OK, I kinda sorta tried to at least skim this thread, but I got stuck right about here.
On religion, I'd say a lot of stuff gets blamed on religion. People are pretty good at finding ways to interpret religion in pretty extreme ways to so it backs them. I guess it's easier to do things if you're doing it "for God" so to speak? Somehow it makes you more right?
There's a little think called personal accountability here. It's not the religion making people do stupid things, it's the stupid people dragging religion along for the ride when they do stupid things. If there was no religion I submit that the world would still be full of stupid, crazy, and desperate people who would still find some way to justify the stupid/crazy/desperate things they aim to do.
I'm well aware of that, but I wasn't interested in an argument about Mike.
I chose instead to take what Mike said initially and provide an alternate view of the situation, thus hopefully laying some groundwork to turn a thread full of needless Noobity-flaming into a more interesting intellectual debate.
There is occasionally a method to my madness. It's not always just me posting while half-asleep at 1am. Er, wait. When did I post that? Crap. Um, these are not the droids you are looking for!
Yeah, I don't see how one guy setting himself on fire can really be used as an indictment against his religion. If we had regular reports of people from a particular religion setting themselves on fire then it might be different, but a sample size of one is always too small to generate any meaningful conclusions.
The real problems with Buddhism is the concept of karma, and the implication that comes with it that the rich are rich and the poor are poor because they deserve to be due to their actions in this life or a previous one, and when an injustice is done it will be corrected by the universe itself so regular people shouldn't bother trying to fix things.
Then again subservience and acceptance of the social order are pretty much the hallmarks of every religion that's managed to gain any significant amount of traction, and when all is said and done Buddhism is less harmful than quite a few other religions you could name. We'd still be better off with none at all, though.
The real problems with Buddhism is the concept of karma, and the implication that comes with it that the rich are rich and the poor are poor because they deserve to be due to their actions in this life or a previous one, and when an injustice is done it will be corrected by the universe itself so regular people shouldn't bother trying to fix things.
I thought always it was more along the lines of, the people who spread happiness, joy, and kindness will receive it and the people who spread hate, anger, ect will receive it because of there actions. And I’m not sure but I thought many Buddhist monks live there lives in poverty, I don't know.
The problem is there are literally hundreds of competing Buddhist schools of thought. What DI is describing is true of Buddhist groups that originated out of India and share characteristics with the Hindu traditions they grew out of - Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism is probably the most famous of these, and is most prominent in Europe and North America as well because of the Tibet occupation. But most Buddhists are Mahayana Buddhists, which heavily deemphasizes the cycle of rebirth and is more concerned with temporal karma and living. This mostly practiced in China, Japan, Vietnam, and a few other places, and is based on the Lotus Sutra.
There is also Therevada Buddhism, mostly practiced in Southeast Asia, but I've already rambled enough.
I thought always it was more along the lines of, the people who spread happiness, joy, and kindness will receive it and the people who spread hate, anger, ect will receive it because of there actions. And I’m not sure but I thought many Buddhist monks live there lives in poverty, I don't know.
Except that the inevitable implication of this is that people who receive happiness, joy and kindness do so because they spread it in the past, whether in the current life or a previous one. Same goes for the people who receive hate, anger, etc. It carries the message that those with power and privilage beyond their neighbours deserve that power and privilage; that the status quo is fundamentally just and should not be upset.
The problem is there are literally hundreds of competing Buddhist schools of thought. What DI is describing is true of Buddhist groups that originated out of India and share characteristics with the Hindu traditions they grew out of - Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism is probably the most famous of these, and is most prominent in Europe and North America as well because of the Tibet occupation. But most Buddhists are Mahayana Buddhists, which heavily deemphasizes the cycle of rebirth and is more concerned with temporal karma and living. This mostly practiced in China, Japan, Vietnam, and a few other places, and is based on the Lotus Sutra.
There is also Therevada Buddhism, mostly practiced in Southeast Asia, but I've already rambled enough.
Comments
OK, I kinda sorta tried to at least skim this thread, but I got stuck right about here.
On religion, I'd say a lot of stuff gets blamed on religion. People are pretty good at finding ways to interpret religion in pretty extreme ways to so it backs them. I guess it's easier to do things if you're doing it "for God" so to speak? Somehow it makes you more right?
There's a little think called personal accountability here. It's not the religion making people do stupid things, it's the stupid people dragging religion along for the ride when they do stupid things. If there was no religion I submit that the world would still be full of stupid, crazy, and desperate people who would still find some way to justify the stupid/crazy/desperate things they aim to do.
I chose instead to take what Mike said initially and provide an alternate view of the situation, thus hopefully laying some groundwork to turn a thread full of needless Noobity-flaming into a more interesting intellectual debate.
There is occasionally a method to my madness. It's not always just me posting while half-asleep at 1am. Er, wait. When did I post that? Crap. Um, these are not the droids you are looking for!
The real problems with Buddhism is the concept of karma, and the implication that comes with it that the rich are rich and the poor are poor because they deserve to be due to their actions in this life or a previous one, and when an injustice is done it will be corrected by the universe itself so regular people shouldn't bother trying to fix things.
Then again subservience and acceptance of the social order are pretty much the hallmarks of every religion that's managed to gain any significant amount of traction, and when all is said and done Buddhism is less harmful than quite a few other religions you could name. We'd still be better off with none at all, though.
I thought always it was more along the lines of, the people who spread happiness, joy, and kindness will receive it and the people who spread hate, anger, ect will receive it because of there actions. And I’m not sure but I thought many Buddhist monks live there lives in poverty, I don't know.
There is also Therevada Buddhism, mostly practiced in Southeast Asia, but I've already rambled enough.
I love you.
Asshole.