 0]

A rather strange comment. The logical postivist and post-modern approaches to language are practically opposites of one another. Would you please elaborate on precisely what you mean, for our benefit? Inconsistent how, or with what?

I wasn't speaking of the respective approaches to language of the logical positivist or the postmodernist. Merely that I think Buddhism tends to be internally inconsistent in the same manner that both of these are. Many Buddhist ideas are logically contradictory. I realize that there is a subtlety in Buddhist thought. I also realize that Buddhism can't be put in a box. I'm speaking generally. Logical Positivism failed because it could not live up to it's own axioms. Postmodernism fails because it makes claims and denies their truth at the same time. Buddhism is, in this respect, more like postmodernism.

This is completely irrelevant to the relative value, or lack thereof, of Buddhism.

I didn't claim it was.

Another curious statement. I think it is quite clear, however, what it means to accept something on faith.

It's quite clear, assuming you're speaking english, in the 21st century in a western culture. The Bible was written from the perspective of an eastern culture at a much earlier time in history. But it will suffice to say this: The greek term for faith in the new testament is "pistis" and was used as a technical term for forensic proof. You see this stance especially in the preaching of Paul, who was very much concerned with mentioning how many people had been witnesses to certain things, as evidence that they actually occured. So you misunderstand the notion of faith, at least in relation to the Christian religion.

Did he say "evidence"?LOL!I will gleefully await your reply.

Ever the dialectician.

[JustinHEMI04 0]

I buddhist would win in a fight.

[ivan 0]

Merely that I think Buddhism tends to be internally inconsistent in the same manner that both of these are.

I am still waiting for you to elaborate on where you find these "inconsistencies" in Buddhism.

Postmodernism fails because it makes claims and denies their truth at the same time.

This can be true, but postmodernism hasn't failed, whatever that means; yet certainly extreme forms of close reading, deconstructionist reading and contextualization go too far and into the realm of asurdities. This in no way negates the utility of close reading, contextualization or deconstruction. :roll:

[Metaphysician 0]

Buddhists reject western logic more often than not. This is where the inconsistency comes in. It's impossible to be consistent while saying P is P and not P, etc. Postmodernism fails with respect to logic because it violates the law of noncontradiction.In this way postmodernism has failed, given that its central doctrines backfire, even if nobody has accepted it yet.Deconstruction I disagree with, but it may not be contradictory.Again, you have the last word. Make it good.

[ivan 0]

Buddhists reject western logic more often than not. This is where the inconsistency comes in. It's impossible to be consistent while saying P is P and not P, etc.

Huh? How and where does Buddhism reject Western Logic? What are you talking about?

Postmodernism fails with respect to logic because it violates the law of noncontradiction.  

"It." What is this it? Postmodernism is a development in ways of reading texts, that honours various contexts, e.g., historical, economic, political, psychological, etc. I think you've read something about "post-modernism" that you don't fully understand. Where some postmodernists -- I could name names -- insist that the axiom "there are no absolutes", for one example, is true absolutely is an instance where your criticism is appropriate and warranted. But to assert, as you do, that all postmodernists do this, or that this axiomatic contradiction is intrinsic to postmodernism, is entirely untrue.

In this way postmodernism has failed, given that its central doctrines backfire, even if nobody has accepted it yet.

Hogwash. You can't have written this and know anything about post-modernism. Please identify for us these "central doctrines". :roll:

Deconstruction I disagree with, but it may not be contradictory.

What does it mean to say you disagree with deconstruction? Do you also disagree with close reading and the entire school of Poetics?

Again, you have the last word.

I don't want the last word. I want some clarification as to what the hell you're going on about.

[314HxC 0]

I was going to post a long reply about my views on this topic because although I am not religious, I have always been fascinated with religion and the influence it holds over people. I studied Religions in college and I learned one thing. On the topic of theism, nobody has any idea what they are talking about.

[ivan 0]

I was going to post a long reply about my views on this topic because although I am not religious, I have always been fascinated with religion and the influence it holds over people. I studied Religions in college and I learned one thing. On the topic of theism, nobody has any idea what they are talking about.

I'm not so sure about that. It's true that you cannot logically prove a negative, so disproving god's existence is pretty much out of the question, and the claim that god exists is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional proofs, and all biblical arguments for god's existence only beg the question, but arguments for god's existence can be made by some, and they can also be examined, and torn apart by others, like me for instance. I don't think it's fair to say that nobody knows what they are talking about. I certainly have a pretty good idea of where I am coming from. Maybe I misread your post, and what you are really trying to say is that no one can know for sure whether god exists or not, ergo "nobody has any idea...".

[314HxC 0]

You hit it with your last line.You fill a room with christians, buddhists, muslims, atheists, jews etc. etc everyone is sure that they are right while everyone else is sure they are wrong.

[ivan 0]

You fill a room with christians, buddhists, muslims, atheists, jews etc. etc everyone is sure that they are right while everyone else is sure they are wrong.

Perhaps, except I'd leave Buddhists out of it. Buddhism isn't about accepting articles of faith, and isn't, in fact, actually a religion.Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have a great deal in common; it would be nice to see alot more interfaith activity between them.

[rkard 0]

I'm putting all my money on Ivan.

[rxq 0]

How about God is a superior being with a extreme intellect, who knows everything and nothing. We as humans will never understand nothing, just some things. So we can never understand or know God, we can only appreciate him, and any clue to what or who he is, is clueless.

[ivan 0]

How about God is a superior being with a extreme intellect, who knows everything and nothing. We as humans will never understand nothing, just some things. So we can never understand or know God, we can only appreciate him, and any clue to what or who he is, is clueless.

Well, that's a nice belief, and you have every right to believe this, but it's still just that -- a belief.

[HoldemHero11 0]

Very very interesting question here.Well, I am a Christian that regularly attends a Presbyterian church, and I love it and believe in it in every way possible. While I would never stake anybody, it is my personal belief that if I had to I wouldn't base my decision on religion. I'd like flip a coin or something, some other reason to base that decision. Killing based on religion is too Stalin/Hitlerish for me. But I guess if I absolutely had to base my choice on religion, I'd stake the Buddhist.

[rxq 0]

How about God is a superior being with a extreme intellect, who knows everything and nothing. We as humans will never understand nothing, just some things. So we can never understand or know God, we can only appreciate him, and any clue to what or who he is, is clueless.

Well, that's a nice belief, and you have every right to believe this, but it's still just that -- a belief.

I thought there might be a name for that type of belief, like, neo-modern existential nihilistic positivisms. You know, things can be discussed without calling things name.Back to the question. Without trying to sound like a racist. There are a lot of oriental poker players that do well, who’s belief system has an Buddhist undertone. So I would go for neither, I would go with the Nihilistic existentialist. He has nothing to lose.