ZZZzzz said: I agree, but what I'm trying to pin down is why the ID critics here seem to think that Buddhism refutes your claim. When I ask them what their point is they say to ask you. So, I'm asking you. What does Buddhism have to do with ID? Maybe you understand the point they are trying to make even if you disagree with it. I don't get it at all.
They are just being argumentative, and trying to find a flaw in my comments about ID being non denominational, which it is. The whole Buddhist diversion is just that, a diversion. Unless they are actually Buddhists practicing Buddhism or have practiced it for a long period time, have studied the philosophy deeply, they don't really know what Buddhists think, or believe, or experience. You can see how deeply confused, agitated and emotional stu becomes at the discussion of eastern philosophy that he doesn't like and/or doesn't agree with....or more than likely doesn't have the capacity to understand conceptually. Not all Buddhists think exactly alike either, there are different opinions. Not all Buddhists, if any, actually treat the Dali Llama like some Catholics treat the Pope. If someone is following the teachings of Lord Buddha and on the path that Lord Buddha is reported to have spoken of, then (and I am not so sure that we are seeing the real teaching of Buddha in practice, just like I am not sure we see the teaching of Jesus Christ followed in practice) they are a Buddhist. Who from the outside can truly say who is on what internal spiritual path? Only Lord Buddha would know who is really following the path he prescribed for liberation. People nearly always get lost in the dogma and formality of the words of a great spiritual leader after that leader passes, as the leader spoke in their native language to their audience at that time, which remains as words that have been translated and retranslated who knows how many times, as the followers are lacking in the direct experiences of the type of Enlightenment that the Liberated ones embodied. So they act as they think a Liberated one would act, but it becomes and remains an act, rather than a reality. They can't even put in their own words what Buddhism is, so we see they just go to a website and cut and paste. They can't argue the philosophy, as they don't understand it. Getting back to the diversion, what is really funny, is that if you go to a dictionary and do bother to look up non denominational you would find that ID certainly is non denominational as I have defined ID: non-denominational ⢠adjective open or acceptable to people of any Christian denomination. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/nondenominational?view=uk Many here appear to be confused about ID, as I define it, as one non a Christian defines it. They resent the terminology of ignorant chance being used to explain evolutionary theory/big bang theory, but that is exactly what the theory of non ID is. A theory of non intelligent chance happenings resulting in the Universe and life itself. If they want to believe it, fine by me, but I don't see the spirit of fairness in prohibiting students from being exposed to an opposite concept of ID in schools. If the so called science supports are so supremely confident in their position, I would think they would be bursting to have children exposed to ID, so that they could counter ID with their "scientific" theories and be done with it. A child is much stronger in their belief systems when they have had a chance to see both sides, and be convinced reasonably what side is more "reasonable." Why they fear this process of education, of healthy debate, of addressing what is in their minds already (as the world and the universe does in fact appear designed) is beyond me... I suspect that they are a lot like the Catholic Church, who steeped in their own dogma and power, control over the people, feared anything that might possibly reduce their power. You have posted some good articles that demonstrate how things are slowly changing, and I would hope that one day we can see even more level headed people willing to allow students to graduate from the public schools learning how to think...NOT WHAT TO THINK.
As a rule of thumb, if you can see the face of Christ in everyone, you are a "Christian" on the path. This is a milestone along the path. This is what it means to "see", as in, "the blind shall see". These are the eyes of Christ. He sees beyond bodies something more beautiful. See but once, and that is all you would want to see. The world means nothing after that. From this sight, miracles follow. Miracles are lamps that light the path back home. Just some guidelines. Jesus
Yes, anything that can be said about God can be said about Gilbert. It is Gilbert + 1 we are concerned about. I don't use fear to undo fear, so I don't pull that card. Those who do don't know me. I'm saying "Gilbert + 1" is an idea that generates fear, the kind that gave birth to this universe. All that idea stands for is exemplified here...which is nowhere. What anyone knows of God in this universe is Gilbert + 1. It is Gilbert + 1 that you are reacting to whenever you hear the word "God" and feel a need to deny his existence. The way out is through fearlessness. Realize that all fear is illegitimate and without foundation. The task of God's teachers is to bring a truthful message without raising already high levels of fear. What reduces fear is something worth considering. Jesus
Here is the real irony. I say that ID is non denominational, not part of any religion's particular branches. They bring up Buddhism, in which a belief in God is not required for the modern day practice of Buddhism, nor is union with God the goal of Buddhism as it is now understood today. In fact, there are many sects of Hinduism (of which Buddhism is actually a branch of) that consider the practice of Buddhism as it is practiced today (Many Hindus believe that Lord Buddha was an incarnation of God who came to teach compassion during a time in which animal sacrifice was popular) a form of atheism from their perspective. So, if something in practice is atheism, i.e. not holding a belief in God, then it could not in any way be a denomination of a religion. ID simply is not denominational in nature, and as as argued earlier, the belief in the laws of Karma, cause and effect indicate a belief not in ignorant chance, but in intelligent design. So Buddhism if someone is thinking clearly, based on current beliefs and practices is not a religion, as it is atheism. That is, unless like the Supreme Court has done (for the purpose of protecting Atheists), you classify atheism as a religion...so that makes Buddhism a religion of Atheists. Sort of like what we see in this thread by the followers of Atheism religion...a religion of Atheists in the name of science...
As I said above, you have made yourself to look the idiot many times here, but perhaps never so fully as this. Most Wheaties-box philosophers like you think that karma means 'what will happen to you if you do something bad', as in 'that's bad karma'. In fact, the actual meaning of the word is based in the Sanskrit word 'kri' - literally, to do. In the words of Vivekananda... ------------------------------------------------------------ "...we have simply to do with the word Karma, meaning work. The goal of mankind is knowledge. All knowledge that the world has ever received comes from the mind; the infinite library of the universe is in your own mind. In many cases [knowledge] is not discovered but remains covered, and when the covering is slowly taken off, we say 'We are learning', and the advance of knowledge is made by this process of uncovering. Like fire in a piece of flint, knowledge exists in the mind; suggestion is the friction that brings them out. So with all our feelings and actions - our tears and our smiles, our joys and our griefs, our weeping and our laughter, our curses and our blessings, our praises and our blames [Z ARE YOU LISTENING??] - every one of these we may find, if we study ourselves, to have been brought out from within by so many blows. The result is what we are. All these blows taken together are called Karma - work, action. Every mental and physical blow, by which, as it were, fire is struck from it, and by which its own power and knowledge are discovered, is Karma... thus we are all doing Karma all the time. I am talking to you: that is Karma. You are listening: that is Karma. We walk: Karma. Everything we do, physical or mental, is Karma." (From 'Karma Yoga: The Yoga of Action' Swami Vivekananda Advaita Ashrama Press ISBN 81-85301-89-1 And no Z... you're not going to find this one doing a Google search, which is apparently where you get most of the material you then represent as your views.) --------------------------------------------------- So please, you disgusting fraud, don't pretend to hold forth on subjects about which you clearly know nothing. Yes, I know, that's your stock in trade, but we are simply asking you to try a bit harder.
I hereby challenge anyone who is arguing from the side of ID/Creation to come on here and explain what this semantic mess means. I read it 10 times and I cannot figure out what the troll is trying to say or how he gets from one sentence to the next. In fact, I defy anyone from either side to post here and give me an analysis of this paragraph, and especially that last sentence. Where did we establish the Buddhism, 'based on current beliefs and practices', is not a religion?? I was under the impression that Buddhism is a religion. Please see the post above for the full (garbled) text.
This is as accurate as saying, there are many sects of Judaism, of which Christianity is actually a branch of.