Quote:Conspiracy theories about evil orientals spreading Buddhism for "political usefulness" are not credible.

Seriously, Bel?

Boru

(October 9, 2026 at 3:20 am)emjay Wrote: Well, I took that post I'm replying to and yours to Kitan as basically being in agreement, but my point being that even if 'repackaging' is true, or for whatever reason or motive it came about if it is true, it doesn't really matter, because its value speaks for itself logically, without any reliance on faith. As for your example of Zen Buddhism being associated with violence where you live, even if that's the case, it's not in the slightest like that in the 'repackaged' or not form where I live... if anything, I'm the biggest twat in that Buddhist meeting room, having a mind that still tends to go up and down like a yoyo sometimes, and can sometimes be much less forgiving, but the people around me at those meetings, are inspired by peace and kindness like no-one I've ever seen, anywhere else, and Buddhism has never been and never would be, in my opinion and in my experience, used to justify violence in that group.

Normally people get pissed at me because I point out that there are actually good Christians in the world. Any tradition that's centuries old and includes a huge variety of people is bound to have both good and bad. 

I suppose people could argue about what is the true essence of one religion or another. But it seems to me that there are good and bad manifestations of any enormous ancient tradition. 

I believe you that the group you've found is one of the good ones, and I'm pleased that it's working for you. Just the fact that you aspire to these things makes me think that you are well on your way to serious peace and kindness.

(October 9, 2026 at 4:27 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 3:20 am)emjay Wrote: Well, I took that post I'm replying to and yours to Kitan as basically being in agreement, but my point being that even if 'repackaging' is true, or for whatever reason or motive it came about if it is true, it doesn't really matter, because its value speaks for itself logically, without any reliance on faith. As for your example of Zen Buddhism being associated with violence where you live, even if that's the case, it's not in the slightest like that in the 'repackaged' or not form where I live... if anything, I'm the biggest twat in that Buddhist meeting room, having a mind that still tends to go up and down like a yoyo sometimes, and can sometimes be much less forgiving, but the people around me at those meetings, are inspired by peace and kindness like no-one I've ever seen, anywhere else, and Buddhism has never been and never would be, in my opinion and in my experience, used to justify violence in that group.

1) Normally people get pissed at me because I point out that there are actually good Christians in the world. Any tradition that's centuries old and includes a huge variety of people is bound to have both good and bad. 

2) I suppose people could argue about what is the true essence of one religion or another. But it seems to me that there are good and bad manifestations of any enormous ancient tradition. 

1) I think it more likely they get annoyed because you made the absurd assumption they don't know this, or have misrepresented a qualified statement as an absolute, you've been doing that to me since I got here. 
2) There are also texts (from the bible for example), and ideas that are unequivocally pernicious, and no subjective interpretation no matter how subtle can change them.

Hi Sheldon,

You and I approach these discussions quite differently. You've made it clear that you think I'm not a good person to talk with, so I won't take up any more of your time.

Good luck to you in the future.

(October 3, 2026 at 5:15 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Silas Vane Wrote:So establish it: why does “God could have prevented it” necessarily mean “God was morally obligated to prevent it”?

The whole idea of God is that there is a loving and caring omnipotent being instead of an indifferent universe. If you have a god who does nothing, you automatically diminish her role to the indifferent universe and thus nonexistence. At least that is the idea of God in Christianity, but there are agnostic ideas that god is completely indifferent and is just an observer and that is why agnostics are usually lumped together with atheists because their idea of God is pretty much equal to the idea of non-existence of God. But with the invention of science, Christian god has been pretty much relegated to the one of agnosticism.

That's all because there is no objective definition of what god is, which also makes the God hypothesis non-falsifiable, which is the main characteristic of pseudoscience or, in other words, frauds. You can always think up some ad hoc excuse why your God behaves a certain way to save your god hypothesis—just like you can in astrology, palmistry, tarot, and etc.

Silas Vane Wrote:And simply asserting that there is “no objective evidence” for God does not establish that God does not exist. That is a separate claim, and we can examine the evidence for God—including the historical case surrounding Jesus Christ—when we get there.

Establishing the existence of historical Jesus does not mean establishing evidence that god exists.

You referred to the Christian God as "her." Interesting, considering Jesus Christ consistently referred to God as His Father.

In John 10:30, Jesus declared, "I and the Father are one." In John 14:9, He said, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

So before you lecture me about the nature of the Christian God, let's establish something fundamental.

Do you accept or reject the biblical claim that Jesus Christ is God?

And whichever answer you give, establish your reasoning.

(September 30, 2026 at 11:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 30, 2026 at 8:39 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Why can't human effort receive its proper credit while God also receives thanks?

Like those times when the doctors do everything they can, but god kills your loved one anyway?  Thanks god!

You've repeated your original accusation instead of answering my question.

How did you establish that God killed the person?

Repeating a claim isn't evidence for it. Either demonstrate how you reached that conclusion or acknowledge that you haven't established it.

(October 9, 2026 at 8:15 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 3, 2026 at 5:15 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: The whole idea of God is that there is a loving and caring omnipotent being instead of an indifferent universe. If you have a god who does nothing, you automatically diminish her role to the indifferent universe and thus nonexistence. At least that is the idea of God in Christianity, but there are agnostic ideas that god is completely indifferent and is just an observer and that is why agnostics are usually lumped together with atheists because their idea of God is pretty much equal to the idea of non-existence of God. But with the invention of science, Christian god has been pretty much relegated to the one of agnosticism.

That's all because there is no objective definition of what god is, which also makes the God hypothesis non-falsifiable, which is the main characteristic of pseudoscience or, in other words, frauds. You can always think up some ad hoc excuse why your God behaves a certain way to save your god hypothesis—just like you can in astrology, palmistry, tarot, and etc.


Establishing the existence of historical Jesus does not mean establishing evidence that god exists.

You referred to the Christian God as "her." Interesting, considering Jesus Christ consistently referred to God as His Father.

In John 10:30, Jesus declared, "I and the Father are one." In John 14:9, He said, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

So before you lecture me about the nature of the Christian God, let's establish something fundamental.

Do you accept or reject the biblical claim that Jesus Christ is God?

And whichever answer you give, establish your reasoning.

Oh well, this conversation is going nowhere. The only thing he picked up from what I said is whether god has a penis or a vagina.

(October 9, 2026 at 8:15 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Do you accept or reject the biblical claim that Jesus Christ is God?

If you haven't already figured that one out from context, I'm not sure what good effect reasoning is supposed to have.

(October 8, 2026 at 11:10 pm)emjay Wrote:

(October 8, 2026 at 7:32 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not really something we did.  Buddhism was repackaged for a western audience because the western audience is politically useful to Buddhism back east.

In what way do you mean? At the end of the day, whether you call it 'repackaged" or it actually is, makes no real difference to me because the part that is repackaged, if repackaged it is, speaks for itself logically and in its secular form, or a secular streamlined view of it... however one looks at it... it doesn't require any kind of 'faith' in anything external. Do you disagree with and/or think it is logically unsound, the same logic of it that I find so appealing, life-changing, and well, stabilising/comforting?, ie that everything that arises in life/consciousness is subject to change and is therefore not guaranteed to be permanent and therefore should not be treated and/or relied on as if it is guaranteed to be permanent, because nothing is. Do you think that is logically unsound/unhelpful? Whether that logic is 'repackaged' or whatever, by others or even myself to whatever extent (i.e. my idea of 'conditioned' might be different to what Buddhism had in mind, but if it is, it's still the same underlying principle; causality), doesn't really matter because logic speaks for itself, if it is 'sound', so it doesn't matter where it comes from. In my case I just find it incredibly useful from a reductionistic point of view, in so many ways.

One set of questions is historical.  There were three main periods (at least with respect to how we in the west view buddhism vs what buddhism actually is/was anywhere else).  The first was in the mid to late 1800's, culminating in the 1893 parliament of religions.  This is when buddhism was first stripped in order to undermine the case for colonialism.   That case being a christian nationalist case swirling around its primitive and superstitious nature, because the universe loves irony.  This is where the idea that buddhism is a rational philosophy rather than a devotional religion with cosmological beliefs and rituals was born.  The second was directly following ww2 and into the subsequent cold war, supercharged by the annexation of tibet.  Diaspora and exiled clergy needed allies and so they made further revisions to engage politically active westerners by focusing on compassion, human rights, and environmentalism.  The third period is the one that we (as in westerners) drove.  That started in the 60's as counterculture - taking the targeted revisions of late imperialism and communist chinese expansion as the thing itself and running with it from there.   

The other...is alot to unpack.  Do I think that buddhism is logical?  Do I think it does not require any kind of belief in something external?  In the strongest sense of either claim...no.  The sanitization (or westernization) of buddhism caused all of the same problems for the tradition that creeping secularism and contemporary ideation has for our homegrowns.  If we focus only on the version for western consumption then the fundamental impetus of the whole philosophy is undermined.  If we detach ethics from rebirth and karma, for example, we end up with a system that may be more logically defensible (the "may" doing alot of work in that sentence) but is not in any discernable way "buddhist".  Similarly, if we consider meditation a self help practice, one neat trick to build healthy egos, we have run into the wall of no-self.  When we consider it's usefulness to the exclusion of it's religiosity we end up with corporate mindfulness retreats.  On and on it goes, the list of mismatches between traditional buddhism and export buddhism and the western ideology it sought to coopt - which even export buddhism has not (and cannot) fully divest itself from and remain itself.   

Do I think that export buddhism can be comforting or affirming?  Sure..but with the above history in mind, and in light of my own personal experiences with identity discontinuity.... I would.  It's also comforting and affirming to people with wildly divergent and often antithetical views to my own...which is to say that there's nothing essential there.  OFC it shouldn't escape our notice that it wasn't meant to be comforting - it was meant to be a radical world denying religion on one hand, and a justification for a particular social order on the other.  A glorious combination that we understand the ramifications of with respect to any of our domestic cultural obsessions. Do I think that any of that has any bearing on you, what you find useful, how you use it, that it;s help you in life...or should...?  No.  I'll note here that cultural christianity as a revision with the same history and problems is, imo, a useful improvement over traditional and religious christianity as well.  Babble on about some christ or spin a tale about the tinkering bloodgod who nudges all things and I'll clock you as a moral and intellectual defective - tell me to like, be kind and shit..and I say "no duh - good idea - that stands or falls on it's own".  All of this stuff above is or would only be modifying to the kind of person whose internal valuation of buddhist thought (old or new, domestic or export) depended on it being other-than.  As in "the thing I like about buddhism is that it doesn't do or say this this and this silly and or evil shit, unlike christianity (or insert other world majors here)".  Bad news there, lol.