Christians defacing monuments of other faiths

Spacedog

Hi,

After a recent trip to Egypt, to see the ruins of the first civilisation. I need to ask your opinions on the defacement of non Christian monuments, and the adoption of aspects of old religions into Christianity.

Many of the carved images of the Pharaohs were chiselled out or replaced with crude crosses made from broken pieces of stone.

Is it fair game for this to have happened, as one belief system/civilisation dies out is it inevitable for it's most treasured artworks to be over written by the next? perhaps in a thousand years time the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel will have a flying spaghetti monster instead of God.

Are Christians any better than the Tallaban destroying ancient Buddha statues in the name of Islam?

Ghost Buster

Spacedog wrote: »

Hi,

After a recent trip to Egypt, to see the ruins of the first civilisation. I need to ask your opinions on the defacement of non Christian monuments, and the adoption of aspects of old religions into Christianity.

Many of the carved images of the Pharaohs were chiselled out or replaced with crude crosses made from broken pieces of stone.

Is it fair game for this to have happened, as one belief system/civilisation dies out is it inevitable for it's most treasured artworks to be over written by the next? perhaps in a thousand years time the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel will have a flying spaghetti monster instead of God.

Are Christians any better than the Tallaban destroying ancient Buddha statues in the name of Islam?

As many aspects of Christianity are picked, Dr Frankeneteinesque, from other religions then i suppose with that rational in mind the practice you describe is totally acceptable.
I dont agree with it though.

Fanny Cradock

Ghost Buster wrote: »

As many aspects of Christianity are picked, Dr Frankeneteinesque, from other religions then i suppose with that rational in mind the practice you describe is totally acceptable.
I dont agree with it though.

Care to unpack that?

Coriolanus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Care to unpack that?

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Many aspects of Christianity are picked, Dr Frankeneteinesque, from other religions.

I suppose with that rational in mind, the practice you describe is totally acceptable.

I dont agree with it though.

Something like that.

Anyway, imo, while it's a natural progression, it's not necessarily a desirable or ethical one.

Fanny Cradock

Touché!

Nevore wrote: »

Anyway, imo, while it's a natural progression, it's not necessarily a desirable or ethical one.

Out of curiosity, if such practices are a natural progression - and we are talking long term here - how do you justify the conclusion that it's not ethical? Presumably ethics aren't set in stone (no pun intended) and are a function of whatever societal thought happens to be acceptable at the time.

Coriolanus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Touché!



Out of curiosity, if such practices are a natural progression - and we are talking long term here - how do you justify the conclusion that it's not ethical? Presumably ethics aren't set in stone (no pun intended) and are a function of whatever societal thought happens to be acceptable at the time.

Well, I'm a relativist, so you could insert "ethical under my particular guiding principles" instead of just "ethical". People could, and have done I'm sure, argue that under their particular ethical principles the actions are perfectly acceptable.

Ghost Buster

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Care to unpack that?

Okey dokey but before i do understand that Im not making any claim as to tyhe authenticity or otherwise of Christianity. This aint the place. Im just saying that if a religion is willing to draw its festivals and source material from older religions then naturally it will have no qualms in putting its mark on similarly older buildings, temples, statues etc.
Well. Many Christian holidays and days of note are superimposed over much older pagan festivals
Christmas happens at the same time as the winter solstice in celtic paganism
It happens at the same time as a Roman pagan festival - Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.

Or a Greek festival - Dionysus is another savior-god whose birth was observed on DEC-25. He was worshipped throughout much of the Middle East as well. He had a center of worship in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE. Some ancient coins have been found in Gaza with Dionysus on one side and JHWH (Jehovah) on the other. In later years, his flesh and blood were symbolically eaten in the form of bread and wine. He was viewed as the son of Zeus, the Father God.
Or Egyptian - Osiris is a savior-god who had been worshipped as far back as Neolithic times. "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again'" 5 Three wise men announced his birth. His followers ate cakes of wheat which symbolized his body. Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible. This included:
23rd Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters

Lord's Prayer: "O amen, who art in heaven..."

Many parables attributed to Jesus.
Worship of Osiris, and celebration of his DEC-25 birth, were established throughout the Roman Empire by the end of the 1st century BCE

Persian - . Persian Pagan Religion: Mithra was a Persian savior. Worship of Mithra became common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity until the 4th century. Their god was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This was celebrated as the "Dies Natalis Solic Invite," The "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun." Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.

The Babylonians celebrated their "Victory of the Sun-God" Festival on DEC-25. Saturnalia (the Festival of Saturn) was celebrated from DEC-17 to 23 in the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25. After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus. The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day. So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth.

PDN

The respect we give to historical monuments is probably a fairly recent phenomenon. Go back a few centuries and nobody probably saw any value in preserving old stuff.

Angry Troll

PDN wrote: »

The respect we give to historical monuments is probably a fairly recent phenomenon. Go back a few centuries and nobody probably saw any value in preserving old stuff.

sad but true

Lab_Mouse

PDN above got it right.The most recent one I can think off is the taliban destroying 2 giant sized statues of Buddha few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

EDIT:sorry OP didnt see the last line in your post

PDN

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

PDN above got it right.The most recent one I can think off is the taliban destroying 2 giant sized statues of Buddha few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

EDIT:sorry OP didnt see the last line in your post

One of the funny bits in 'The God Delusion' is where poor Richard cites the destruction of those Buddhas as an example of the detrimental effect of religion upon the world. Of course, without religion, they wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

One of the funny bits in 'The God Delusion' is where poor Richard cites the destruction of those Buddhas as an example of the detrimental effect of religion upon the world. Of course, without religion, they wouldn't have been there in the first place.

I dont think he is claiming that they wouldnt be there in the first place without religion. He is, I think, stating that folk use religion as licence to behave abominably.
The point is about the destruction religions visit upon each other in their quest to be "the one true religion" rather than how the idols, effigies and temples got there in the first place one would have thought.

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

poor Richard

:pac:

Unfortunately, I dont have my copy of the God Delusion at hand. Its at my "other home".
But I will assume what you have said is correct.


So Richard states that the vandalism of these statues is an example of the detrimental effect of religion. I certainly agree with that.
I also agree with you when you say the statues would not have been erected were it not for another religion.
But that doesnt take away from his point now, does it?


He could have picked even better examples in my opinion.


Edit: Im really just reiterating Ghost Busters point but no harm in leaving it up.

philologos

If we are to follow Richard's line of thinking, the Buddha and what he had said is nothing more than delusional nonsense though?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are to follow Richard's line of thinking, the Buddha and what he had said is nothing more than delusional nonsense though?

It's probably my head today, but I don't understand your post at all.:(

mardybumbum

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are to follow Richard's line of thinking, the Buddha and what he had said is nothing more than delusional nonsense though?

Ok, Im sorry Jakkass.
Im not getting that at all?

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

:pac:

Unfortunately, I dont have my copy of the God Delusion at hand. Its at my "other home".
But I will assume what you have said is correct.


So Richard states that the vandalism of these statues is an example of the detrimental effect of religion. I certainly agree with that.
I also agree with you when you say the statues would not have been erected were it not for another religion.
But that doesnt take away from his point now, does it?

It does take away from his point.

Dawkins argues that religion in general (not just specific varieties of religion) is detrimental. Therefore the Taliban, in removing a religious artifact, were removing something detrimental.

Even atheists shouldn't try to have their cake and eat it.

philologos

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

It does take away from his point.

Dawkins argues that religion in general (not just specific varieties of religion) is detrimental. Therefore the Taliban, in removing a religious artifact, were removing something detrimental.

Even atheists shouldn't try to have their cake and eat it.

Listen, I agree that religion is detrimental but I can admire the architecture of cathedrals, paintings depecting biblical events, and pretty statues.
I dont find a statue of buddha detrimental, the same way in which I dont find a post box to be detrimental. Its a statue, thats all.

"Therefore the Taliban, in removing a religious artifact, were removing something detrimental."
So by doing something detrimental to remove something detrimental you are undoing the detrimentalness* of it all. :pac:







* Yes, I made that word up.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

Why should Buddhism warrant the same criticism as Christianity, when Buddhism is empirical and many sects (prob not the right term) teach their followers to be critical of Buddhism itself and not to accept what they are being taught without using skepticism? Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Why should Buddhism warrant the same criticism as Christianity, when Buddhism is empirical and many sects (prob not the right term) teach their followers to be critical of Buddhism itself and not to accept what they are being taught without using skepticism? Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

Jesus did however warn people before becoming Christians because of what it would demand of them.

Besides, I think if Jesus really thought that not believing in Him would cause people to perish, and miss out on eternal life, then He made the right choice to tell people about it, and to tell them to trust in Him.

Scepticism can be misplaced, and scepticism can have consequences. I think that is a worthy criticism if what Jesus said indeed is true.

mardybumbum

Malty_T wrote: »

Why should Buddhism warrant the same criticism as Christianity, when Buddhism is empirical and many sects (prob not the right term) teach their followers to be critical of Buddhism itself and not to accept what they are being taught without using skepticism? Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

Nooooooooes. :eek:
Lets try to stay on topic for a wee bit longer.
I want to see how PDN explains away this one.

Turtwig

mardybumbum wrote: »

Nooooooooes. :eek:
Lets try to stay on topic for a wee bit longer.
I want to see how PDN explains away this one.

Ok,s sorry like I said, I'm in a weirdish mood at the moment, so em just remind me again if I stray from the goal.:)

mardybumbum

I apologise. I am not a moderator of this forum so feel free not to listen to me at all. I may have came across as rude.
I am just interested in hearing his explanation.

Sorry again.

Turtwig

mardybumbum wrote: »

I apologise. I am not a moderator of this forum so feel free not to listen to me at all. I may have came across as rude.
I am just interested in hearing his explanation.

Yeah, but I sorta hijacked your discussion.:o

Sorry again.

Not necessary.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Nooooooooes. :eek:
Lets try to stay on topic for a wee bit longer.
I want to see how PDN explains away this one.

Explain away what?

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

How about this one:

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid." John 5:31-32

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

Slight Correction :

Dawkins doesn't admire Buddhism either as he refers to this footnote[95].

I still think though it deserves more respect than Christianity.:p

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

Your argument doesn't make much sense when stated in a different way.

PDN wrote: »

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that Islam took away something that wouldn't have existed without Buddhism.

You agree that Buddhism and Islam are not the same?

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

Christians are persecuted in a lot of Muslim countries so the more damage they do the better , go on the boys!

mardybumbum

TEMPLAR KNIGHT wrote: »

Christians are persecuted in a lot of Muslim countries so the more damage they do the better , go on the boys!

Thanks for that fine contribution.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Your argument doesn't make much sense when stated in a different way.

The second statement of mine you cite was a separate point, and one that was well answered.

Dawkins himself, elsewhere in 'The God Delusion' states that he doesn't want to see religious monuments destroyed.

That, however, does not make his position any more logical. He argues that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

But religion DOES exist, and the statues DID exist.
They were destroyed by afghan muslim leaders because they were considered blasphemous, blatent evidence that religion has caused detriment in this example.
Islam and Buddhism are two seperate religions. Are you saying that one would not have existed without the other?

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Religion DOES exist, and the statues DID exist.

A bit superfluous to state the obvious? No-one has argued otherwise.
awkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental.

They where then destroyed by afghan muslim leaders because they were considered blasphemous, blatent evidence that religion has caused detriment in this example.

Nonsense. If I give you ten euro, and then take two of those ten euro away from you, then that can hardly be presented as evidence that my dealings with you have been detrimental.

Islam and Buddhism are two seperate religions. Are you saying that one would not have existed without the other?

I know that they are two separate religions. No literate person would think I have argued that one would not have existed without the other.

The point, however, is that Dawkins was not arguing that one religion is nicer than another. He was arguing that religion in general is detrimental. Therefore he should present evidence that demonstrates how religion in general has produced detrimental results - not that religion has destroyed some of the monuments that came into being through religion.

Turtwig

Sorry PDN, mate, but it seems you're not actually referring to Dawkins argument at all unless of course my google search skills are failing me and the bit you refer to is mention elsewhere.

Page about the statues is 282.
(Not available on preview.:()

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

A bit superfluous to state the obvious? No-one has argued otherwise.
Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental.

You stated that Dawkins was wrong because the statues would not have existed without religion in the first place.
I was merely stating that your point is irrelevent as both do/did exist.

Nonsense. If I give you ten euro, and then take two of those ten euro away from you, then that can hardly be presented as evidence that my dealings with you have been detrimental.

When you place Islam and Buddhism in this set you call religion then that argument makes sense, but they are two different religions.

Tenner - Tenner = 0
Religion - Religion = 0
Islam - Buddhism = well they cant be subtracted, its like taking apples from oranges.

If I understand your argument correctly ( Im not sure If I do ) you are basically saying that religion caused detriment to religion, but its ok because religion wouldnt have existed without religion in the first place.

I'm saying that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION caused detriment to AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RELIGION.

I know that they are two separate religions.

But you are bundling the two religions into this group you call "Religion". They are two seperate religions capable of causing detriment to one another.

Dr. Loon

PDN wrote: »

A bit superfluous to state the obvious? No-one has argued otherwise.
awkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental.

Nonsense. If I give you ten euro, and then take two of those ten euro away from you, then that can hardly be presented as evidence that my dealings with you have been detrimental.


I know that they are two separate religions. No literate person would think I have argued that one would not have existed without the other.

The point, however, is that Dawkins was not arguing that one religion is nicer than another. He was arguing that religion in general is detrimental. Therefore he should present evidence that demonstrates how religion in general has produced detrimental results - not that religion has destroyed some of the monuments that came into being through religion.

That's a pretty pathetic argument! How about this? If there was no religion, then the statues wouldn't have existed to be destroyed by religion. There would be no reason to destroy/deface them! The fact that they are there is because of religion, and the fact that they were destroyed is because of religion. With no religion, the event wouldn't have occurred.

mardybumbum

Dr. Loon wrote: »

That's a pretty pathetic argument! How about this? If there was no religion, then the statues wouldn't have existed to be destroyed by religion. There would be no reason to destroy/deface them! The fact that they are there is because of religion, and the fact that they were destroyed is because of religion. With no religion, the event wouldn't have occurred.

Im not sure if he believes in his argument himself.
I think its more a case of not wanting to admit his original comment regarding the God Delusion made no sense.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Im not sure if he believes in his argument himself.
I think its more a case of not wanting to admit his original comment regarding the God Delusion made no sense.

I've admitted my other point was well answered - so why not just deal with the point I am making now instead of indulging in silliness?

You cannot argue that religion in general is detrimental because it gave the world hundreds of historic monuments and then removed some of them.

I'm saying that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION caused detriment to AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RELIGION.

Good for you, but that's not what Dawkins was saying, nor what I referred to. I'm not particularly interested in changing the subject to discuss your views on comparative religion.

But you are bundling the two religions into this group you call "Religion".

No, that would be Dawkins who did that. If you object to them being bundled together then I suggest you take it up with him.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Sorry PDN, mate, but it seems you're not actually referring to Dawkins argument at all unless of course my google search skills are failing me and the bit you refer to is mention elsewhere.

Page about the statues is 282.
(Not available on preview.:()

Sorry, Malty mate, but maybe you should have googled the preface.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, Malty mate, but maybe you should have googled the preface.

I'm on it.:)

Edit : Briefly scanned through it, nothing so far, some pointer would be nice...:)

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

I've admitted my other point was well answered - so why not just deal with the point I am making now instead of indulging in silliness?

Your points are far from well answered. I still dont understand what your point is tbh. I would be happy to deal with it If I did.
This "the statues wouldnt have existed without religion" rubbish makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It isn't a valid argument.

Good for you, but that's not what Dawkins was saying, nor what I referred to. I'm not particularly interested in changing the subject to discuss your views on comparative religion.

Dawkins said religion is detrimental.
He gave an example of Islam being detrimental to Buddhism.
A religion being detrimental to another religion.
You have tried to shy away from this point by bundling all religions together.
Islam is a religion. Buddhism is a religion.
The muslims destroyed the buddhist statues.
This is a perfectly acceptable example of religion being detrimental.
He could have given an example of Hindus being detrimental to Jews for all I care.
You said this is not a good example because the statues would not have been there were it not for religion in the first place.
This just fails to make any sense to me. The statues were there. Get over it.
I am certainly not changing the subject PDN.
Your just not thinking about it enough.

No, that would be Dawkins who did that. If you object to them being bundled together then I suggest you take it up with him.

You have been doing it for the entire thread. Your " give me a tenner and take a tenner " analogy is a perfect example of this.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Your points are far from well answered.

I'm starting to feel like I've entered a Twilight Zone - or a foreign country where no-one speaks English.

When I say a point of mine has been well answered, then that means that someone else has given a good answer to a point that I have made.

I made a rather poor point (that if religion is detrimental, then the Taliban were doing something useful by destroying religious symbols). That point was well answered, so I dropped it.

My main point (that you cannot argue that religion is detrimental and cite as evidence the destruction of monuments that are themselves products of religion) has not been well answered. So far it has been very poorly answered.

This "the statues wouldnt have existed without religion" rubbish makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It isn't a valid argument.

If it makes no sense to you then I doubt if that has anything to do with the validity of the argument.

Dawkins said religion is detrimental.

Thereby bundling all religions together.

He gave an example of Islam being detrimental to Buddhism

Which is evidence that religion is detrimental to, er, religion.

You have tried to shy away from this point by bundling all religions together.

Jesus wept! Dickie bundles religions together and, because I point out his inconsistency, I'm now trying to shy away from his point by bundling religions together?

Islam is a religion. Buddhism is a religion.
The muslims destroyed the buddhist statues.
This is a perfectly acceptable example of religion being detrimental.

Oops! You just bundled them together in order to argue that religion is detrimental to religion.

He could have given an example of Hindus being detrimental to Jews for all I care.

Which would also be an example of religion being detrimental to religion.

Your'e just not thinking about it enough.

Hmm, I don't we're going to get very far with this, are we?

Turtwig

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm on it.:)

Edit : Briefly scanned through it, nothing so far, some pointer would be nice...:)

Ok found it,

I'm afraid it doesn't still support your point that you were making...

All he says is "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion ... imagine no Taliban no blow up ancient statues..."

All he seems to be doing is creating an image of a world with no religion for the reader. He does not state anything explicitly here about religion being detrimental.

While you can argue that the statues he most likely is referring to are the Buddhist ones which needed religion to come about. And he clearly is focussing on the more negative aspects of religion.

You cannot argue that religion in general is detrimental because it gave the world hundreds of historic monuments and then removed some of them.

How you got that argument from the paragraph is baffling me.

Preface, 4th Pargraph

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

One of the funny bits in 'The God Delusion' is where poor Richard cites the destruction of those Buddhas as an example of the detrimental effect of religion upon the world. Of course, without religion, they wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Which goes to show you don't understand the reason behind his (and most peoples) disgust at this event.

The Buddha statues were historical relics of immense archeological and anthropological value.

I also would personally go so far as to suggest that the destruction of other religions relics today mostly occurs at the hands of the three main abrahamic religions.

I would also like to point out that Buddhism, in some forms, has no supernatural beliefs whatsoever and these forms are more correctly described as a philosophy which everyone of every religion can agree with, the pursuit of enlightenment.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

I'm sure thats not what Dawkins meant at all, he was obviously distressed at the destruction of an object of such immense archeological value.

You really think Dawkins would rejoice at the destruction of the Vatican for example ? Of course not. Religions, including Christianity has given us innumerable objects of immense historical value which no one wants to see destroyed ... except members of other religions.

And as for your comment about Buddhism getting more respect, I'm pretty sure Dawkins has no time for any supernatural beliefs whatsoever be that Christianity or Buddhism. But I personally do think there are things to be learned from religion including Christianity and Buddhism. For example, I have no time for any supernatural aspects of Christianity/Buddhism but I can understand (some of) the basic messages.

And finally, Buddhism is in a far different league to any of the Abrahamic religions. Some Buddhism is just as bad but many branches are as close to philosophical views as you can get and they are philosophy's everyone can agree with.

If you were to summarise Christianity and Buddhism;
Christianity is the worship of a jealous deity and the unquestioning obedience to him/her/it.
Buddhism is the struggle to extinguish suffering in the world and to understand existence yourself.

The Buddha said: “Do not accept what you hear by report. Be lamps unto yourselves.” He also told his followers: “Do not go by what is handed down, nor by the authority of your traditional teachings. When you know of yourselves, ‘These teachings are good or not good,' only then accept or reject them.”

The point in Buddhism is to be yourself. If a teaching makes sense to you, and it works in your life, then there is no reason why you shouldn't believe it.

If it doesn't work for you then no problem.

There are no rules in Buddhism, there is only a guide that worked for Buddha, you have to find your own way.

Fanny Cradock

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Okey dokey but before i do understand that Im not making any claim as to tyhe authenticity or otherwise of Christianity. This aint the place. Im just saying that if a religion is willing to draw its festivals and source material from older religions then naturally it will have no qualms in putting its mark on similarly older buildings, temples, statues etc.
Well. Many Christian holidays and days of note are superimposed over much older pagan festivals
Christmas happens at the same time as the winter solstice in celtic paganism
It happens at the same time as a Roman pagan festival - Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE...

Perhaps in future you should give links when you copy and paste from a different website.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm

As you can see from the link there is only one reference given for the claims - The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets (have a read of the reviews) by the same Barbara Walker who also wrote such titles as The craft of multicolour knitting. A quick glance at the supposed parallels relating to Attis don't even fit the legend. It seems that Walker is trying to convince us that Attis' death beneath a tree with Jesus' death on a "tree." They also try to connect Jesus' blood pouring from his wounds with Attis' blood flow caused by his auto-castration..

Did Constantine pick a date previously used by the pagans? Yes, but I don't need Barbara to tell me this. Is the date of Jesus birth mentioned in the bible? No.

Perhaps best for another thread. You can do a search on this forum under words like Horus, Osiris and Mithra to see previous discussions in a similar vein.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

Explain away what?

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

Heading waaaaaaaaay off topic here which always seems to happen when jack arrives. I 'believe" that Dawkins is refering to the mindset people abopt in their competition to be 'the one true 'religion'. A mind set that excuses mutual destruction and malace toward others and their buildings, statues etc.

And besides. Though Im not religious I would find it detrimental to myself if a religious faction wandered into my town or village destroying churches, statues, relics etc etc in the name of Allah, Jehova, God, Yaweh, Buddah, Thor, Zeus, Spaghetti Monster etc regardless of whether these items would have existed without religion.

Ghost Buster

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps in future you should give links when you copy and paste from a different website.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm

As you can see from the link there is only one reference given for the claims - The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets (have a read of the reviews) by the same Barbara Walker who also wrote such titles as The craft of multicolour knitting. A quick glance at the supposed parallels relating to Attis don't even fit the legend. It seems that Walker is trying to convince us that Attis' death beneath a tree with Jesus' death on a "tree." They also try to connect Jesus' blood pouring from his wounds with Attis' blood flow caused by his auto-castration..

Did Constantine pick a date previously used by the pagans? Yes, but I don't need Barbara to tell me this. Is the date of Jesus birth mentioned in the bible? No.

Perhaps best for another thread. You can do a search on this forum under words like Horus, Osiris and Mithra to see previous discussions in a similar vein.

Why ask me to unpack it and then tell me to move it to another thread?
The original point still stands. Superimposing aspects of your religious calendar over those of another is pretty much the same as superimposing your magic symbols over those of another.
With the modern day appreciation of historical buildings and artifacts many (not all) cultures would now frown upon such practice.
Thats pretty much on topic.

philologos

monosharp wrote:

If you were to summarise Christianity and Buddhism;
Christianity is the worship of a jealous deity and the unquestioning obedience to him/her/it.
Buddhism is the struggle to extinguish suffering in the world and to understand existence yourself.

Christianity is pretty much the same in this respect. Christians seek to live according to God's will, rather than to trust the ways of the world which cause suffering to make this world a better place, and to seek for the hereafter.

Obedience to God, isn't meant to be oppressive, but liberating. I'd rather be obedient to God, than mere man any day.

I'd also find karma a very harsh aspect of Hinduism and Buddhism. The idea that you are deformed because of a bad past life is horrific, or that if bad things happen to you, you deserve it. Christianity recognises that bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, but in the end people will be brought to justice.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity is pretty much the same in this respect. Christians seek to live according to God's will, rather than to trust the ways of the world which cause suffering to make this world a better place, and to seek for the hereafter.

And how is that the same as Buddhism ?

There are many many branches of Buddhism, I suggest you read a bit about it.

Obedience to God, isn't meant to be oppressive, but liberating. I'd rather be obedient to God, than mere man any day.

It doesn't matter if its oppressive or not, its still obedience. My point remains regardless of god's benevolence.

I'd also find karma a very harsh aspect of Hinduism and Buddhism. The idea that you are deformed because of a bad past life is horrific, or that if bad things happen to you, you deserve it. Christianity recognises that bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, but in the end people will be brought to justice.

Karma is not a part of all Buddhism and neither are past lives, asI said before, please read upon it. And how can you consider karma harsh but 'you will go to hell if you don't follow me' not harsh ?