Monday, June 06, 2005

Religion II

in·fi·del ( P ) (nf-dl, -dl)n.
An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
One who has no religious beliefs.
One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

Eat your words.

Bud·dhism ( P ) (bdzm, bdz-)n.
The teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth.
The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.

In my previous post, I did not say that Buddhism had a god, I said it was a religion, I was correct in my statement.

Just to clarify so I don't get a bunch of accusations and what not:

re·li·gion ( P ) (r-ljn)n.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


By definition, thats what religion is. Now leave me alone.

Just so you know, my blog is for my opinions, and opinions are not judged on right and wrong, or correct and incorrect if you prefer.

p.s. Yes, I like the name "Buddhism" but I chose it because I like their beliefs.
Posted by at

1 comment:

A_Shadow said...

And much the same as I said to your friend, which words would you like me to eat?

You called yourself an infidel because of your view of this: "By defintion an infidel is someone who respects your religion, but doesn't believe in it, or at least parts of it."

So whose words need be eaten? I didn't put forth any flawed definitions, I put forth a potentially flawed statment that I haven't seen Protestants and Catholics use the word against each other. And as of yet, I have never heard or seen reference of a Catholic (or a protestant) calling one another an "Infidel".

Your section would more appropriately be "One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle." You never claimed to be an all out unbeliever, you just had some difficulties with the majorities at large.

And once again I am brought back to the comment that I made to Rich, your friend. I never claimed that Buddhism had a God, or anything of that manner. Perhaps this reposting of my words can refresh your memory?

"I believe that any religion that is widely practiced in the world right now (excluding Wiccanism, Satanism and Hinduism that I can think of immediately) have basely similar teachings. I don't really care what you believe about God or what you call him so much that you do believe in a benevolent higher power. From that common point it is easier to deal with other things.

It is my personal belief from my own endeavors to this end that my experience and knowledge hasn't come up with a reason why Buddhism/Christianity/Islaam have to be mutually exclusive. That's based off of reading at least SOME scripture of each."

I especially like these key words from that above section: "I don't really care what you believe about God or what you call him so much that you do believe in a benevolent higher power." Note the emboldened part. Benevolent higher power. That's rather open to interpretation. You could argue that "right conduct" would be a benevolent power, couldn't you? Just in case here's the defination of Benevolent:

be·nev·o·lent
Pronunciation Key (b-nv-lnt)
adj.

1. Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.
2. Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

Yep, it kinda sorta looks that way to me, who about you guys?

Finally I'd like to address your comments about opinions. An opinion in and of itself isn't a statement of fact, that is correct, but you are trying to enforce your opinions with facts. You're towing a line with religious claims that don't deal with opinions, but facts. Whether you believe in God or not is your opinion. What a particular set of scriptures says about the fella, or whether or not he actually exists is dealing with Absolutes. With facts.

I didn't come down to harry your opinions as they were. I gave you something else to consider. And you took a particularly predictable stance of feeling persecuted and that I was attacking your opinions. It is my opinion that not liking the word "God" because it's the reverse of "Dog" is a stupid reason to believe something. Lol, that's just it. I came to the defence of my opinion of that by countering some of your evidence.

Opinions can be judged right and wrong. But not FOR you. They need be done FROM you. Your opinion that dogs are altogether disgusting and unclean is rather one sided. Like most of what you had said and continue to say.

Don't get uppity with me because I gave you a different perspective. After all, that would be almost American. Heaven forbid it.

I issued forth my OPINION that Islam/Buddhism/Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I issued forth my experience that dogs are not altogether unclean or savage creatures. Sure, you let one play in the mud, and he won't be clean anymore, that's obvious. You and your friend never did anything to negate or abate those comments. Instead attacking some fictitious commenting of mine that Buddhists believed in a "God" and that I was a typical Christian American.

Now, if you are reading this first, you should read my last comment to your friend having to do with "playing nice", etc.

You'll get to it either way.

So if you actually wanted to have a conversation about what was said, try addressing the reasons why things do or don't appeal to you, or why you feel that "God" should be genderless or nameless.

10:36 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)