What religion and age are you? - Page 5 - Simply Maya User Community

# 61 25-09-2006 , 01:36 PM

Acid44

Guest

Posts: n/a

hhhhhmmmmm....

who would of thought that a simple thread could get into such deep conversation.... user added image

Quote

# 62 25-09-2006 , 04:16 PM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 16

The Architect, is your reply serious?
I'm not the person to tell tall stories about a subject like this. It's not about martial arts vs. Iowa class battleships. We don't live in a Kungfu television world. Although the western youth might have come to believe so. It's not about martial arts at all. Zen monks in general don't practice martial arts.

Quote

# 63 25-09-2006 , 05:45 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Denmark

Posts: 154

I have been in Numerous, and that's MANY religion debates, and they always go long, as long there is people who want to give there meaning.

Faith cannot be discussed!

That's not a fact. That's just how it is.

(__/)
(='.'=) This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination

Quote

# 64 25-09-2006 , 06:18 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: /dev/null

Posts: 891

Andreazz, I did not mean to offend, but since you mentioned in your previous post:

'There is however another example you might have used. During WWII several Japanese Zen monks used their skills to kill the enemy more effectively'

I got a bit confused. How else can these people have used thier skills to 'kill the enemy more effectively', when what they were supposed to do is to better the world? I have to say that certain... 'orders' of monks through history have taken up warfare, several using martial arts (not what you see on tv - martial arts in real life is not Bruce Lee).

What I meant to express by comparing these monks to Iowa battleships is to say that they could have never been effective against the Allies.

Further more there is the question of the Japan's offical religion in WW2. I believe it was Shinto and I don't believe any other was tolerated or even legal. I'm no expert on this however.

Quote

# 65 25-09-2006 , 11:58 PM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 16

Sorry Architect, your reply seemed a bit weird to me. Mainly because I was concentrating on the moral aspect of the thing and not on the historical details. I would have to look them up. The well known vietnamese Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh has mentioned it in one of his many books, as has the Japanese Buddhist scholar Kogen Mizuno.
But I don't think the details are that important. Are you American? If so I'd like to say that a large part of the Japanese war effort was directed at other countries. America and its western allies were not the only ones at war in these parts of the world as you seem to presume. I think I remember that these monks were active in China at the time. Other details escape me now.
Official state religion was Shinto that is true, but the Japanese never had much problems with Buddhism because of its peacefull and non-political nature. Christianity however was banned many times in Japans history because Christians always have used religion to further political and militairy goals (you might compare it to political Islam these days). That is why the Dutch were given special privileges. They did not mask their hunger for money with religion and did not care about the politics. The Spanish and Portugese clergy were always meddling in Japans inner affairs.

Grev_Mivlos I agree that many traps await us in the discussion of faith. But when carefull it can be done. It depends upon the nature of the debate. I'm always prepared to question my own convictions, whatever the cost to me personally. If the other is prepared to do the same beautiful things can happen. The discussion becomes not a struggle for dominance, but a mutual search for truth. I've had some very positive experiences with debates about faith.
But anyhow, Architect and I were not realy discussing faith. I do enjoy this talk however.
I actually expect the moderator to close this thread any time as it seems rather out of place on this forum.

Quote

# 66 26-09-2006 , 12:27 AM

Moderator
Join Date: May 2005

Location: Manchester Uk

Posts: 6,300

Originally posted by kbrown
Moderator notifies: These kinds of topics often tend to get out of control so keep it clean or I'll delete the whole thread.

Originally Posted by

Please note the above guys....

Quote

# 67 26-09-2006 , 12:55 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005

Location: Brooklyn, NY

Posts: 3,708

Ha ha - martial arts monks! And thich Nhat Hanh no less! I was wondering when this thread would get going.

Architect - you seem to assume that force is the only way to defeat an enemy. My understanding is that the buddhist monks set themselves on fire because they did not want to be forced into taking sides. They did it is as an act of protest against violence on all sides. To compare their act to other acts of violence just makes no sense. You should be allowed to do whatever you want to your own body. I don't necessarily agree that setting yourself on fire was the best approach, but as a statement against violence it seems to have been very effective - here we are still discussing it.

Just because someone uses violence in the name of religion does not alter the teachings of that religion or make all those who follow that religion violent. It just means that they should probably reconsider their relationship to their faith. That goes for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, whatever, irrespective of their flaws, so saying 'Ha! here are some violent monks' is pointless. They don't represent their faith and neither do any other religious extremists.

arran3D

arran3D blog

Last edited by arran; 26-09-2006 at 12:57 AM.

Quote

# 68 26-09-2006 , 01:53 AM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 16

Arran,
I agree, That is exactly why I focused on the gods themselves not on the the followers.

Quote:
"All this however is quite different from a Christian or Muslim god that kills and destroys, maims and murders in person as an example to his believers. With a god like that who could blame the followers."

With the great monotheistic religions the violence seems to be rooted in the gods that are worshipped. Gods that demand blood or torture in exchange for salvation or maintain an eternel hell must be considered a very bad example.

If a god spoke to you and said: "Well, I can save you, but I'll have to torture and nail someone else to a cross to do so" would you accept? Would that be acceptable to any moral person? I just can't see how that could be considered a good thing, a beautiful thing.

My point is you can find numerous examples of atrocities committed by the god of the book which are judged as a good thing because it is this god that commits them. Every godly act, no matter how depraved, is considered to be good by his followers. If you judge otherwise than you are blasphemous and eternal torture in hell awaits. You are forbidden to judge a god immoral. I know. It happened to me. It was said to me.

In Buddhism however you will find nothing like this. That is what really surprised me at the beginning of my journey. The tripitaka (Buddhist scriptures) will never in thousands of pages give you any religious, Buddhist oriented excuse for violence and war (or murder on any scale) like the monotheistic scriptures do all the time.

Those Japanese Zen monks never killed in the name of Buddhism. There are simply no such questionable excuses build in to Buddhist religion at all.

gster123,
I know what the moderater said, but I believe we are behaving quite civil. Don't we?

Last edited by Andreazz; 26-09-2006 at 01:57 AM.

Quote

# 69 26-09-2006 , 02:12 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005

Location: Brooklyn, NY

Posts: 3,708

oh, I didn't mean to sound like I was excusing each religion for it's faults. Any god that allows someone to prosper while another suffers isn't worth worshipping. A lot of successful people will thank their god for their good fortune, while babies starve elsewhere, as if it had something to do with faith. I am not interested in worshipping something that needs me to believe in it to get into it's club.

Just like the apple and the garden of eden - I mean has he got nothing better to do?! And big surprise, guess who gets the blame...

arran3D

arran3D blog

Quote

# 70 26-09-2006 , 02:37 AM

Moderator
Join Date: May 2005

Location: Manchester Uk

Posts: 6,300

Originally posted by Andreazz

gster123,
I know what the moderater said, but I believe we are behaving quite civil. Don't we?

Originally Posted by

Yep you are to me, Just thought I'd point it out just incase it went a bit off the rails.

Quote

# 71 26-09-2006 , 02:52 AM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 16

Thanks Qster123. I'll behave.
Arran I do agree. But it took me some time to get to that point in my life. And it still feels as a loss somehow.

Quote

# 72 26-09-2006 , 02:58 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Denmark

Posts: 154

Grev_Mivlos I agree that many traps await us in the discussion of faith. But when carefull it can be done. It depends upon the nature of the debate. I'm always prepared to question my own convictions, whatever the cost to me personally. If the other is prepared to do the same beautiful things can happen. The discussion becomes not a struggle for dominance, but a mutual search for truth. I've had some very positive experiences with debates about faith.
But anyhow, Architect and I were not realy discussing faith. I do enjoy this talk however.
I actually expect the moderator to close this thread any time as it seems rather out of place on this forum. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree that beautiful things can happen i faith debates, but it can very easy and very fast become very ugly. I have seen more ugly debates that good i reckon.

It just takes one post to go like " haha your all ****ed" (what ever)
And the entire debate goes nuts.
But so far it has been very interesting

(__/)
(='.'=) This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination

Quote

# 73 26-09-2006 , 06:33 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 11

none of you being Japanese or Asian really have the slightest clue what you are really talking about, i know because i am married to a Japanese for eight years , and also lived in Asia for 6 years and i still don't understand them and could go into more depth why it is not possible to see through another's eyes but that should be obvious anyway, as a matter of fact i understand them or any other culture (be it western or whatever) less, the more i understand them , for that matter..?? but Asian, well that i am not.., we are all brain washed by our particular social religious institutions whether we subscribe to another such as Taoism, Buddhism, or Krishna or not. (remember Waco)

Asian beliefs may look quaint and peaceful but they are no less peaceful than our own socially instituted religious organizations. Asians are scared of spirits and are constantly giving them offerings to appease them, not thank them. Buddhists in Vietnam are different from those in Japan where the central belief whether it is not obvious or not is still the pagan 'Shinto' carefully clothed in Christianity or Buddhism. Death and life exist on the same,e plain there, hence the ritual of seppeku, take a sunny day, a good look at a beautiful sky or a falling cherry blossom and cut your guts out.

In japan Buddhists fought Buddhists, Buddhists fought Christians and Christians fought Christians; which pretty much reflects the present day situation that religion is politics (and Buddha, Jesus,, Lao Tzu, Mohammad, Confucius, ect would all agree, i think that politics was the singular reason a lot of these 'religions got up and running, the reason .., to tread on others for the sake of power via 'divine b... s...; as the premium belief that 'I' am above all others and so 'i' can do what i want to anyone) other than that we have a book known as the bible that has some nice stories in it but as Lao Tzu said, 'the religion (actually he said 'word' but means the same) that can be spoken is not the true religion' meaning all words are arbitrary and depend on influences such as culture and association, all is an informant or a metaphor and hence all is only one's point of view.

having said that, i believe in right and wrong, not good and bad and am very conscientious about it .., whether it is Asian or Western, it matters little.

well back to the broken part of broken hill,, just call me 'bill the dill.' from broken hill!

my names billy

Quote