ne problem with the Buddhist worldview that the Dalai Lama proclaims is that he has no justification for ethics or any other components of a coherent worldview. Buddhists do not hold to a personal and absolute being such as the Christian God. This means that there is no ultimate moral law giver. Upon what then does Dalai Lama derive morality? It is based upon arbitrary subjective choices. It is also an inductive fallacy, as no one can know how arbitrary morals can affect the whole social order over a long period of time. The historical, Calvinistic belief that the settlers held to was that man is naturally sinful and cannot generate 'goodness' within. It requires the work of the Christian Spirit. Furthermore, his idea of vague forgiveness is misguided. Forgiveness is always coupled with restitution of some sort. If a thief steals my car, we expect restitution. It is true one can overloop minor infractions, but restitution is the norm in a just social order.

CHG, I believe you're wrong on both your points--Buddhists DO believe in a higher power, but instead of a separate entity created in man's image, it's the oneness of all being.

While Judaism calls for restitution, Jesus called for unconditional love and forgiveness. Further he asked that we feed and cloth those who would steal from us.

Forgiveness is ALWAYS coupled with restitution of some sort? Wrong. Not in Christian cosmology; forgiveness is separate from any restitution. Moreover, since you cannot prove the bible is the inerrant word of God, you're guilty of your own inductive fallacy.

sbanbury,

They do not believe in an entity that is both absolute and personal. They hold to a vague, mystical higher power. Pure 'oneness' destroys rationality in logical law. That is, reality is composed of particulars and universals. Philosopher Kant expressed this quite well. All individual entities exist within categories and this conceptual perception is immaterial in nature. It exists as abstract and is a reality. This abstract law requires its source to come from such an entity as the Christian God; who is both personal and absolute in essence. Jesus is the God that is within Judaism. He is the prophesied Messiah that was to come as the 'Seed' prophecy in the Torah. He called for forgiveness, but He also emphasized restitution when He told the adulterous woman to go and 'sin no more'. He told us to ignore minor infractions as I stated in my response. At a much larger level, we are to expect restitution. This is what 'turn the other cheek' referred to. If we take your view to its logical conclusion, then we must release any thieves that are in jail for theft.

Packrat,

You have never debated the issue of the Bible being the word of God with me, so how do you know I can't prove that? Are you a prophet of future events of some sort? Secondly, what you consider 'proof' will only be the elements allowed within your worldview, i.e. empiricism, rationalism, or more likely, philosophical naturalism based upon your previous Flyer responses. This will limit what you consider 'proofs' to be filtered out.

CHG, the god-mind attained by a buddhist upon enlightenment is voluntarily forsaken to return to the world of suffering and delusion in order to pursue the liberation of yet more souls. The destruction of rationality that you refer to is the only the willingness to let go of all selfishness--including the tight grip of your sphincter.

Jesus din't ask the adulterer to pay restitution, only to sin no more.

chg, belief isn't proof, or truth. It's truthiness (sorry, SC). If you could prove it's the actual word of God, or that God even exists, or that YOUR God is the "true" god (your own Bible holds that there are other gods of other nations than the Israelites in its' oldest sections, then later contradicts itself), you'd be the first human being in history that could. what you hold is belief and faith, not proof. If you want to construct your own esoteric criteria (or cut and paste it) and then fulfill that criteria with some unredeemably lame "proof," then knock yourself out--it's nothing but an exercise in mental masturbatory apologetics. But you're the affiant here; I don't definitively KNOW it is or isn't the word of God, since you're the affiant, it's up to you to prove it. I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to disprove every bronze-age near-eastern cult belief system (especially one, such as yours, which is derived from many earlier near eastern religions).

Just curious...how many of you are currently posting from an opium den?

Packrat,
Who has ever proved the Bible to be wrong? Historians and scientist have tried but have yet to Prove that God doesnt exist or the Bible isnt the word of God. There is always someone throwing up that we have to prove God exist. Why dont you try prove that God doesnt exist!!!!!!
It is odd that this country was started by Christians that believe in the One True God, but you say that the God we believe in might not even exist. You are in for a surprize! Why dont you read and study the Bible and see what it says? You might even discover the One True God you dont believe in.

"They do not believe in an entity that is both absolute and personal. They hold to a vague, mystical higher power."

i'm sorry, but your god is just as much a vague, mystical higher power as the buddhist notion of the oneness of all being. how can we interpret anything different from an entity whose name cannot be spoken and likeness cannot be experienced.

also, the burden of proof falls on those who make a claim, not dissenters to that claim. simply because the founders of the united states believed in "one true god" (which is dubious, at best) does not make them correct or the basis for perpetuation of that belief in the present day. people once believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun was pulled across the sky by a chariot. historicity does not give any factual weight to a claim.

Well we can be pretty darn sure that the Book of Matthew wasn't written by Matthew, and the the book of Luke is actually based on the book of Mark but revised to suit the sensibility of the time in which it was written, which wasn't actually the time of Luke. And so on. We may presume from there that Paul's letters, like Luke's gospel, were crafted to further separate the actual words of Christ from notions that may not have been acceptable to his audience since his writing is occasionally at odds with certain aspects of Christ's teaching as presented in the previous gospels that weren't actually written by the Evangelists to which they are ascribed. So I think it's very safe to say that the Bible is an imperfect history of man by men ascribed to God by those who would wield power in His name.

The notion that this Country was started by Christians is as fallacious as the notion that this country was started by strict Diests or anything else. The Founder's relationship to God and Christianity is incredibly sophisticated. Far more so than "You CAIN'T PROVE NOTHING" which is truly obnoxious on both sides of the coin.

But the history of Christianity and the Bible as it has been used by men of power to justify war and oppression and personal gain is one that can't be easily dismissed, especially when we pretend to know the will of those who, like the Founders, are long dead and unable to iterate their actual intentions. And what God may actually demand has less to do with world history than what man ascribes to God in order to wield power and achieve personal desires.

The moment someone mentions God I assume they want something they can't get without running a Con. After all, in many ways, the idea of God as actually used by men, is the ultimate Spanish Prisoner scam. Send just a little more money and we can get him out of exile and make heaven on Earth. It's a lot like Government at its worst. Except we know where our leaders live and can throw them out if they don't answer at least some of our prayers.

Just a quick thought: whether you're writing from the USA or Canada, berrychild, neither country was "started by Christians". Native Americans lived here for thousands of years, forming their own diverse, valid and complex societies well before anyone European settlers ever set foot on this continent. Just saying.

holy!!???!! (no pun intended)

can't ANYONE just take something and read it for what it is... and possibly not try to tie in centuries of religious beliefs, insensitivity and intolerance. We're all wrong... who cares??? 1 great truth - you're all going to die. Sorry, WE'RE all going to die.

yeah, but buddhists are going to be reborn ;-)

In honor of the fact that CHG is presenting a coherent and more or less original argument for a change, I'll go ahead and pose a few honest questions in the spirit of sincere debate.

If the universe is, as you contend CHG (backed up by none other than Jesus himself), ruled and governed by a merciful father, is a non-Christian Buddhist like the Dalai Lama subject to damnation?

Do you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? If so, can you or can you not prove it, as you seem to be implying in your response to Packrat?

Where you you come by your economy of moral scale, i.e. "He told us to ignore minor infractions as I stated in my response. At a much larger level, we are to expect restitution. This is what 'turn the other cheek' referred to." Please explain this, because it makes no sense to me.

He sounds like a dirty f'ing hippie. Awesomeness! More of these compassionate and influential spokesmen like him are needed today to balance out the surge of kooky body-hating fundagelicals, money-grubbing glibertarians, and laissez faire greed-worshipping capitalists.

"Throughout his speech the Dalai Lama emphasized the importance of compassion, responsibility and interfaith harmony.

'Whether you believe this religion or that religion, we are all the same human beings', said the Dalai Lama."

This argument that is going on here of, "My religion is better than yours!"- this is the basis of war! Is it not possible to read about this message of peace and not argue about such irrelevant details? It is not possible to really know the answers to any of these questions until we are dead. Sure, we can all wonder about them and pose theories, but in the end, that is all that they are. We will all find out the answers soon enough. While we are here on this earth together, can we not accept this message of peace for what it is?

What is so terrible about the Dali Lama's message? Work towards making yourself and the world you live in a better place. I don't think it matters what religion you choose or choose not to follow. It sounds like pretty good guide to go by.

Sorry for the typo....in a hurry!

berry, the Bible is wrong on its face. There is, and never has been, such a thing as a TALKING SNAKE. One other thing, during the receding of the Deluge, where did all the water actually GO? Think about it berry....Merc, what's so wrong with his message (to the fundies around here) is the messenger. He's one a dem commie pinko athiest types.

K-Dart: more or less, yes. Whatever your faith it's best served when you work to facilitate peace. Unless you're some sort of doomsday cultist, I suppose.

And therein lies the rub: Thousands of years after the dawn of the great messianic religions we've all become Eschatologists fighting to facilitate or prevent our singular visions of doomsday. In almost every case we were actually supposed to be tending the garden.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a Jehovah or an Allah or armies of peaceful bodhisattvas. Because their followers are most certifiably real and whatever happens on Earth, this country, or your hometown will be brought about by them. And that's the rest of the story.

So bring on the Dalai Lamas... give me any religious leader who chooses harmony over discord. His laughter and loving spirit was such a refreshing change from the horrors of radical Islam and the vitriol I hear from leaders of a radicalized Southern Baptist Convention every time I turn on American Family Radio. I'm not running out and buying a saffron robe or anything but if there is an example to follow, it's his.

Word. Follow the example of the peacemakers.

I agree, pesky... I've been feeling mellow all week. Love your post re: The Bible, btw.

More people need to embrace the idea that heaven is here on earth and we're responsible for keeping it heaven-like by our words and our deeds. We can't change what others do, we can only change how we react. And since nobody can prove what happens when we die (except that our bodies turn into ash or wormfood), instead of worrying about the hereafter, we should focus on the herenow and do what we can to make it better.
{/soapbox}

om mani padme hum

I know that rat, I just don't have time for people that can't open their minds to see that there are other ideas and worldviews out there; everything and everyone should be homogeneous. Arguing with a fundamentalist of any religious persuasion is just like trying to teach a pig to sing. Therefore I will choose to not argue with them so that I don't have to read all of the scripture quotes that will be forthcoming.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how easy it is for a self aggrandizing hypocrite to turn an interesting piece about the Dalai Lama's remark about feminists into a thread about himself.

The Dalai Lama is a Jackass

In the same breath, he also said that men are better at pointing at things because they have to aim their penises when urinating.

You know, "His Holiness", like a lot of religious leaders, has said some breathtakingly stupid things before, but this has to rank among the top 10. I suppose he forgot that the founder of his own religion was (*gasp*!) a man and (supposedly) the highest manifestation of compassion possible in the whole friggin' universe. And on top of that, he himself is supposed to be the reincarnation of the bodhisattva of compassion.

So where's his coochie-snorcher??? Huh???

Chris Davis,

quote: "when we pretend to know the will of those who, like the Founders, are long dead and unable to iterate their actual intentions. And what God may actually demand has less to do with world history than what man ascribes to God in order to wield power and achieve personal desires."

We have historical documents, i.e. Federalist Papers, the Magna Carta, Virginia Resolution, Abstract Laws of New England, Articles of Confederation, personal letters, ad infinitum, to define terms of present documents. Also, using the science of hermeneutics, one can gain definite Biblical intentions. Therefore, you are dead wrong.

autoegocrat,

The impossibility of the contrary worldview is the proof. Non-Christian worldviews cannot justify the existence of abstract laws of logic, ethics or explain the uniformity of natural laws.

Packrat,

Quote: '...berry, the Bible is wrong on its face. There is, and never has been, such a thing as a TALKING SNAKE.' An inductive fallacy: when has Packrat examined all snakes at all times and in all places?

sbanbury,

Jesus told to the disciples to take swords with them on their journey. This wasn't just to defend against animals either. Paul was a bond-servant of Jesus' teachings and taught that God has instituted the civil authorities to execute justice and capital punishment. Romans 13:1-4 and other places.

"While Judaism calls for restitution, Jesus called for unconditional love and forgiveness. Further he asked that we feed and cloth those who would steal from us."

Those who have legitimate needs are to be helped, yes. Those that steal for greed and gain are not mentioned. The context of that passage is dealing with meeting the needs of the less fortunate. Again, taking your view to the logical conclusion means that we must release all thieves from prison.

sbanbury,

quote: "Jesus din't ask the adulterer to pay restitution, only to sin no more."

Restitution involves various elements; of which are material restoration and behavioral restoration to God's original intent of behavior.

inductive fallacy....how interesting. on the one hand you drool about natural laws, then you deny that they have any meaning whatsoever by saying it is possible in nature to have a talking snake. your circular logic in attempting to justify your belief in bronze-age myths is quite amusing.

I want to give a shout out to my homie CHG for callin the Dalai Lama out!
If it were not for your obviously slanted view of reality, I would've had a much less giddy day, as I read everyone put you in your place. Keep up the misinfo, dude. You are where it's AT! In one comment, you just defined a vocabulary word for us. Thank you for that.
Oh, and I love your use of "arbitrary morals" in the original comment. It just makes me want to look up more definitions. ... ah, arbitrary. "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion"
Perhaps arbitrary morals is just what we all NEED. I would love for people to stop quoting what their pastor/preacher/reverend says, and start having morals on their own, with no sort of daily guidance.

CHG, I forgive you. Your beliefs over a lifetime probably can be summed up in a few simple syllables. That's not the case with everyone though, and certainly not our founding fathers. The publicly agnostic can be found plugging the Christian church as a great civilizing force in the universe. The most pious can be found espousing the need to keep religion out of public affairs. The most reluctant among these men were still radicals and revolutionaries and as a group they were uncommonly expansive. The great contracts you mention are documents of necessity and compromise composed with hands on swords and eyes on history.

Men who found slavery morally objectionable placed their bets on inertia and signed documents enabling it in order to forge a union that would not stand otherwise.

These founders you think you know so well were terrorists, hypocrites, highbrows, patriots, dopers, dreamers, heathens, criminals, geniuses, jackasses, and Christian martyrs. They aren't easily defined by their greatest hits let alone their group efforts.

"Dead wrong"? Well, things done by half are never done right, I always say.

And don't get me wrong. I envy your certainty on all things CHG. It's got to be pure bliss.

CHG, you haven't answered my question. We're talking about the Bible here, not God.

CHG, your "arbitrary" claim to know the context of Jesus' parables is curious. Does it imply that you've studied issues of biblical authorship or that you feel you have some personal insight into the matter?

Who is it that appointed Paul to be a "bond-servant" of Jesus? What for Stephen? No restitution there?

I'm imagining that all the people posting here are the cast of "Big Bang Theory".