Capitalism is un-Christian.

[Qistina]

The words are 'Jewish' and 'Judaism'. The former do not do not denote a race, unless you count people living in the same county. I.e. 'The English race'

(bad example by the way) which is a bit archaic. You can't become black by marrying a black person, but you can become jewish by marrying a jewish person and converting. 

 

It's complicated and yet not at all. 

 

Really? I never heard anyone become Jewish, because no one simply cannot become a Jewish

 

It is the same like no one can become English, Irish, Scottish, Finnish....Moorish....

 

Judaism is a specific religion to the Jews only, not to the Gentiles

[Gfted1]

Here you go:

 

Conversion to Judaism

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Clearly that is Jewish lies.

[Hurlshort]

Huh, I know a number of people that have converted to Judaism, mostly because of a spouse.  It is not a religion that actively proselytizes.  

 

Dang it, I try so hard not to engage in any of these crazy qistina discussions.  

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable, including things such as reincarnation

 

I have a feeling you're not overly familiar with Buddhism 

 

Really?  So you saying that there are not any branches of Buddhism that teaches reincarnation then?  Or that people can ascend to Buddhahood (another unprovable belief)?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable, including things such as reincarnation

 

I have a feeling you're not overly familiar with Buddhism 

 

Really?  So you saying that there are not any branches of Buddhism that teaches reincarnation then?  Or that people can ascend to Buddhahood (another unprovable belief)?

 

 

On reincarnation.

 

(Also, isn't the Dalai Lama considered to have ascended to Buddhahood?)

Edited January 5, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable, including things such as reincarnation

 

I have a feeling you're not overly familiar with Buddhism 

 

Really?  So you saying that there are not any branches of Buddhism that teaches reincarnation then?  Or that people can ascend to Buddhahood (another unprovable belief)?

 

 

On reincarnation.

 

(Also, isn't the Dalai Lama considered to have ascended to Buddhahood?)

 

alum do you believe in reincarnation? I can't imagine it features too much in the medical fraternity 

[Maedhros]

Did you read the text in his link? There is nothing supernatural about "reincarnation" as taught by Buddhism.

 

 

The Buddha taught that what we think of as our "self" -- our ego, self-consciousness and personality -- is a creation of the skandhas. Very simply, our bodies, physical and emotional sensations, conceptualizations, ideas and beliefs, and consciousness work together to create the illusion of a permanent, distinctive "me."

The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.” He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next.

This takes us to the Three Marks of Existence, in particular anicca, "impermanence." The Buddha taught that all phenomena, including beings, are in a constant state of flux -- always changing, always becoming, always dying.

 

[BruceVC]

 

Did you read the text in his link? There is nothing supernatural about "reincarnation" as taught by Buddhism.

 

 

The Buddha taught that what we think of as our "self" -- our ego, self-consciousness and personality -- is a creation of the skandhas. Very simply, our bodies, physical and emotional sensations, conceptualizations, ideas and beliefs, and consciousness work together to create the illusion of a permanent, distinctive "me."

The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.” He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next.

This takes us to the Three Marks of Existence, in particular anicca, "impermanence." The Buddha taught that all phenomena, including beings, are in a constant state of flux -- always changing, always becoming, always dying.

 

Nah I don't follow boring Buddha definitions of reincarnation....I'm talking about proper reincarnation definitions where I get reborn as a Chinese emperor 

Edited January 5, 2016 by BruceVC

[aluminiumtrioxid]

alum do you believe in reincarnation? I can't imagine it features too much in the medical fraternity 

 

How does that pertain to the subject at hand?

[BruceVC]

 

alum do you believe in reincarnation? I can't imagine it features too much in the medical fraternity 

 

How does that pertain to the subject at hand?

 

Aren't we discussing reincarnation? Didn't you post a link about reincarnation and I'm interested in your opinion 

[Darkpriest]

i believe what are his religious views are not really concern here, right? You cannot either prove or disprove the existence of a spirit within a being. I am not even sure if there is enough medical research to even give a clear view about self conscience and what forms it. (it is a part of our personal identity - this would be a huge question if we could enter the teleportation technology - is it really me or is it a clone with my memories but I died in defragmentation process)

 

reincarnation same as any other religious view can hardly be taken into medical terms. If anything it is closest to being technically possible as all matter is formed from various elements and these elements circulate within nature. All known living things are based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and some other elements the same elements which form today your body can technically in some probability form another living being in an unforseen future.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Darkpriest

[BruceVC]

i believe what are his religious views are not really concern here, right? You cannot either prove or disprove the existence of a spirit within a being. I am not even sure if there is enough medical research to even give a clear view about self conscience and what forms it. (it is a part of our personal identity - this would be a huge question if we could enter the teleportation technology - is it really me or is it a clone with my memories but I died in defragmentation process)

 

reincarnation same as any other religious view can hardly be taken into medical terms. If anything it is closest to being technically possible as all matter is formed from various elements and these elements circulate within nature. All known living things are based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and some other elements the same elements which form today your body can technically in some probability form another living being in an unforseen future.

Imagine if you were reincarnated as a Syrian refugee 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

alum do you believe in reincarnation? I can't imagine it features too much in the medical fraternity  

 

How does that pertain to the subject at hand?

 

Aren't we discussing reincarnation? Didn't you post a link about reincarnation and I'm interested in your opinion 

 

 

 

I thought we were discussing the buddhist beliefs (or lack thereof) in reincarnation, but then you went and posted this:

 

 

Nah I don't follow boring Buddha definitions of reincarnation....I'm talking about proper reincarnation definitions where I get reborn as a Chinese emperor 

 

So now I'm confused.

[Namutree]

Point of clarification, when most people say Muslim they mean Middle Easterner.

So Muslim is used in the Western world as a race.

 

I've never met anyone who said "Muslim" when they meant Middle Easterner. If this has been happening I guess I've just been clueless.

 

 

 

There is no stoning in the Quran, and no stoning in the Gospel, so where stoning come from in Torah? You see that? That's the corruption...as we can see today some Muslims also practicing stoning in some countries even there is no such thing in the Quran.

 

Isn't stoning featured in some Hadith? 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Namutree

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

alum do you believe in reincarnation? I can't imagine it features too much in the medical fraternity  

 

How does that pertain to the subject at hand?

 

Aren't we discussing reincarnation? Didn't you post a link about reincarnation and I'm interested in your opinion 

 

 

 

I thought we were discussing the buddhist beliefs (or lack thereof) in reincarnation, but then you went and posted this:

 

 

Nah I don't follow boring Buddha definitions of reincarnation....I'm talking about proper reincarnation definitions where I get reborn as a Chinese emperor 

 

So now I'm confused.

 

Ah yes my bad, I always forget that people have no way of knowing when I'm joking about something

 

I have no real proof of reincarnation from any religion but I still like to read about it, so I don't really dismiss the Buddhist  view of it ...so really I have no informed opinion about it but I would still like to get your view, and any one elses, about it 

[Qistina]

 

 

There is no stoning in the Quran, and no stoning in the Gospel, so where stoning come from in Torah? You see that? That's the corruption...as we can see today some Muslims also practicing stoning in some countries even there is no such thing in the Quran.

 

Isn't stoning featured in some Hadith? 

 

 

Yes, and regarding the hadith, scholars have different opinions about them. Some scholars take all hadith without question, some scholars only take hadith that parallel with Quran, some scholars have mixed opinion. So it is all about scholars opinions. The Quranists however reject all hadiths

 

There are many level of hadith, authentic, weak and fake. The authentic hadith are hadith that being agreed upon all hadith scholars using their own measure to define them. Weak hadith are hadith that scholars have mixed opinions, they are weak because of not fully meet the requirement to be labelled authentic. Fake hadiths are hadith that are being fabricated, we can know them using some method.

 

Actually, hadith are everything that the prophet said and his action, it is not written down originally, it is because Muslims can see him while he still alive. But hundreds years have passed, Muslims of next generation have no clue about the prophet, and many have claimed the prophet do this and that, saying this and that, so some scholars in the past take action by recording everything that being claimed and try to authenticized them using some method.

 

The popular method is looking at the teaching of Quran, if the hadith is parallel with Quran then it is authentic, because the prophet will not teach something that is not in the book. But some Muslm scholars just taken everything even there is no such thing in the Quran and justify it by must follow every prophet teachings either it is in the Quran or not...

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I have no real proof of reincarnation from any religion but I still like to read about it, so I don't really dismiss the Buddhist  view of it ...so really I have no informed opinion about it but I would still like to get your view, and any one elses, about it 

 

 

Believing in reincarnation always seemed like a supremely logical thing to me. You can find solace in knowing that however much you screw up your life, or however many opportunities you miss out on for fear of screwing up your life, you'll always have a second (and third , and fourth, ad infinitum) chance in your next life. And guess what, if it turns out you're wrong, there's no reincarnation, and you just cease to exist when you die, it's not like you'll be around to realize you've been wrong.

[Barothmuk]

You stated that if you don't believe in something then you disbelieve it

No, I stated that if a god demands you think or act in a specific way less you be punished, and you choose not to think or act in that specific way due to a lack of evidence of needing to this is actual disbelief. It is not a neutral stance.

 

How does it fail to meet the traditional definitions of a religion? Because it doesn't have a god? "All religions must have a god because the definition I use to define religion is that they must have a god, therefore they must have a god..."

Well that is the traditional definition of a religion. Some have tried to expand this definition so as to be able to include non-Western religions but like I mentioned before this ends up accidentally categorising various belief systems that we wouldn't normally consider religions as religions. This is because religion as a concept of categorising certain belief systems is itself a modern invention that only came into use in the 17th century. Because of this it was only constructed to meet the needs of differentiating certain belief systems in the West rather than as a totalizing concept to be utilized for all belief systems worldwide.

 

Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable

So do most philosophies. Natural rights, morals, free-will etc.

 

whereas philosophy is more theoretical, it makes observations of the world and people then tries to make meaning

Once you strip back the hokey spiritual language (that is often a product of translation) the general ideology (at least in the Pali Canon) is closer to the Greeks than later theological writers. If you're interested in Buddhism as a purely historical phenomenon the works of Richard Gombrich are quite good.

 

If Buddhism is not a religion then what about Sikhism?

I haven't read anything about Sikhism so I can't comment.

[Qistina]

Here you go:

 

Conversion to Judaism

 

"However, without a formal conversion, many highly observant Jews will reject a convert's Jewish status.^[5]"

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable, including things such as reincarnation

 

I have a feeling you're not overly familiar with Buddhism 

 

Really?  So you saying that there are not any branches of Buddhism that teaches reincarnation then?  Or that people can ascend to Buddhahood (another unprovable belief)?

 

 

On reincarnation.

 

(Also, isn't the Dalai Lama considered to have ascended to Buddhahood?)

 

They may have a different method for it to account for their beliefs but it is still unprovable.  Also, some people may believe the Dalai Lama has ascended to Buddhahood but then some people believe that they have been abducted by small, grey, aliens who then proceeded to anally ravage them, so who knows?

 

 

 

No, I stated that if a god demands you think or act in a specific way less you be punished, and you choose not to think or act in that specific way due to a lack of evidence of needing to this is actual disbelief. It is not a neutral stance.

 

Well that is the traditional definition of a religion. Some have tried to expand this definition so as to be able to include non-Western religions but like I mentioned before this ends up accidentally categorising various belief systems that we wouldn't normally consider religions as religions. This is because religion as a concept of categorising certain belief systems is itself a modern invention that only came into use in the 17th century. Because of this it was only constructed to meet the needs of differentiating certain belief systems in the West rather than as a totalizing concept to be utilized for all belief systems worldwide.

 

So do most philosophies. Natural rights, morals, free-will etc.

Once you strip back the hokey spiritual language (that is often a product of translation) the general ideology (at least in the Pali Canon) is closer to the Greeks than later theological writers. If you're interested in Buddhism as a purely historical phenomenon the works of Richard Gombrich are quite good.

 

I haven't read anything about Sikhism so I can't comment.

 

I'm sorry but even if I believed in a god does not mean I have to believe that he said X just because a religion says that.  As it is all unprovable, you can quite easily believe in for instance the Christian god but not believe in half of what the Church teaches or not follow it because you are unsure.  God may indeed exist, but I have not been convinced that he takes attendance at Church.  If you hear your family was killed in a terrorist attack but it is not proven yet, would you carrying on with your job indicate you don't believe that they might have been?  Or are you just acting on what you know while waiting to hear more?

 

As to religion requiring a god, what about the tribal religions?  Native American religious beliefs don't include gods, but they include spirits which in other religions would be classed as gods.  What about Scientology?  While many claim it is not a religion that is due to political reasons, it so is a religion.  Religion is define as a system of beliefs, doctrine, ritualised behaviour, ethics, and world views with a cultural structure and hierarchy.  Does this make it easy to mistake some philosophies with religion?  Of course, but then many religions started out as philosophies and then gained the doctrines and ritualistic behaviour to become religions.  Actually, lets look at it another way: if you had two mentally ill people both claiming to be hearing voices, but one says that the voices he hears are from the FBI trying to mind control him and the other claimed that he was receiving messages from a god, would you consider the latter to have a religion because they believe their voice is coming from god?  Or would they need to start collecting fellow believers first?

[Namutree]

 

 

 

There is no stoning in the Quran, and no stoning in the Gospel, so where stoning come from in Torah? You see that? That's the corruption...as we can see today some Muslims also practicing stoning in some countries even there is no such thing in the Quran.

 

Isn't stoning featured in some Hadith? 

 

 

Yes, and regarding the hadith, scholars have different opinions about them. Some scholars take all hadith without question, some scholars only take hadith that parallel with Quran, some scholars have mixed opinion. So it is all about scholars opinions. The Quranists however reject all hadiths

 

Seems like being a Quranist would be the simplest way to practice Islam.

[Gfted1]

 

Here you go:

 

Conversion to Judaism

 

"However, without a formal conversion, many highly observant Jews will reject a convert's Jewish status.^[5]"

 

 

I don't even know what your point is here.

[Barothmuk]

As to religion requiring a god, what about the tribal religions?  Native American religious beliefs don't include gods, but they include spirits which in other religions would be classed as gods.  What about Scientology?  While many claim it is not a religion that is due to political reasons, it so is a religion.  Religion is define as a system of beliefs, doctrine, ritualised behaviour, ethics, and world views with a cultural structure and hierarchy.  Does this make it easy to mistake some philosophies with religion?  Of course, but then many religions started out as philosophies and then gained the doctrines and ritualistic behaviour to become religions.  Actually, lets look at it another way: if you had two mentally ill people both claiming to be hearing voices, but one says that the voices he hears are from the FBI trying to mind control him and the other claimed that he was receiving messages from a god, would you consider the latter to have a religion because they believe their voice is coming from god?  Or would they need to start collecting fellow believers first?

Woosh

[FlintlockJazz]

 

As to religion requiring a god, what about the tribal religions?  Native American religious beliefs don't include gods, but they include spirits which in other religions would be classed as gods.  What about Scientology?  While many claim it is not a religion that is due to political reasons, it so is a religion.  Religion is define as a system of beliefs, doctrine, ritualised behaviour, ethics, and world views with a cultural structure and hierarchy.  Does this make it easy to mistake some philosophies with religion?  Of course, but then many religions started out as philosophies and then gained the doctrines and ritualistic behaviour to become religions.  Actually, lets look at it another way: if you had two mentally ill people both claiming to be hearing voices, but one says that the voices he hears are from the FBI trying to mind control him and the other claimed that he was receiving messages from a god, would you consider the latter to have a religion because they believe their voice is coming from god?  Or would they need to start collecting fellow believers first?

Woosh

 

If that is all you can say then I think we are done here.  Nice chatting to you.