Often, religious contentions are historical contentions in tandem....For example, many hindus and Buddhists disagree about the role of atheism in Buddhism. Some say that Buddha did not confirm the existence of a deity and thus Buddhism is an atheist religion...Others will say that Buddha never denied the existence of a God either and this it is wrong for us to put words in his mouth...In this instance the key factor is what exactly did Buddha say.
Other examples include: Jesus in India; the Sunni/Shia divide; etc etc.
Do you ever feel that the historical context is often overlooked when religious debates are underway???
2007-12-28 08:37:14 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Even during Buddha's period, he was questioned by atheists & believers. And in one instance, his devotees were 'baffled' when he negated both during the same day !
It takes a lot to understand why he did so! The 'experience' is what he looked for when he dealt with people who queried him. And for that he knew that he had to 'demolish' their pre-conclusions. The people around just happened to 'record' what he said. And such reportings do get a bit distorted over a period of time, and become very much vulnerable to distortions. Basically, we are trying to 'judge' their 'isms' from what they talked, where as, they are talking about something that was their experience beyond sensory levels of perceptions. If this much can be clearly understood, then we know better than mixing up 'enlightened' persons' history/religion, with that of other 'accomplished' achievers! So the debates have to be ever inconclusive when related to such 'enlightened' persons!
2007-12-29 12:33:47 · answer #1 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why are atheists unaware of their terrible history? Do you realize that both Stalin and Mao used the ideas frequently posted by you atheists on this very stie to justify mass murder, and not just mass murder, but the most gruesome and largest amount of mass murder in the history of humanity? Both Stalin and Mao stated that religion was violent, kept people ignorant, and was used by the ruling class to control the masses. Funny that they controlled the masses, through fear, accomplished the most violence in history and generally kept people ignorant. My point is not to degrade atheism, my point is that it is intolerance that causes war and hatred. Guess what type of intolerance? The very type you are displaying now. Yeah Christians had the Crusades, witch hunts, etc, but why does that allow you to throw stones when you live in a glass house? And BTW, I have asked the same question to Christians when they call atheism violent. Look at the questions though. Guess who does it more? The atheists. I thought YOU were the "smarter" ones, I thought YOU were the ones who knew more about history? When you come on here stroking each other's ego and belittling those who have differing viewpoint, you are just showing that you are weak-minded bullies starving for attention. I know a lot a really cool, intelligent and kind atheists, and you are doing them an injustice. Now they get associated with angry bitter people who act like children. Not cool. Even your question shows the silliness of your intent. What Christian denies that the Crusades occurred? Or the Salem withc hunts? Thats right none. So the point of your qestion is? You want another apology for a wrong committed by someone else to someone else? GROW UP! Make sure you all thumbs down me, especially since you know history and facts show I am right. When debating with facts becomes too difficult, just plug you ears and hit the thumbs down.
2016-05-27 12:51:00 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well yes... otherwise there would be no argument. There is no proof of any religious stories and historically there is is no record of any of the "great darkness" etc..... there is alot of conjecture and high hopes for what could possibly be a clay pot with the voice of jesus imprinted on it and nonsense like that but no ark, no evidence of worldwide floods, no genealogy all going back to Noah....
Please excuse my use of christian references but that it was I was force fed as a child and so what I know most about.... I would love for religion to decide it was time to prove itse;f but alas never will it happen while people proclaim blind faith as a badge of honor.
2007-12-28 16:13:59 · answer #3 · answered by Fiona F 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Far, far too much. Biblical literacy is meaningless if one does not understand the context in which the Bible was written.
The Buddha's last words should have settled the debate about theism/atheism in Buddhism. "Be like candles unto yourselves." In other words "Figure it out yourself." The Buddha was silent on God(s) because giving an answer to anyone would have been meaningless.
2007-12-28 08:42:44 · answer #4 · answered by Skalite 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Those who follow DHARMA or true religion are real history makers of the world & world gets uplifted.History shows that since civilisation , hate & selfishness created wars, A 3rd world war may freeze this earth.
The way for solution is brotherhood, & MEDITATION. Each soul should leave petty divisions
2007-12-29 00:19:42 · answer #5 · answered by Muthu S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think people tend to overestimate the role of non-religious factors in religious conflicts.
modern historians try to argue that the crusades were a quest for land. but there was plenty of land to be looted in europe (especially in the central european plain). medieval christians hated saracens and loved killing people. i think their crusades are best understood in their own terms.
and then there are the historians who pretend that the english civil war was a conflict between absolute and parliamentary monarchy. like eggs it was:- on his restoration charles ii had less real opposition than any king since about edward iii. you might just as well analyse the english civil war as a conflict between a very short man and a very tall one. (it was - but that probably was not relevant).
there was a religious war waiting to happen in the 1620s in england. you can see the blood starting to swell up in 'bartholomew fair' (possibly even in 'twelfth night').
realities are usually perfectly explicable in their own terms. benazir bhutto is dead because she was a muslima who dared to have an opinion.
2007-12-28 08:45:58 · answer #6 · answered by synopsis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It looks like the "Buddha's Brother" that answered your question is a fraud, having only registered today with zero activity, and he copied and paste your profile into his profile.
2007-12-28 15:27:19 · answer #7 · answered by . 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes i agree but reality has no real basis in most religions simply because religion is belief based as opposed to recorded factual history which came later, speculative history can be cojoined with religion as it varies, but good question though. but its really how long is a piece of string.
2007-12-28 08:52:08 · answer #8 · answered by andy F7 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Belief in self-respect has always been in the forfront of religious agendas!
2007-12-28 08:44:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think the logical context is often overlooked when religious debates are underway!!!
2007-12-28 09:29:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋