|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/10/2006 5:24:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wolfie648
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Unfortunately, "hyprocrisy" is a human trait, not simply a "Christian" one.
Would either of you please show me a religion or a society anywhere in history (of any import) that didn't have hyprocrisy, murder, war, or power struggles associated with any type of belief system?
Christianity is an easy target for you, simply because you were brought up in a Christian society, and because it's what you "know".
But what you are both doing is displaying an animosity that borders on prejudice.
Ok so Im not 'one of them 2'. And I'm not taking anyone's side here but to query your proposition ("Would either of you please...") how about buddism as practiced by the Dalai Lama today? I can't say I know much about it but him and Gandhi (just don't start on who is alive today ppl) haven't tag teamed and lead a war of killing a bunch of ppl for any reason.
But I guess that is why their beliefs aren't important.
Man this gun is shiny.
D (owner of j).
Wolfie,
Interesting choices, and they bring up some interesting points.
The first point is that both of the people you mentioned (Dali Lami and Gandhi) are "avatars" of the best of a particular reglion. In any religion, there are people who live up to the highest standards, just as there are people in every religion who live down to the worst expectations.
You could use Jesus Christ as the avatar for Christianity.
Another point is the thought that mankind is "too good" for certain religions. Or, at least, that's the way that some people would see it.
By this I mean that there is an evolutionary aspect of how (or even if) a religion becomes mainstream, or major, with substantial world-wide adherents. While the Dali Lami is a Buddhist, the tradition of Buddhism that he represents is the Tibetan one. If memory serves correctly, Tibet use to be the only country in the world in which Buddhism was the theocratic religion of the state.
Guess what happened when a more "ferocious religion" (belief system i.e. Chinese Communism) decided to move in? While they haven't fully suppressed Tibet Buddhism, they are now reserving the right to name his successor. I wonder if the new successor will be as more beholding to his religion, or China?
It is possible, over time, if the Chinese press the issue, and start moving in ethnic Chinese with their own beliefs, that Tibetan Buddhism could die out. Such things have happened before.
The third point is related. I've mentioned before that there is a synergy between a society or civilization and the major religion or religions of that civilization. While you can admire the Tibet religion and beliefs, they also contributed to the social and military "weakness" that allowed the Chinese to move in and take over the country, and, depending on decisions in Peking, whether or not Tibetan Buddhism has a future.
The history of Christianity (as most major religions) is deeply tied up with the politics of power in Western Civilization, and one of the reasons that so many people rail against Christianity, and why it's a political issue even now in the U.S.
A religion that strengthens and supports those elements of a society that makes that society (nation) stronger in relation to its competitors becomes stronger and more powerful itself. Christianity has been closely involved with the structure of power in Western civilization, until very recently.
Islam is another good example of a religion that feeds into the power structure of the societies in which it has become prevalent. And the struggle that the Christian West and the Islamic Middle East is engaged in right now IS a battle between belief systems (if you don't feel comfortable saying it's a battle of religions or of civilizations). From a historical stand point, this is nothing new or surprising. It is only surprising to many in the West because Christianity has been such a strong successful presence in our society for so long, that we aren't use to thinking of conflicts between religious beliefs as sharp and painful as the current one.
Now, Gandhi is an interesting choice as well.
Gandhi was a student of Hinduism. Before he became famous as a non-violence independence leader for India, he also fought against many aspects of Indian (Hindu based) culture such as the caste system and suttee. Neither practice which we would consider all that praise-worthy in a religion.
He was also a lawyer, trained in the Western (British) legal system, and Western (Christian) ethics. I've read papers which theorized that he used that understanding to achieve Indian independence from the British by appealing to the best of Christian morality.
But, also, in the interests of comparison to states in which the Christian rather than the Hindu religion has had a formative impact, India since it's independence can't be considered paradise on earth when it comes to non-violence. They have fought several wars, and developed nuclear weapons for political purposes.
Just like in Christianity, and just about all successful religions, the morality of a great religious leader isn't always fully expressed in the actions of the society which gave him birth. However, India IS a powerful, dynamic and growing nation. His reforms and example strengthened his society.
FHky
|
|
|
|
