₦airaland Forum

@huxley,

huxley:
Given that in the practice of the Theravada form of Buddhism, gods, deities and supernaturalism plays little or no part, should it be classed as a religion?

We know that Buddhism is a major world religion - there's no gainsaying that. Would you really say that "gods, deities and supernaturalism plays little or no part" in the Theravada? I'm not sure that's an appropriate inference to draw from this -

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=150614.msg2962797#msg2962797 date=1224371090]In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, however,
veneration and worship of all Buddhas, as the transmitters and embodiments
of Dharma and its blessings, is highly significant and is seen as extremely
important for spiritual development.
. . .

Wikipedia - God in Buddhism[/quote]

@huxley,

A warm welcome to this thread. Here are a few considerations that might be of interest to you:

huxley:
In several technical papers, W. C. Levengood purports to show that "Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes."[1] Unfortunately, there are serious objections to Levengood's approach. First of all, while he uses various control plants for his experiments, nowhere in the papers I reviewed [1,2,3,4] is there any mention of the work being conducted in double-blind manner so as to minimize the effects of experimenter bias. (As one "cereologist," the Earl of Haddington, said of another laboratory that claimed to detect different "energy levels" between crop-circle and non-crop-circle areas [a concept that appears to have begun with dowsers], "When they are not told which sample came from a Crop Circle and which from a heap of grain in my back yard they are either unable or unwilling to give a result."[5])

Every single objection from the above research has been soundly met by scientific researchers of the crop circle phenomena. Even the highlighted part of that entry does not present a serious objection - because the researcher seems to be sitting down lazily and expecting someone else to conduct an "independent" study that he would again dismiss as a "hoax".

However, I fail to see how the above research answers to the following well-attested observations of genuine crop circle phenomena from another scientist who has been involved in this study for some decades and has visited the sites of 2000 such occurences. Here are a few;

NHNE: What are the qualities that most distinguish an authentic crop circle from a hoax?

ANDREWS: These are the main ones:

-- Well-defined geometric design.

-- No damage to plants.

-- No soil compression or foot prints.

-- A spiral fingerprint recognized by my database.

-- Rotations verses diameter.

-- Changes in plants at cellular level (I personally think this is not yet established but has been published in the scientific literature).

-- Magnetic anomalies.

-- Established mathematical ratios between component parts.

That was why I posted just a link there for anyone interested to check these matters for themselves and ask serious questions about research carried out on site of those phenomena with those observations that were subjected to rigourous scientific scrutiny. The results? After visits to over 2000 such occurences, the hoaxes were about 80% with some self-confessed pransters - but what about the remaining 20% genuine crop circle occurences that are undeniably not man-made?

@huxley,

huxley:
OK, thanks a million for the invitation to which I am much oblige to comply. Of course, you are welcome to differ if you think it is wrong or you find a better source.

The original Buddhism was instituted by the Buddha as a form of seeking enlightenment. This original form was called Theravada ('way of the elders'). According to tradition, the original Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was a spiritual seeker, looking for a path to enlightenment. Coming out of Hindu tradition, some 600 year before Christ, he tried many different disciplines and exercises.

The Buddha taught that every person had to achieve enlightenment - become a buddha or enlightened one - on his or her own. Other people could not help. Teachers, gurus, and previously enlightened ones who remained in the world to lead the way could not do it for you; they were not saviours but rather instructors and doctors. Even the gods, if there were any, could not do it for you.

The Buddha said he did not know if there were gods or not but that it was ultimately irrelevant. Even if there were gods, they were on their own individual salvation quest and could not give it to others. Thus the original Buddhism (Theravada) is a system based on specific supernatural and spiritual principles but not relying on gods in any way.

Well, first appreciating your clarifications, it would not be in my place to hold that you were wrong - for we both stand outside Buddhism as observers and not participants, and it would be a disservice on my part to define it for its adherents.

Here are my observations:

(a) I've always wondered if atheism (in any of its expressions) have ever been inclined to supernatural and spiritual principles/interests. This was one of the things that drew my attention to query if it was wise for anyone to classify Buddhism (and Hinduism) under "Nonreligious", whereas it has not come to my notice that spiritual and supernatural principles/interests are atheistic identities.

(b) There are a few issues that Theravada Buddhism involve, from various sources, which again strengthens the point in (a) above - as far as gods are concerned. Let me refernece them:


Theravada beliefs

The Supernatural: Many faiths offer supernatural solutions to the spiritual
problems of human beings. Buddhism does not. The basis of all forms of
Buddhism is to use meditation for awakening (or enlightenment),
not outside powers.
○ Supernatural powers are not disregarded but they are incidental
and the Buddha warned against them as fetters on the path.

The Buddha: Siddhartha Gautama was a man who became Buddha,
the Awakened One - much in the same way as Jesus became Christ.
Since his death the only contact with him is through his teachings
which point to the awakened state.

God: There is no omnipotent creator God of the sort found in Judaism,
Islam and Christianity. Gods exist as various types of spiritual being
but with limited powers.

The Path to Enlightenment: Each being has to make their own way to
enlightenment without the help of God or gods. Buddha's teachings
show the way, but making the journey is up to us.

Source: BBC Religion & Ethics - Buddhism

______________________________________________


In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, however,
veneration and worship of all Buddhas, as the transmitters and embodiments
of Dharma and its blessings, is highly significant and is seen as extremely
important for spiritual development. While Buddhism does not deny the existence
of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist
scripture, and indeed the Buddhas themselves, whose powers are of a supernatural
calibre), it does not ascribe power, in the typical Western sense, for creation,
salvation or judgment to the "gods". . .

The "God idea" forms the part of Theravada where refuge in Buddha is the supreme
and unequaled refuge which allows release from all suffering - with the "deathless
realm of Nirvana" a hint of an impersonal, transcendental Absolute.

Wikipedia - God in Buddhism

______________________________________________


The monastics of traditional Theravada, by living the ideal style and through preaching
and presiding over rituals, became the religious specialists in this system, constituting
a "field of merit" for the laity.
Traditional Theravada also accommodated popular spirit or god (deva) worship,
which addressed the mundane needs of people on the lower levels on an increasingly
"gradual" or extended path to Buddhism's ultimate goal of nibbana.

THERAVADA BUDDHISM

______________________________________________


There are several other sources along these lines or strain of thought; but the point is that, while it is not in my place to judge you wrong, we notice also that some researchers believe that Theravada Buddhism indeed involved:

-- popular spirit or god (deva) worship

-- the "God idea" forms the part of Theravada

-- Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings

-- Supernatural powers are not disregarded

-- Gods exist as various types of spiritual being
(although different in concept from the idea of God in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)


These various elements in Theravada Buddhism (as outlined above) are the reasons that made me wonder if they could be said to identify atheistic interests or principles. What do you think?

Regards.

OLAADEGBU:
@Pilgrim.1,
I praise the Lord for you and may the Lord continue to use your testimony to bring the message to people's hearts and minds so that the Holy Spirit will convince, convict and convert their souls as you continue to testify to the glory of the Lord. Yes, testimonies are powerful tools to bring the gospel message home. The Lord will continue to be with you always till the end of age. Amen.

@OLAADEGBU,
Thank you for your prayers and encouragements. What a way to enjoy my weekend, as well prepare my Sunday. God bless you many times over. Jesus is Lord.

It is important for people to understand that tithes were never once spoken in any place in the Bible in the same terms as was circumcision. Not one verse has anything such as that "tithes is nothing"; and you will never find the apostle anywhere saying that "if ye pay tithes, Christ shall profit you nothing". It is because people are too driven with some mentality to just read their own thoughts into the texts (eisegesis) that is why they treat tithes like circumcision whereas Scripture never treated it like that! Of course, there are other matters that were included in the Levitical rites that the NT discouraged in Christian living:
               
       ●   Jewish festivities  -  (observances of days)

                 ~ Galatians 4: 8-11
                 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
                 which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God,
                 or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and
                 beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
                 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
                 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Let us make no mistakes about this: matters that were to be discouraged were plainly stated and no ambiguities were left. This is why up until now I have asked a simple question: for anyone to make tithes/tithing redundant, please find just one verse where tithing was condemned. Just one verse. Rather than lump everything up, you will not find that verse - not even one!

But what about another matter of the Law that Christians have argued over - the sabbath? I believe that the apostles were not ambiguous in this matter (and other matters as well): for they clearly spelt out the mind of the Lord on that one as well.

       ●   Jewish sabbaths  -

                 ~ Colossians 2:16-17
                 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
                 or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or
                 of the sabbath days:
                 Which are a shadow of things to come;
                 but the body is of Christ.


       ●   Jewish food laws  -

                 ~ Matthew 15:10-11
                 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
                 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; (*cf. Lev. 11)
                 but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

                 ~ Hebrews 13:9
                 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.
                 For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace;
                 not with meats, which have not profited them that have been
                 occupied therein.

No one who carefully goes through these matters would have any difficulty understanding their contexts. Where God wanted us to know that He doesn't want us to be occupied with certain rites and ceremonies, He clearly stated them in the NT - without confusion. The problem with some of our brethren is that they are too much in a haste to just disregard the particular matters God speaks about and then arrive at the idea that He made this, that and the other "redundant" - and for all that, they cannot show where He ever said so!

It's my persuasion that the Word in the NT is clear as day! If God wanted us to dispense with tithes, He would have clearly stated it in the NT as we find for all the above. Those are by no means the only matters mentioned as not applicable on the Christian life: there are definitely more - and these all show that God wanted us to know what His mind on these issues were! Yet, not in one verse would any honest reader find where He ever condemned tithes.

Let me recap all these (B) part by noting how the apostle Paul lived his Christian life in these matters. Even though the same apostle was to note that:

                 ~ 1 Cor. 7:19
                  Circumcision is nothing,
                  and uncircumcision is nothing,
                  but the keeping of the commandments of God"

. . yet, we find him actually shaving his head, purifying himself according to Jewish rites as well as that he didn't quarrel at the offering made on their behalf - just to pacify the Jews and have the opportunity to speak with them (Acts 21:23-26). Not only so, he also determined to keep a Jewish feast - essentially for the same reason (Acts 18:21). Again, he had also allowed Timothy to be circumcised because of the Jews in those quarters (Acts 16:1-3), for no less the same reason. So, what effect did all these have on him? Would he have gone to Hell as another non-tither had argued against tithers?

No, there is something we should all notice here: Paul clearly said that: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Galatians 6:15). The rites of the Jewish festivities did not affect the Christian in any way - since they are not seeking to be justified by the Levitical rites!

I hope it is now clear to us how to see these matters, so that we don't run the risk of misjudging these matters and assuming that God had made something "redundant" which he never did! This is why I have again and again made a simple request: find me just one verse in the NT where tithes were condemned! If God wanted us to see what He discouraged, He clearly said so in the NT. But who are we that we should legislate for Him and begin to condemn anything that He never condemned?

Blessings all.

Hmm, na wah O! no mind me o jare. . . I was watching the X-factor!

Now, at least, there should no longer be a controversy as to the fact that the Law of Moses is used as the foundation of some new covenant Christian doctrines - it is not a matter of legalistic applications that migrate into the Church, but one of simple principles in the OT.

● B. As far as the old covenant (based on the Levitical priesthood) is concerned,
we should be looking at matters where the ceremonial rites, services, customs,
consequences, and effects in all their legal and literal applications do not have
a binding requirement upon the Christian. This is because of the following:

> the new covenant was ratified by the Blood of Christ, and not by the blood
of bulls and of goats that ratified the old covenant under the Levitical priesthood
(Hebrews 9:11-14).

> the Christian therefore is not under the legal status of the Levitical
priesthood in as much as he does not share in the blessings and curses
of the old covenant (Galatians 3:10)

> the old covenant did not justify anyone - either in the OT or NT.
This is why even the matter of "tithes" does not seek to justify anyone
since tithes were not a matter of justification by Law (Galatians 2:16).
Hence, when I speak about the principle of faith in tithing, please, please
and please, learn to look away from the Levitical priesthood - for that is
not where I derive my persuasions for tithing.

So, if we are not to live by the old covenant rites and ceremonies, how would we know what matters in the Law were discountenanced, and what others were taught as germane to the Christian faith and living? As earlier, I have shared on this matter to show that where the apostles wanted us to know what matters were particularly disavowed, they said so in very plain terms:

● circumcision -

~ 1 Cor. 7:18-19
Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.
Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but the keeping of the commandments of God"

~ Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

~ Galatians 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

How serious is this matter of a legalistic circumcision by the Law?
Very serious indeed, and the warnings in Scripture were given:

● Galatians 5:2-3
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man
that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Is this not clear in itself? Circumcision was never used in Scripture as a "metaphor" for the Law - and the examples above did not say at anytime that "the Law is nothing", but rather, that "circumcision is nothing" - keeping them in their true contexts. The reason why this was seriously presented in such graphic terms in Scripture was to let us know that those who sought circumcision to please God were making themselves debtors under the Levitical rites - and because the new covenant in Christ that we have as Christians is not predicated on the Levitical priesthood, the apostle made clear that: "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Galatians 2:4).

Having distinguished these issues above, let's see where they appear in the body of the apostles' teachings and how they fit into our Christian faith based on the new covenant:

    ● A.   As far as the OT (Old Testament) is used in teaching NT doctrines,
             there are no issues of confusion there. We "learn from" so many
             OT scriptures that speak to us about doctrines on the Church life,
             practices, principles and relationships - and it doesn't matter that
             so many of these issues are found right in the Mosaic Law.
             Let's see a few of them:

             >  Loving God with all the heart, soul and mind (Matt. 22:37  ↔  Deut. 6:5)

             >  Children to honour their fathers and mothers (Eph. 6:1-2  ↔  Exo. 20:12)

However, in more direct instances, we find indeed that the Law of Moses was categorically referred to in issues that define Christian doctrine, faith and practice in the Churches. Perhaps, many people who have missed this very point need to be careful when they say that we're not under the Law but under grace. True as that is, the point here is that the same Law we many times disavow is that same Law that provides the basis of many Christian practices in the Church - and here are a few:

             >  where do we find the teacher that the women be silent in the churches?
                 1 Corinthians 14:34
                 'Let your women keep silence in the churches:
                  for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
                  but they are commanded to be under obedience,
                  as also saith the law'.

             >  where do we find that God was to speak to men with other tongues?
                 1 Corinthians [i]14:21[/i]            
                 'In the law it is written,
                 With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people;
                 and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.'

             >  where was apostle Paul quoting from in matters about ministry support?
                 1 Corinthians 9:9-10
                 'For it is written in the law of Moses,
                 Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
                 Doth God take care for oxen?
                 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?
                 For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth
                 should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should
                 be partaker of his hope.

Of course there are so, so many more about these matters where our Christian doctrines in the Church derives particularly from the LAW; but then I hope you get my drift by now? Just imagine that that we often quote the Law as being "dead and buried" because we are under grace - the question that comes to mind is, why then were the apostles quoting directly from the OT Law as the foundation for particular Church practices and faith under the new covenant? No one can deny these matters - but they go to illustrate my point that these NT referrals for new covenant doctrines does not mean that we are applying the Law in a legalistic manner; else, that would mean that we were living our lives under the old covenant. But is that what is happening? We know better.

Yet, before people begin to wonder about these matters, let me quickly say here: how did the apostles treat the divine principles of the Law in the body of their NT teachings? A verse will help here:

        Romans 3:31
        Do we then make void the law through faith?
        God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Just because we are Christians does not mean that the Law has nothing to do with our faith. The distinction here is that the principles of the Law are not dispensed with in our Christian faith - and those principles (rather than legalism) are the things that define the several doctrines we find as quoted in the NT.

More later.

Following on from the outline above:

                          old covenant   [size=16pt]↔[/size]   Levitical priesthood

                        Old Testament   [size=16pt]↔[/size]   Genesis to Malachi

Several times in my submissions, even though I reiterated that my persuasions were not based on the old covenant (the Levitical priesthood), I often clearly stated that the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi) also holds divine principles for our learning. That is why I earlier said that:

           there is a difference between -

           >  living by the old covenant; and

           >  learning from the Old Testament.


How do we understand these two issues? Some references already given:

          ●    Living by the old covenant under the Levitical priesthood:

                1 Corinthians 7:19
                Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
                but the keeping of the commandments of God
                ______________________________

          ●    Learning from the Old Testament:

                Romans 15:4
                For whatsoever things were written aforetime
                were written for our learning,
                that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures
                might have hope.

We do not mix these issues up at any one time: and for people who might have been doing so, it is not surprising that they keep looking into the Levitical law every single time "tithes" are mentioned.

More shortly.

TV01:
Pilly dear, you know full well that the Scibes and Pharisees were under the written code which Christians are not bound by. Did The Lord fulfill the law? Yes, perfectly. He lived it in all it's aspects. Under the NT dispensation we shall fulfill the weigtier matters also, but not by a written code.

When that is fully understand and how it is to be achieved is grasped, all notions of tithing will hopefully disappear.

You're assuming things, my dear bros. That is why I want to take it step by step to show you what I have been calling attention to. It does not mean that my inferences should hold sway upon your life: but if you take the time to see where I'm coming from, you will see why one could not just pray that tithing would "hopefully disappear".

Regards.

@TV01,

TV01:
Leading questions are just not in my chauvinistic repertoire ! How far?

Lol, brotherly. . . I dey. How body with you?

Okay, I shall try and heed the several godly counsels received offline to help me be more genial. . . never was so richly blessed as when there are friends who take note of what we share.

TV01:
Okay, as requested, NO!

Well, let me bring your attention to a few considerations:

      ● A.  The first thing to note is that every single time I have discussed issues
              from the Law, it should be clear that my persuasions are not rested
              on any idea of a legalistic application of Levitical rites and ceremonies;
              but rather the divine principles in the Old Testament that help to lead
              our thinking to understanding the meanings of Biblical concepts.

      ● B.  Secondly, there is a huge difference between what we see in matters
              pertaining to the old covenant and those discussed in Old Testament.
              While in the old covenant, we note the ceremonies, rites and services
              of the Levitical priesthood; the case of the Old Testament should help
              us more with understanding the principles of God's truths more broadly
              than merely the old covenant.

      ● C.  Hence, looking at (B) above, we note simply that the old covenant is
              not to be misconstrued for the Old Testament. The difference could be
              simply outlined thus:

                          old covenant   [size=14pt]↔[/size]   Levitical priesthood

                        Old Testament   [size=14pt]↔[/size]   Genesis to Malachi

               When we try not to confuse these matters, then it becomes easier to see
               the distinctions I have been trying to call all along.

Based on the above, I shall try and expound on examples in the New Testament.

@huxley,

huxley:
I think you are right in questioning his classifying Buddhism and Hinduism as non-religious. Besides, the article is deficient in not defining what religion and non-religions are. So if there was a reason for his classification, it is not obvious from his write-up. I think and most people and researcher in the field would group these as religious movements.

Granted - I saw that and wondered: thus my questioning Martin's idea thereto.

huxley:
As to whether they are atheistic, I have known two people who belong to these religions who see themselves as atheists. But besides my experience with these friends, lets examine the core belief of these religions and see if they espouse belief and veneration of gods.

Granted, there are some forms of these religions that are theistic. In fact, the vast majority appear to be theistic. But the original Buddhism was not theistic and there are still elements of this traditional Buddhism today.

It's not clear to me what you may mean by original Buddhism. Do you care to shed some more light?

huxley:
You seem to be making a mistake here, but correct me if I am wrong. Religion is not synonimous with theism. There are many religions that are nontheistic, notably animism, ancestor worship, etc, etc.

The fact these are religions does not mean they cannot be atheistic.

Maybe for the sake of this discussion I may grant that: the problem is that we often observe that when some atheists speak about "religion" they are the very ones who often make that a synonym for "Christianity". There are various types of religions; but if it is a matter of theistic versus atheistic worldviews, it would be difficult to defend the idea that a religion is atheistic - especially when we understand atheism generally to be the denial of the core elements of religion and spirituality of any kind.

huxley:
Pardon me, but I do not see your logic here. Can you recast this is other words please?

Okay, perhaps this may be more helpful:

Buddhism is a religion - and Martin was wrong to have attempted to classify it under "Atheists/[b]Non[/b]religious".

euromilion:
i think you should'nt compare naija and china,our problems started from the colonian master,

I think you have a point there - it wouldn't be fair to compare [color=Black]N[/color]aija's problems with the case of China. We all seem to see these matters in relative light, though.

@huxley,

Looking at the chart just above one would wonder why Martin would class Hindus and Buddhists as Atheists (or “Nonreligious”)! Have you taken a very critical look yourself before posting his assumptions in agreement thereto?

What actually are Hinduism and Buddhism? Are these a[/b]theist[b]ic worldviews?

Let us revisit the same source (Microsoft Encarta) on those two worldviews; and please observe the elements (some of which are emphasised) that put them outside the atheist[b]ic[/b] worldview:

On Hinduism:

[list]Hinduism, a ¹religious tradition of Indian origin,
comprising the ²beliefs and practices of Hindus. . .
>snip<
Hindus today number nearly 900 million, including about
20 million who live outside India, making them the third
largest ³religious community in the world, after Christians
and Muslims.
>snip<
Three ¹other religions that originated in India are closely
related to Hinduism: Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
In the 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer
read both Hindu and Buddhist ⁴scriptures and based much of his
thinking on them.[/list]

On Buddhism:

[list]Buddhism, a ¹major world religion, founded in northeastern India
and based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who is known
as the Buddha, or Enlightened One.
>snip<
The number of Buddhists worldwide has been estimated at between
150 and 300 million.
>snip<
Closely related to this belief is the ⁵doctrine of karma.
Karma consists of a person’s acts and their ethical consequences.
Human actions lead to ⁶rebirth, wherein good deeds are inevitably
rewarded and evil deeds punished . . . According to the Buddha,
karma of varying types can lead to rebirth as a human, an animal,
a hungry ⁷ghost, a denizen of ⁸hell, or even one of
the Hindu ⁹gods.[/list]

What on earth in the name of rationalistic philosophy was Martin thinking of, that he could miss all these glaring features of both Hinduism and Buddhism and class them under A[/b]theism? Just wondering: since when did [b]a[/b]theists start believing in –

         ●  a [b]religious tradition. .

         ●  a major world religion. .

         ●  beliefs and practices

         ●  Buddhist scriptures. .

         ●  doctrine of karma. .

         ●  rebirth. .

         ●  denizen of hell. .

         ●  Hindu gods?!?

Of course, please remember - these are not my articles; rather, they were sourced from the same Microsoft Encarta where Michael Martin's article is said to have been entered. We should be wondering if the same base source is highlighting all these features which clearly have nothing to do with atheism/atheistic philosophy, someone like Martin would still class them under "Nonreligious" - was he kidding us or what?

Even when you add the number of adherents in these two worldviews together, you arrive at estimates between 1,050 million (or 1.05 billion) and 1,200 million (or 1.2 billion). Was Martin trying so hard to make a case of 1.2 billion atheists around the world? If atheism has gained such a "majority" around the world, why have atheists being crying out the minority?

These are the issues that I had wanted to highlight, and are the reasons why I kept asking over and over again earlier if one could view Buddhism as classified under "Nonreligious" when clearly the same source (Microsoft Encarta) demonstrates that they are actually major religions in the world?

huxley:
Where did I infer that ?

It was a question I asked so that I don't misread you. Semantics aside, I shall try and follow through to help bring you round this issue of Buddhism being classed under atheism (or as an atheistic worldview). Cheers.

Well, here are a few that might be of help:


     ●   Rod Parsley (USA)
          World Harvest Bible College
          PO Box 32901
          Columbus, OH 43232
          USA



     ●   Michael Reid (UK)
          The Midlands Bible College
          Distance Learning Office
          P.O. Box 2143
          Stone
          Staffordshire
          ST15 8WQ
         (homepage probably experiencing tech glitches - link above accessible at this time)
         an overview from Wikipedia



     ●   Jerry Falwell (USA)
          Liberty University
          1971 University Boulevard
          Lynchburg, Virginia 24502
          Tel: 434-582-2000
          USA


There are countless others; but I hope these would help for now.

Many blessings and grace to your friend in finding a very satisfying school for his quest.

huxley:
Now, to answer your question, I would say some forms of Buddhism is atheistic (NOT atheism). As far as I know, nothing else is atheism. Nothing but atheism is atheism.

For example Naturalism is atheistic, but Naturalism is NOT atheism. Communism is atheistic, but it is NOT atheism (in fact, I am not 100% sure about this aspect of communism, as I have not personally looked into it, but relied on stuff from the grapevine)

In other words, I am to henceforth assume that even atheists do not use the word "atheism"? because I really don't get you here, if atheism is the real problem here and everything else just simply has to fall under "atheistic"?

@huxley,

Okay, let me help.

(. . to B)

huxley:
Who is the god(s) venerated by the Buddhists (at least, the traditional form)? Can you show me any reputed philosophers (or philosophies) of religions that classify buddhism as theistic?

In answer to your question, it is clear that Buddhism is regarded as a religion. Hence, if a[/b]theism is not inclined to religion in any form, it simply throws out your attempt to classify Buddhism under [b]a[/b]theism.

Your reposting of ‘Atheism’ by Michael Martin (from an entry in Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia) is sadly a huge misrepresentation of reality. I was hoping that a friend would loan me a copy of Michael Martin’s book so that my thoughts and inferences about his premises would not be skewed. However, let’s just follow the lead from this thread which you had raised. My findings are that it seems a bit out of the ordinary that anyone would even take Martin seriously here: was he trying to deliberately misrepresent issues for atheistic agenda? We may not know at this point.

I’ve reproduced a modified version below to highlight the non-atheist religions ([b]Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism); and then my observations follow subsequently.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/86390_chart_gif189e2f493584c501d918220fe46ec723

It all depends on what he/she is looking to gain from that study.
Is it a Pentecostal or Conservative theological school he's interested in?

JJYOU:
Jesus would have seen them tithe don't you think so?

They are not sure and have been ever scuttling behind that verse. To them, it is a half-measure: "do this and not the other" is how they assume that verse reads - whereas it simply stands out clear: "these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone". I think if there was any verse they had hoped that tithes were ever condemned in the NT, it should have been that one - and we wonder why the Lord did not use that opportunity to tell them straight to cease from thence.

@huxley,

Thank you; but do I take it that (traditional or not) Buddhism is atheism from you?

I know why I'm asking and not trying to tediously press it on you: just so that I don't misconstrue what position you take. I would not like to run the risk of misrepresenting your ideas.

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
And not to overlook this;

I would welcome embarrasment if it came with my being disabused from a wrong belief. Please walk us through Christian practice that is " derived directly from the law". Twenty words or less will completely debunk that notion, but let me allow you the chance to make us swallow and of course showcase your "Alagba" scholarship once again.

I don't have any "Alagba" scholarship to showcase. The question is simple: a yes or no would have cleared you from this dribbling. Thank you.

TV01:
Like I said, please show us exactly where in scripture and how Christians - be they Jew or Gentile - were " practicing so many things derived directly from the Law of Moses". Could I ask that they not be inferred or mysterious or ordained but not specifically referenced. Ta !

As above. A direct, simple, not dodgy answer would help show the sort of mindset you have. If playing these hide and seek games is all you have to show for your efforts, I think it may be best to leave you singing.

Cheers.

@huxley,

Noting this remark of yours earlier:

huxley:
For goodness sake Buddhist are atheist yet they would be classed as harbouring unsubstantiated beliefs systems and are thus irrational in holding such beliefs.

It is not a requirement to proffer any answers to simple questions - I don't force people to bend their necks that they must answer any queries (regardless how many people would like to keep harping on and on about one thing). But it would be interesting to see your answers to the simple question I offered earlier:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=150614.msg2960461#msg2960461 date=1224336956]for context: does atheism involve any sentiment of religion and spirituality?[/quote]Cheers.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
I think the main point is not whether or not buddhist believe in god or gods, but rather whether they believe in a supernatural.

Many thanks, but I think it is even more involving than that; and that was why I brought the issue here so we could discuss it in very simple outlines. Since our friends would have us believe that Buddhism is atheism, we would like to see how they arrived at this inference.

A short intro about Andrew Colins:


[list]Colin Andrews is a well-known researcher and author and is widely acknowledged as the world expert on the crop circle phenomenon. He is the founder of Circles Phenomenon Research International, the first organization established specifically to investigate the crop circle phenomenon. His scientific investigations are responsible for much of the current information available on the subject.

Andrews is an electrical engineer by profession and a former senior officer in British regional Government. For three years Colin advised the British Government on the crop circle phenomenon, supplying technical and scientific reports to the Under-Secretary of State for the environment (Rt. Hon. Nicholas Ridely, M.P.) in the Margaret Thatcher cabinet.

. . . .

He believes that a large number of Crop Circles are fakes but that the paranormal is involved with the remainder. He has witnessed many bizarre events since beginning his long investigation into this mystery but is determined to continue his research in a scientific manner and an open mind.

source: Crop Circle Research
[/list]

TV01:
As requested.

. . . and what have you said?

. . . just as a matter of interest for now (from here):

huxley:
Where did I assume you are ignorant of CMB? I was developing a line of argument, by stating facts and asking rhetorical questions. Does that mean I was assuming you to be ignorant of the facts. Take a look again. Does it say anywhere that you are ignorant?

I would like us to keep the rhetorical questions aside - what use is there answering rhetorics?

huxley:
Who is the god(s) venerated by the Buddhists (at least, the traditional form)? Can you show me any reputed philosophers (or philosophies) of religions that classify buddhism as theistic?

Migrated here. There's really no use derailing threads. Cheers.

@huxley,

Actually, I didn't feel drawn to take up this issue for one reason: it seems we're more likely to fall victims of our own arguments with these reactions - and I have cautioned that there is no need to do so. Just so that you don't consider it rude of me should I not post a reply, that is why I brought the discussion from the other thread to this one so I could offer a reposte just for the moment. I may not guarantee to keep this up, probably until there might be occasion to be attracted to something more of substance to discuss. How's that?

Now, for the present:

(from A). [quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=184294.msg2959647#msg2959647 date=1224324636]I'm sorry again, but please don't even try to wave this simplistic idea promoted by people like Michael Martin in our face. Buddhism is NOT atheism by any stretch; and if you want to take me up on that, I shall be too glad to help throw Martin's miscalculations about this to the bin once and for all. I'm not being crude, huxley. . . but I'm weary already of celebrated writers misleading the public - which was what Martin did; and yet I have looked in vain to see how many atheists have tried to correct Martin.[/quote](. . to B)

huxley:
Who is the god(s) venerated by the Buddhists (at least, the traditional form)? Can you show me any reputed philosophers (or philosophies) of religions that classify buddhism as theistic?

Let me begin by asking a simple question for context: does atheism involve any sentiment of religion and spirituality?

Reese1:
A facebook group would be ideal for this as well.

Brilliant idea. This revo may start small, encounter some problems, and people may get discouraged along the line. . . but this idea will not be dismissed easily.

KennyG:
I want to know is it possible for some one to access a computer drive from a remote location and save files on my drive and also visit websites?

It is possible - especially if your PC at work is password protected and someone is fiddling about with your password and security logins. What measures have you taken to seek help and find out the time-logs of those questionable files?

@Chrisbenogor,

If we have more people reason the way you do, issues would be a lot easier to deal with. You have just captured the essence of the problem in very few words:

Chrisbenogor:
But to follow the poster's line of thought religion may have caused chaos in many parts of the world but I think it would be stretching the truth to add Nigeria, its not the cause per say but it does hinder the solutions.

Much appreciated.