Faith is very personal. Belief, by definition, is whatever an individual chooses to believe. The book “In Search of Jesus of Nazareth and His Original Teaching” chronicles the research and analysis leading to the formulation of my personal understanding of the Historical Jesus and his Teaching.
This book discusses the two completely different accounts of the creation of “Jesus the Christ”, contained in the four canonical Gospels of the “New Testament”. Mark, the earliest Gospel, in its original form, asserts that a human Jesus received the Devine Spirit at his Baptism by John (his cousin the Baptizer). The later Gospel authors added/reiterated the description of Mary’s “Virgin Conception” to create a Devine Jesus “Son of God” at birth and the “Resurrection” to return that Devine being to the Father. It is interesting to note, that the later Gospel writers chose to retain Mark’s Baptism event, even though it would seem to be unnecessary, if Jesus had a spotless soul and already possessed the Divine Spirit from birth. With Mark’s version, Resurrection is not required, since it allows for the Devine Spirit to return to God at Jesus’ death and his human remains to be interred in a tomb.
Organized Religion, according to sociologist G. Lenski , is "a shared system of associated beliefs and practices, which are articulated around the nature of the forces that shape the destiny of human beings." Any religion that promotes peace, harmony, charity, morality, ethical behavior, compassion, and the betterment of humanity is to be condoned and supported. However, religions/sects that preach violence and prejudice or practice discrimination must be condemned/reformed. Ideally, through education and enlightenment rather than by armed conflict.

My favourite kind of faith is personal. I wish people would keep it that way.

ETA also a false equivalency. Faith =/= Belief. Belief is a subset of knowledge.


______________________________________
Sent to somewhere using a shitty app. Sorry for the tags and/or dupe posts.

This thread should be deleted. due to a lack of evidence.years and years, its been going on, with rumors, racism, sectarianism,
idiocy and downright stubbornness have kept it rumbling on and on. there is no verifiable evidence. Non

pweekes wrote:Organized Religion, according to sociologist G. Lenski , is "a shared system of associated beliefs and practices, which are articulated around the nature of the forces that shape the destiny of human beings." Any religion that promotes peace, harmony, charity, morality, ethical behavior, compassion, and the betterment of humanity is to be condoned and supported. However, religions/sects that preach violence and prejudice or practice discrimination must be condemned/reformed. Ideally, through education and enlightenment rather than by armed conflict.

Is there any religion, sub-group or sect that has not, either at present or in the past, condoned and used violence in one form or another as a means of control?
By 'violence' I do not necessarily mean physical violence...

Alan B wrote:

pweekes wrote:Organized Religion, according to sociologist G. Lenski , is "a shared system of associated beliefs and practices, which are articulated around the nature of the forces that shape the destiny of human beings." Any religion that promotes peace, harmony, charity, morality, ethical behavior, compassion, and the betterment of humanity is to be condoned and supported. However, religions/sects that preach violence and prejudice or practice discrimination must be condemned/reformed. Ideally, through education and enlightenment rather than by armed conflict.

Is there any religion, sub-group or sect that has not, either at present or in the past, condoned and used violence in one form or another as a means of control?
By 'violence' I do not necessarily mean physical violence...

There's always the Bahais.

Stein

Jainists.

Hermit wrote:

james1v wrote:This thread should be deleted.

No fucking way. Not while there is a chance of Stein or TimONeill entertaining us with some more of their posts.

Hey, that GIF is downright funny! Quelle surprise!

Stein

Jainists and Bahais. True, but they are in the minority and they do not seek control of others. It's them others I steer clear of.

Even Budhists have 'let the side down' with their actions in Myanmar.

Lol, myanmar is not so much an exception... remember, such warlike folk as the Japanese are largely of buddhist culture , and back in the 1400s, Tibetan buddhists warred with each other over which sect should be dominant... heck, even the Mongols are buddhist (though by Genghis Khan's time they were not such yet)

Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

I suppose Jains and Bahais are the only ones. Although digging into history might find a few odd ones that are no longer around.

Svartalf wrote:Lol, myanmar is not so much an exception... remember, such warlike folk as the Japanese are largely of buddhist culture

Shinto actually and violence, both explicit and as part of Japanese culture predates the introduction of Buddhism.

Svartalf wrote:and back in the 1400s, Tibetan buddhists warred with each other over which sect should be dominant... heck, even the Mongols are buddhist (though by Genghis Khan's time they were not such yet)

Once again demonstrating a correlation equals causation fallacy.

Alan B wrote:Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

I suppose Jains and Bahais are the only ones. Although digging into history might find a few odd ones that are no longer around.

?Quakers?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Svartalf wrote:Lol, myanmar is not so much an exception... remember, such warlike folk as the Japanese are largely of buddhist culture

Shinto actually and violence, both explicit and as part of Japanese culture predates the introduction of Buddhism.

Svartalf wrote:and back in the 1400s, Tibetan buddhists warred with each other over which sect should be dominant... heck, even the Mongols are buddhist (though by Genghis Khan's time they were not such yet)

Once again demonstrating a correlation equals causation fallacy.

Indeed, but the really violent culture dates from After buddhism got in, and you can't separate buddhism from shinto because the Japanese have made a very intricate syncretism of the two, merging them into a singlu culture where each set of beliefes and values brings what the other lacks. Remember that it was the buddhist "pure earth" sects, such as those founded by Nichiren that pushed the samurai to war, in particular against the Sino Mongol invasions, again ,the Sohei warrior monks and the ikko ikki were buddhist in main religious views... and Japanes warriors, from the 1200s to 1945 have done their violent work while shouting buddhist mantra and slogans...

and are you asserting that the various Tibetan buddhist factions did not resort to bloody war in their war of dominance?

My thesis is not that buddhism is an inherently violent philosophy, only that a culture influenced by it is still perfectly able to be as violent as they come.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Alan B wrote:Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

I suppose Jains and Bahais are the only ones. Although digging into history might find a few odd ones that are no longer around.

?Quakers?

Yar!

Of course quakers, once you've eaten some of that porridge for breakies, you're so tummy heavy you're unable to engage in the exertion that violence requires.

Svartalf wrote:... remember, such warlike folk as the Japanese are largely of buddhist culture ...

The treatment of Japan by the US before they bombed Pearl Harbor justified the bombing of Pearl Harbor

Not going into that dispute, Japanese history before WWII suffices amply to illustrate my point.

Svartalf wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Svartalf wrote:Lol, myanmar is not so much an exception... remember, such warlike folk as the Japanese are largely of buddhist culture

Shinto actually and violence, both explicit and as part of Japanese culture predates the introduction of Buddhism.

Svartalf wrote:and back in the 1400s, Tibetan buddhists warred with each other over which sect should be dominant... heck, even the Mongols are buddhist (though by Genghis Khan's time they were not such yet)

Once again demonstrating a correlation equals causation fallacy.

Indeed, but the really violent culture dates from After buddhism got in

It doesn't.

Svartalf wrote:and you can't separate buddhism from shinto because the Japanese have made a very intricate syncretism of the two, merging them into a singlu culture where each set of beliefes and values brings what the other lacks.

More counterfactual nonsense. Many Japanese combine the two, but not all and Shinto predates Buddhism in Japan.
You're generalising way to much.

Svartalf wrote: Remember that it was the buddhist "pure earth" sects, such as those founded by Nichiren that pushed the samurai to war, in particular against the Sino Mongol invasions, again ,the Sohei warrior monks and the ikko ikki were buddhist in main religious views... and Japanes warriors, from the 1200s to 1945 have done their violent work while shouting buddhist mantra and slogans...

Again, warfare in Japan predates the arrival of Buddhism and the Ikko Ikki were an isolated sect that were pretty much pariahs to the rest of Japan.

Svartalf wrote:and are you asserting that the various Tibetan buddhist factions did not resort to bloody war in their war of dominance?

So what is it? Did you not actually read the post you're responding to, or are you struggling to understand what I posted, because nowhere have I even discussed Tibetan Buddhists.

Svartalf wrote:
My thesis is not that buddhism is an inherently violent philosophy, only that a culture influenced by it is still perfectly able to be as violent as they come.

Which I have not disputed. I've only addressed the historical errors and overgeneralisation you made vis a vis Buddhism in Japan and whether it introduced violence and warrior culture.

Bloody Hell! Quakers! Of course! And I used to go to their meetings when I was 'finding my way' when I was much younger.