PDA

View Full Version : Religion and IQ



The Left Sock
08-12-2013, 06:13 PM
Here's an interesting piece, that goes along with a discussion that took place some time ago.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists--study-finds--113350723.html

It may also lend itself to the argument about Liberals being more intelligent than Conservatives, if religion is a determining factor in membership to either group.

Enjoy!

RWGR
08-12-2013, 07:03 PM
Here's an interesting piece, that goes along with a discussion that took place some time ago.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists--study-finds--113350723.html

It may also lend itself to the argument about Liberals being more intelligent than Conservatives, if religion is a determining factor in membership to either group.

Enjoy!

If this is true (highly doubtful), then you must be The Pope! :)

The Left Sock
08-12-2013, 07:11 PM
It has always struck me as self-evident that there is a disconnect between intelligence and an unquestioning belief in mythology, but it's just nice to see solid research being done, to prove the case.

You see, being able to prove that religious people should not be in charge of society, serves to protect those of us who don't want to be subjected to the sheer stupidity of theocracy, regardless of which faith fosters it.

RWGR
08-12-2013, 07:17 PM
It has always struck me as self-evident that there is a disconnect between intelligence and an unquestioning belief in mythology, but it's just nice to see solid research being done, to prove the case.

But this is not "solid" research. You know and I know that a study will come out soon debunking this study, and then a study debunking the debunking will come out, then ...

You see, being able to prove that religious people should not be in charge of society, serves to protect those of us who don't want to be subjected to the sheer stupidity of theocracy, regardless of which faith fosters it.

Very good point. One need only look at the governing policies of a Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler to see the fruitful benefits of keeping religious people out of the seats of power.

The Left Sock
08-12-2013, 08:47 PM
"But this is not "solid" research. You know and I know that a study will come out soon debunking this study, and then a study debunking the debunking will come out, then ..."

Actually, this is the results stemming from some 63 studies, one of which started in 1921, and continues today. There is no body of research that exists today, that can dispute the findings.

"Very good point. One need only look at the governing policies of a Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler to see the fruitful benefits of keeping religious people out of the seats of power."

If I wanted answers from grade-school children, I would have posted my points in a children's forum.

bilbo79
08-13-2013, 12:52 PM
It's been shown time and again Hitler was a catholic and initially had the support of the church as well. I don't blame you for wanting to leave that part out though. You've also brought up this weak argument a few times, while Mao and Stalin were bad dudes and atheists, there is no evidence that their crimes was done in the name of atheism. You could just as easily replace atheism with orange juice as the culprit.

RWGR
08-13-2013, 02:45 PM
It's been shown time and again Hitler was a catholic and initially had the support of the church as well.

For political gains. He knew the Church was a big player, and hoped to co opt them. Of course that failed. Hitler was into the occult, he made no bones abooot it.

Sorry if the truth once again gets in the way of your Catholic bashing.

RWGR
08-13-2013, 02:48 PM
Actually, this is the results stemming from some 63 studies, one of which started in 1921, and continues today. There is no body of research that exists today, that can dispute the findings.

Oh, okay LOL

If I wanted answers from grade-school children, I would have posted my points in a children's forum

With all due respect, if you were to formulate a response acceptable in grade school it would be a vast improvement.

Yes, you are that whacked in your views, and your 'knowledge' of history is as poor as I've seen.

By the way, white flag accepted on Hitler, Moa, and Stalin.

GO SECULAR GOVERNMENT!!! :)

dancingqueen
08-13-2013, 02:56 PM
For political gains. He knew the Church was a big player, and hoped to co opt them. Of course that failed. Hitler was into the occult, he made no bones abooot it.

Sorry if the truth once again gets in the way of your Catholic bashing.

Can you substantiate that claim?

dancingqueen
08-13-2013, 03:07 PM
Further to that, anyone claiming his place in Christianity, can you substantiate what set of Christian values led him to do the things he did?

bilbo79
08-13-2013, 05:25 PM
For political gains. He knew the Church was a big player, and hoped to co opt them. Of course that failed.


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpm4qyJF8M1qisa2ko1_500.jpg

Priests salute Hitler at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin-Neukölln stadium in August 1933.

"We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people." - Adolf Hitler

RWGR
08-13-2013, 06:25 PM
Can you substantiate that claim?

Most biographies of Hitler, be they on film or in print, talk about Hitler's obsession with the occult. Here are a few examples:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOFKj19M7E4

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/hitler-and-the-occult/


http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Occult-War-Michael-FitzGerald/dp/070908871X

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_thule02.htm

RWGR
08-13-2013, 06:34 PM
Further to that, anyone claiming his place in Christianity, can you substantiate what set of Christian values led him to do the things he did?

Hitler had no Christian values, he was totally influenced by Nietzsche's "The will to power".

I'm about 1/3 of the way through this book:

http://img1.targetimg1.com/wcsstore/TargetSAS//img/p/13/71/13710713.jpg

It is extremely long, but fascinating. The author wrote it soon after WWII, and knew Hitler. It is considered one of the best sources ever written on the Nazi Party and Hitler. Shirer makes it clear Hitler wanted the Church for one thing and one thing only: a power platform. It didn't work.

RWGR
08-13-2013, 06:37 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpm4qyJF8M1qisa2ko1_500.jpg

Priests salute Hitler at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin-Neukölln stadium in August 1933.

"We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people." - Adolf Hitler

The youth were required to be in the youth groups, there was no choice.

Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, six years after this photo. So, what is it this photo is supposed to show (other than you are stunning in your ignorance when it comes to history)?

RWGR
08-13-2013, 06:44 PM
Further to that, anyone claiming his place in Christianity, can you substantiate what set of Christian values led him to do the things he did?

Now, can you tell me what values non-Christians Mao and Stalin led them to do the things they did?

bilbo79
08-13-2013, 06:53 PM
someones on a posting tear, its gotta be rough having to constantly defend that house of cards and pedos

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 08:05 PM
"With all due respect, if you were to formulate a response acceptable in grade school it would be a vast improvement.

Yes, you are that whacked in your views, and your 'knowledge' of history is as poor as I've seen.

By the way, white flag accepted on Hitler, Moa, and Stalin.

GO SECULAR GOVERNMENT!!!"

Well, here you go - the vast improvement you were looking for, but will undoubtedly regret.

First, the very notion that a single individual can take complete control of any one nation, and be solely responsible for the actions of that entire nation, is an infantile notion, propagated by Reagan-loving hillbillies who yearn for global boogeymen they can bounce their simplistic ideals off of. The real world doesn't work that way; it's not that simple.

Second, your entire premise "One need only look at the governing policies of a Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler to see the fruitful benefits of keeping religious people out of the seats of power" is totally absurd, in a historical context.

Hitler ate his own bullet, and the Nazis were utterly defeated, so it is not possible to give much historical context to his case, but Stalin and Mao are a different story.

In the case of Stalin, it can easily be argued that his leadership is largely responsible for why most of Europe is not German-speaking today, and quite possibly the reason why Japanese is not an official language in America. Russia is the reason Hitler failed, and Stalin was instrumental in stopping the Third Reich dead in its tracks. The sacrifice of the Russian people, under the leadership of Stalin, was the greatest price paid in World War II, and the heroic deeds carried out by ordinary Russians in the name of their leader, and for the benefit of their nation, go beyond the scope of what most Americans can absorb, or will admit.

So, by all means, lump Stalin in with your 'Axis of Evil' if you like, but understand that you are doing nothing more than keeping yourself cozy, under a blanket of delusion.

And in the case of Mao, all you need do is visit your local Walmart, to see the effects of his 'governing policies'. China was united for the first time in centuries under Mao, and is now the greatest economic engine on the face of the planet. It must feel strange to realize that your precarious capitalistic empire dangles on the razor's edge of whether or not China decides to keep extending your credit line, so I can empathize with why the memory of Mao haunts you so.

Atheism didn't create Mao; greed did. And today, that same greed is exactly what China is exploiting in America, bringing the 'greatest nation to ever exist' down to its knees, without ever firing a shot in anger.

The best thing America can hope for today, is a Stalin or a Mao to rise up from within its ranks, to save it from the fate you have built for yourself, and prevent the revenge that is about to be exacted from the global community, for all your missteps and misdeeds. You're going to need a leader like that, if you are to have any chance of getting out of the mess you have created for yourself.

But hey, enjoy the rest of your day!

The Voice
08-13-2013, 08:31 PM
"With all due respect, if you were to formulate a response acceptable in grade school it would be a vast improvement.

Yes, you are that whacked in your views, and your 'knowledge' of history is as poor as I've seen.

By the way, white flag accepted on Hitler, Moa, and Stalin.

GO SECULAR GOVERNMENT!!!"

Well, here you go - the vast improvement you were looking for, but will undoubtedly regret.

First, the very notion that a single individual can take complete control of any one nation, and be solely responsible for the actions of that entire nation, is an infantile notion, propagated by Reagan-loving hillbillies who yearn for global boogeymen they can bounce their simplistic ideals off of. The real world doesn't work that way; it's not that simple.

Second, your entire premise "One need only look at the governing policies of a Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler to see the fruitful benefits of keeping religious people out of the seats of power" is totally absurd, in a historical context.

Hitler ate his own bullet, and the Nazis were utterly defeated, so it is not possible to give much historical context to his case, but Stalin and Mao are a different story.

In the case of Stalin, it can easily be argued that his leadership is largely responsible for why most of Europe is not German-speaking today, and quite possibly the reason why Japanese is not an official language in America. Russia is the reason Hitler failed, and Stalin was instrumental in stopping the Third Reich dead in its tracks. The sacrifice of the Russian people, under the leadership of Stalin, was the greatest price paid in World War II, and the heroic deeds carried out by ordinary Russians in the name of their leader, and for the benefit of their nation, go beyond the scope of what most Americans can absorb, or will admit.

So, by all means, lump Stalin in with your 'Axis of Evil' if you like, but understand that you are doing nothing more than keeping yourself cozy, under a blanket of delusion.

And in the case of Mao, all you need do is visit your local Walmart, to see the effects of his 'governing policies'. China was united for the first time in centuries under Mao, and is now the greatest economic engine on the face of the planet. It must feel strange to realize that your precarious capitalistic empire dangles on the razor's edge of whether or not China decides to keep extending your credit line, so I can empathize with why the memory of Mao haunts you so.

Atheism didn't create Mao; greed did. And today, that same greed is exactly what China is exploiting in America, bringing the 'greatest nation to ever exist' down to its knees, without ever firing a shot in anger.

The best thing America can hope for today, is a Stalin or a Mao to rise up from within its ranks, to save it from the fate you have built for yourself, and prevent the revenge that is about to be exacted from the global community, for all your missteps and misdeeds. You're going to need a leader like that, if you are to have any chance of getting out of the mess you have created for yourself.

But hey, enjoy the rest of your day!

Sockie Sockie Sockie.

Do you even read this stuff back to yourself?

You don't know the first thing about history.

I thought you where a Buddhist?

And you know I made a rule about that.

RWGR
08-13-2013, 08:42 PM
But hey, enjoy the rest of your day!

Your post was way too long, champ...you'll have to give me the spark notes version (by the way, congrats, for the first time in your life you've been told something is "way too long" :) )

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 08:48 PM
Voice: Do you intend to make a point of some kind, or simply blather from the sidelines?

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 08:52 PM
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4842353386455583&pid=15.1

Out of these three leaders, credited with winning World War II, and defeating the Nazis, which one attended seminary school? Which one is regarded as an 'atheistic boogeyman' by simplistic Westerners?

Spoiler alert - it's the same guy.

Churchill was barely religious, and Roosevelt was 'Dutch Reformed' - whatever that's supposed to mean. Stalin was arguably more theological than both of them, but somehow, he's the 'bad guy'. Isn't creative history fun?

The Voice
08-13-2013, 08:58 PM
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4842353386455583&pid=15.1

Out of these three leaders, credited with winning World War II, and defeating the Nazis, which one attended seminary school? Which one is regarded as an 'atheistic boogeyman' by simplistic Westerners?

Spoiler alert - it's the same guy.

OK and?

Churchill was barely religious, and Roosevelt was 'Dutch Reformed' - whatever that's supposed to mean. Stalin was arguably more theological than both of them, but somehow, he's the 'bad guy'. Isn't creative history fun?

Stalin killed how many of his own people?

The Voice
08-13-2013, 09:01 PM
Voice: Do you intend to make a point of some kind, or simply blather from the sidelines?

Are you or are you not a Buddhist?

The Voice
08-13-2013, 09:03 PM
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4842353386455583&pid=15.1

Out of these three leaders, credited with winning World War II, and defeating the Nazis, which one attended seminary school? Which one is regarded as an 'atheistic boogeyman' by simplistic Westerners?

Spoiler alert - it's the same guy.



Churchill was barely religious, and Roosevelt was 'Dutch Reformed' - whatever that's supposed to mean. Stalin was arguably more theological than both of them, but somehow, he's the 'bad guy'. Isn't creative history fun?

Wow! Everybody knows Roosevelt won WWII.

RWGR
08-13-2013, 09:18 PM
Churchill was barely religious

LOL...such in-depth commentary

and Roosevelt was 'Dutch Reformed' - whatever that's supposed to mean

It means your historical knowledge is lacking, again. He was Episcopalian. They grew out of the Dutch Reformation during the, well, Reformation.

History rocks!! :)


Stalin was arguably more theological than both of them

Quite a statement...argue away, support that theory

Isn't creative history fun?

It's fun watching an adult engage in it, yes. Sad, but fun.

And, Stalin didn't win WWII, sorry to break the news. I know how you always cheer for the murderous dictator (your appreciation of Saddam was apparent here a few years back).

RWGR
08-13-2013, 09:20 PM
I will say this: Soc is probably the only Buddhist in history that supports Stalin and Saddam.

In that sense, we're kinda' part of history here! :)

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 09:23 PM
Stalin was formally educated in A Russian Orthodox seminary. Neither Churchill or Roosevelt had any formal religious training.

So, your original assertion that Russia was the recipient of the 'fruits of keeping religious people out of the seats of power' is patently absurd, when given the right context.

An easier argument could be made that it was Stalin's religious education that caused him to commit monstrous deeds, where his less religious allies, namely Churchill and Roosevelt, abstained from atrocities, due to their apparent lack of theology.

You made the case for atheism, without having a clue - congrats!

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 09:28 PM
And thus, the proof that religion and IQ have a negative relationship, perpetuates itself today.

RWGR
08-13-2013, 09:34 PM
Stalin was formally educated in A Russian Orthodox seminary. Neither Churchill or Roosevelt had any formal religious training.

And the fact Stalin totally abandoned whatever he learned in those schools proves he in fact learned little, if anything. You're trying to equate sitting in a seminary as equating to becoming religious. That, of course, is a very immature and simplistic connection to make. Also, it's lazy.

So, your original assertion that Russia was the recipient of the 'fruits of keeping religious people out of the seats of power' is patently absurd, when given the right context.

Stalin was educated in a seminary. But did he employ any of the things he learned there when he became ruler? Of course not. He was totally imbued with secularist views when he became dictator.

Some Stalin quotes:

"I believe in one thing only, the power of human will"

Pure Nietzsche right there, my friend. And I'll save you the googling: Nietzsche was extremely anti-Christian

"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense"

Ahhh, yes, the seminary education held well!

Then we have this, from a Stalin biographer:

During his time in power, Stalin had a complex relationship with religion. He officially adopted the Russian Communist Party’s stance on religion, claiming atheism and continuing the tradition of teaching atheism in schools and propagating the idea that religion was only damaging to a perfect communist society. Stalin even took it further than his predecessor, Lenin, and initiated a nationwide campaign to destroy churches and religious property and even persecute and kill church officials

http://akorra.com/2012/01/11/top-10-examples-of-religious-persecution/

Soc, quit while you're...behind :)

RWGR
08-13-2013, 09:35 PM
And thus, the proof that religion and IQ have a negative relationship, perpetuates itself today.

translation: "need to start deflecting, I've just made some stupid comments I cannot back up"

white flag accepted, my friend, white flag accepted :)

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 09:37 PM
I expected floundering - and well, there it is!

RWGR
08-13-2013, 09:44 PM
I expected floundering - and well, there it is!

white flag accepted, my friend, white flag accepted :)

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 09:52 PM
First, I'm not your friend, and second, I don't think anyone will need to worry about surrendering anything to any Americans, for the foreseeable future.

When was the last actual surrender to an American, anyway?

The Voice
08-13-2013, 09:55 PM
First, I'm not your friend, and second, I don't think anyone will need to worry about surrendering anything to any Americans, for the foreseeable future.

When was the last actual surrender to an American, anyway?

Today.

The Left Sock
08-13-2013, 09:58 PM
Are you sure you're not just an alter-ego of RWGR, created while he was in exile?

Not accusing, just wondering.

RWGR
08-14-2013, 12:50 PM
First, I'm not your friend

you sure are! I give you a free education almost daily...what is that if not friendship??

and second, I don't think anyone will need to worry about surrendering anything to any Americans, for the foreseeable future.

Coming from a Canadian, it makes it much more enjoyable reading this. It's like Pee Wee Herman asking Tom Cruise when was the last time he got laid.

When was the last actual surrender to an American, anyway?

Canadians surrender their feelings of self-worth to us daily. 'tis a major price you pay, living next to the greatest nation ever known to man.

RWGR
08-14-2013, 12:51 PM
Are you sure you're not just an alter-ego of RWGR, created while he was in exile?

Not accusing, just wondering.

He's a Canadian that sees you as an embarrassment...believe me, friend, he is not alone :)

dancingqueen
08-14-2013, 01:02 PM
Most biographies of Hitler, be they on film or in print, talk about Hitler's obsession with the occult. Here are a few examples:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOFKj19M7E4

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/hitler-and-the-occult/


http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Occult-War-Michael-FitzGerald/dp/070908871X

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_thule02.htm

first off, these links offer pure speculation, about as valid as the youtube links posted about the end of the world in Dec of 2012, secondly, a belief in the occult does nothing to suggest a disbelief in any religion:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occult?s=t

dancingqueen
08-14-2013, 01:08 PM
Now, can you tell me what values non-Christians Mao and Stalin led them to do the things they did?

No, I cannot. Do you think their actions are religious based, or like so many others may just be people who did certain things and happened to be of a certain religious group?
This is the point I'm trying to make, If Hitler WAS a Christian, I cannot identify any Christian values that talk about genocide, hence he would not be a Christian who committed genocide, rather a person who committed genocide that happens to be Christian.

The Left Sock
08-14-2013, 06:58 PM
Christian values that talk about genocide? Got a whopper for you!

Noah and the Flood. God wiped out every human being and living creature on the planet, except for Noah's family, and a single pair of animals from every species. That's the grand-daddy of all genocides, right there!

The Voice
08-14-2013, 08:40 PM
Are you sure you're not just an alter-ego of RWGR, created while he was in exile?

Not accusing, just wondering.

Are you sure you are not the reincarnation of Andy Warhol?

The Voice
08-15-2013, 08:06 PM
Are you or are you not a Buddhist?

Still waiting for your answer on this one?

The Left Sock
08-15-2013, 10:10 PM
I'll give you some clues - I'm a member of a religion that:

- Does not claim to be the 'one true religion'.
- Encourages study and participation in all major world religions.
- Can be practiced without a book, a church, or a priest.

RWGR
08-16-2013, 03:47 PM
- Does not claim to be the 'one true religion'...because we don't want to make deceased Buddhists who have since come back as a horse or a turnip feel they need to pick up where they left off

- Encourages study and participation in all major world religions...plus expounds on the worthiness of brushing twice a day and good grooming when on a date

- Can be practiced without a book, a church, or a priest...in other words, we make it up as we go

The Left Sock
08-16-2013, 04:34 PM
It's no wonder you should fear coming back as a horse. Well, I guess that's better than it is for you now, going through life as the back end of one.

The Voice asks a question, I post, then you respond to that post. But you're not the same person, right?

RWGR
08-16-2013, 05:12 PM
It's no wonder you should fear coming back as a horse. Well, I guess that's better than it is for you now, going through life as the back end of one.

Why thank you! A horse is a majestic animal who...wait...HEY! You said the BACK END of a horse!!!

Why I oughta'!




The Voice asks a question, I post, then you respond to that post. But you're not the same person, right?

this is correct, friend.

the creator of the legendary Real Deal thread is on the trail again!

http://blogs.netedu.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ps2.gif

The Voice
08-27-2013, 07:26 PM
I'll give you some clues - I'm a member of a religion that:

- Does not claim to be the 'one true religion'.

If it's not true then why are you a member?

- Encourages study and participation in all major world religions.

What exactly does that mean?

- Can be practiced without a book, a church, or a priest.

There is something to be said for that.

RWGR
08-28-2013, 01:39 PM
There is something to be said for that.

Yes, there is: it's an outright lie.

The Left Sock
08-28-2013, 05:43 PM
Really? Please elaborate!

RWGR
08-28-2013, 07:07 PM
- Encourages study and participation in all major world religions.

It may call for toleration of other religions, but it does not call for "participation" in other religions.

- Can be practiced without a book, a church, or a priest.

No book, but "The Four Noble Truths"

No church or priest, because the individual is both of these. Mere semantics can't save you here, friend.

The Left Sock
08-28-2013, 08:51 PM
'“To build religious harmony, we must know different traditions and their concepts, and through that, we can develop respect, which is the foundation for harmony,” said the Dalai Lama, who spoke mainly in English but sometimes with the help of a Tibetan translator.'

http://www.american.edu/americantoday/campus-news/101209-dalai-lama-bender.cfm

Would you like me to go on, and disprove the other two points you made, or are you willing to take my word for it, that I know what I'm talking about?

The Voice
08-28-2013, 09:06 PM
'“To build religious harmony, we must know different traditions and their concepts, and through that, we can develop respect, which is the foundation for harmony,” said the Dalai Lama, who spoke mainly in English but sometimes with the help of a Tibetan translator.'

http://www.american.edu/americantoday/campus-news/101209-dalai-lama-bender.cfm

Would you like me to go on, and disprove the other two points you made, or are you willing to take my word for it, that I know what I'm talking about?

You can't know what it is to be a christian unless you truly believe.

Ergo, you can't participate you can only observe.

Bet you don't get it though?

TFF!!

The Left Sock
08-28-2013, 09:13 PM
"You can't know what it is to be a christian unless you truly believe."

Curious. How do you become one, then?

The Voice
08-28-2013, 09:19 PM
"You can't know what it is to be a christian unless you truly believe."

Curious. How do you become one, then?

I kind of thought it was obvious but you have to believe it to know. I can't make it any plainer than that.

The Left Sock
08-28-2013, 09:26 PM
Okay, so a person is not a Christian, but they want to become one. What is the process?

According to you, you can't 'get there from here', because you built a paradox into your belief system. You can't practice Christianity unless you believe, and you can't believe, unless you practice Christianity.

Sorry, but you are at a logical impasse.

The Voice
08-28-2013, 09:26 PM
Sorry I can make it plainer if you are a buddhist you can't be a christian period.

You can't know what it is to be christian, unless you are one period.

Really this should be the end, but alas it won't be.

TFF!

The Voice
08-28-2013, 09:28 PM
Okay, so a person is not a Christian, but they want to become one. What is the process?

According to you, you can't 'get there from here', because you built a paradox into your belief system. You can't practice Christianity unless you believe, and you can't believe, unless you practice Christianity.

Sorry, but you are at a logical impasse.

You just need to believe dude, go to church, find the lord, and praise be you will be born again.

The Left Sock
08-28-2013, 09:28 PM
"Sorry I can make it plainer if you are a buddhist you can't be a christian period."

Wow, so you're even taking the concept of conversion off the table of possibilities.

You sure you have any real idea, what you are talking about?

The Voice
08-28-2013, 09:31 PM
Okay, so a person is not a Christian, but they want to become one. What is the process?

According to you, you can't 'get there from here', because you built a paradox into your belief system. You can't practice Christianity unless you believe, and you can't believe, unless you practice Christianity.

Sorry, but you are at a logical impasse.

Oh yeah and in case you never caught on before, It's not my belief system.

The Voice
08-28-2013, 09:33 PM
"Sorry I can make it plainer if you are a buddhist you can't be a christian period."

Wow, so you're even taking the concept of conversion off the table of possibilities.

You sure you have any real idea, what you are talking about?

Yeah you can't be a christian and a buddhist at the same time, if you don't get how simple a concept that is then there is no use trying to reason with you.

The Left Sock
08-28-2013, 09:44 PM
"Oh yeah and in case you never caught on before, It's not my belief system."

So all this time, you are telling me about how I can't get into a belief system, that isn't even your own?

Wow, that level of arrogance is impressive!

The Voice
08-28-2013, 10:13 PM
"Oh yeah and in case you never caught on before, It's not my belief system."

So all this time, you are telling me about how I can't get into a belief system, that isn't even your own?

Wow, that level of arrogance is impressive!

Naw; I was raised in the fold of the church and now I am a heathen.

dancingqueen
08-29-2013, 03:25 AM
Naw; I was raised in the fold of the church and now I am a heathen.

Why Mercy me, you are such a unique and individual case, why I bet you must know everything about every Christian sect there is out there.

RWGR
08-29-2013, 12:51 PM
'“To build religious harmony, we must know different traditions and their concepts, and through that, we can develop respect, which is the foundation for harmony,” said the Dalai Lama, who spoke mainly in English but sometimes with the help of a Tibetan translator.'

http://www.american.edu/americantoday/campus-news/101209-dalai-lama-bender.cfm



None of that says they should "participate" in other religions.

You losing it, ol' boy :)

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 06:35 PM
Speaking of religion and IQ, anyone see the test from the Blue Ridge Christian Academy?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/buzzolasoo/TYpLJpOh_zps7022478e.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/buzzolasoo/WOUWUkE_zps5fcb4aac.png



It's a crying shame this Christian academy of high Christian learning had to close.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/28/blue-ridge-christian-academy-the-school-that-gave-fourth-graders-a-creationism-quiz-has-closed-down/

The Voice
08-29-2013, 06:40 PM
Why Mercy me, you are such a unique and individual case, why I bet you must know everything about every Christian sect there is out there.

Maybe not but I am smart enough to realize that you can't be a christian and a buddhist at the same time.

RWGR
08-29-2013, 07:09 PM
That's amazing proof you provided, Westy...proof of...something, I guess.

Good thing that someone couldn't have taken a sheet of paper, and created that for specific anti-Christian gains.

Yup, that there is some real proof of ....something

RWGR
08-29-2013, 07:11 PM
Westy's source: "friendly atheist"

LOL

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 08:11 PM
That's amazing proof you provided, Westy...proof of...something, I guess.

Good thing that someone couldn't have taken a sheet of paper, and created that for specific anti-Christian gains.

Yup, that there is some real proof of ....something

Yep, it's all a conspiracy.

"It is unmistakable that our culture greatly needs well-equipped warriors for Christ. Even though the attack on the school was meant to be harmful, God has used it to provide affirmation regarding the importance of our work," Diana Baker, an administrator at the Blue Ridge Christian Academy in Landrum, S.C., said in a press release emailed to The Washington Post regarding the recent controversy over a quiz provided to the school's fourth grade class, which included questions relating to creationism.

"We are hopeful that the recent unexpected interest in our school and in Christian Education will provide support for a future for BRCA," Baker added.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-schools-creationism-quiz-sparks-online-debate-financial-donations-96063/

Never happened.

dancingqueen
08-29-2013, 09:23 PM
That's amazing proof you provided, Westy...proof of...something, I guess.

Good thing that someone couldn't have taken a sheet of paper, and created that for specific anti-Christian gains.

Yup, that there is some real proof of ....something

Translation:
LALALALALALA
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!

RWGR
08-30-2013, 08:55 AM
Translation:
LALALALALALA
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!

DQ, would one of your glorious college profs accept that as "proof" of anything?

RWGR
08-30-2013, 08:59 AM
...wait, don't answer that...I've already seen the damage they've visited upon you :)

The Left Sock
08-30-2013, 02:34 PM
This whole idea of a Buddhist participating in other religions seems to have thrown some people, so I will spell it out, in a simple example, that many area people can relate to.

A Buddhist goes to a Catholic Mass.

There is no conflict at all in Buddhist beliefs to do such a thing - in fact it is encouraged. But people with pre-formed ideas about religion will immediately recoil; because Catholics will talk about God, Christ, the Virgin Mary, miracles, and saints. The Buddhists don't even believe in God! Why would they participate in something they don't believe?

The truth is, Buddhists have what is called a 'non-attitude' toward God. A belief in God is not a requirement of our religion, the Buddha Himself was not a God, and openly said so. The Dalai Lama is simply a monk, as he has stated, on many occasions.

But non-attitude goes further. Not only does it mean that we don't have an attitude toward God, it also means we don't have an attitude against a belief in God. If Catholics want to believe in God, that's just fine with us. If they want to be Catholics instead of Buddhists, that's just fine as well.

So, when a Buddhist goes to Catholic Mass, they are not there to discredit Catholic beliefs. They are not there to convert people to Buddhism, because active conversion is not part of our belief system. We are there to admire the the sense of community, compassion, and spirituality of the Catholic belief. We are there to understand, to incorporate the facets of Catholic belief that run parallel to our own, to find the common humanity between Catholics and ourselves. It is not a competition, but rather, a building of bridges that lead to tolerance and understanding.

So, this is just one small example, but it illustrates the point. This is what the Dalai Lama was saying, when he talked about 'getting to know other traditions' - it means active participation in other religious activities. You can't understand the Catholic tradition, if you have never attended a Mass, now can you? The part where everyone turns around and shakes hands with each other is the best part, at least for me. So many services I have attended, involve only watching and listening to a preacher, and you never say a word to the stranger beside you. That's a missed opportunity, in my mind!

Bluesky
08-30-2013, 02:50 PM
Conversion may not be part of your system, but it certainly was part of the original Buddha's system. Otherwise they'd have all remained Hindus!

Bluesky
08-30-2013, 02:54 PM
And while we are on the topic of IQ and religions, here is an article you might want to consider.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/


Thanks to a couple of surveys, it’s being put about in certain circles that atheists have higher IQs than believers. That may or may not be the case, but one problem with this argument is that, if you accept "average group differences in IQ”, you get into all sorts of sinister debates which bien pensant atheist Lefties might find less to their liking.
So let’s not go down that unhappy road. Let’s dispense with the crude metric of IQ and look at the actual lives led by atheists, and believers, and see how they measure up. In other words: let’s see who is living more intelligently.
And guess what: it’s the believers. A vast body of research, amassed over recent decades, shows that religious belief is physically and psychologically beneficial – to a remarkable degree.

dancingqueen
08-30-2013, 03:08 PM
DQ, would one of your glorious college profs accept that as "proof" of anything?

No, but they wouldn't discount it simply because it COULD be false.

The Left Sock
08-30-2013, 03:50 PM
"And while we are on the topic of IQ and religions, here is an article you might want to consider."

Okay, I've considered it. It's an opinion piece from a blogger who writes thriller novels, and compares atheism to mental illness.

Did I miss anything?

The Voice
08-31-2013, 07:50 AM
This whole idea of a Buddhist participating in other religions seems to have thrown some people, so I will spell it out, in a simple example, that many area people can relate to.

A Buddhist goes to a Catholic Mass.

There is no conflict at all in Buddhist beliefs to do such a thing - in fact it is encouraged. But people with pre-formed ideas about religion will immediately recoil; because Catholics will talk about God, Christ, the Virgin Mary, miracles, and saints. The Buddhists don't even believe in God! Why would they participate in something they don't believe?

The truth is, Buddhists have what is called a 'non-attitude' toward God. A belief in God is not a requirement of our religion, the Buddha Himself was not a God, and openly said so. The Dalai Lama is simply a monk, as he has stated, on many occasions.

But non-attitude goes further. Not only does it mean that we don't have an attitude toward God, it also means we don't have an attitude against a belief in God. If Catholics want to believe in God, that's just fine with us. If they want to be Catholics instead of Buddhists, that's just fine as well.

So, when a Buddhist goes to Catholic Mass, they are not there to discredit Catholic beliefs. They are not there to convert people to Buddhism, because active conversion is not part of our belief system. We are there to admire the the sense of community, compassion, and spirituality of the Catholic belief. We are there to understand, to incorporate the facets of Catholic belief that run parallel to our own, to find the common humanity between Catholics and ourselves. It is not a competition, but rather, a building of bridges that lead to tolerance and understanding.

So, this is just one small example, but it illustrates the point. This is what the Dalai Lama was saying, when he talked about 'getting to know other traditions' - it means active participation in other religious activities. You can't understand the Catholic tradition, if you have never attended a Mass, now can you? The part where everyone turns around and shakes hands with each other is the best part, at least for me. So many services I have attended, involve only watching and listening to a preacher, and you never say a word to the stranger beside you. That's a missed opportunity, in my mind!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/participate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/observe

I want you to spend a few hours today studying these two definitions.

RWGR
08-31-2013, 10:38 AM
No, but they wouldn't discount it simply because it COULD be false.

Unless it proved a point advantageous to religion.

Thanks for admitting this :)

The Left Sock
08-31-2013, 03:51 PM
"I want you to spend a few hours today studying these two definitions."

That's so cute, you pointing out the dictionary definitions of 'observe' and 'participate'! But let's take it one step further shall we, and put it into terms you might actually understand?

To 'participate' in a bus ride, you get on the bus, and go for a ride.
To 'observe' a bus ride, you stand on the street, and watch the bus go.

To 'participate' in a Catholic Mass, you line up with the parishioners, go inside, listen to the Priest, smell the incense, hear the bells, shake hands with your neighbour.
To 'observe' a Catholic Mass, you stand outside at the window, and watch what is going on inside.

There, does that help clear things up for you?

Now, when a person attends a Catholic Mass, are they a) observing, or b) participating?

I'm on eggshells, waiting to see if you get the right answer!

Nihilistic Heathen
08-31-2013, 05:41 PM
Bad bus analogy, I could participate in a bus ride by providing funds for the bus to operate by buying the fuel. Then I can observe the bus driving away. Hey, I can do both, participate and observe at the same time. It doesn't make me a bus rider though.

You can attend a Catholic Mass as a Buddhist and passively participate by observing and experiencing the ritual. The catholic beside you would be actively participating in Catholicism.

How's that for splitting hairs?(or is it hares?)

The Left Sock
08-31-2013, 07:19 PM
If you are involved in an activity that causes you to make decisions within that activity, you are a participant.

If you go to a Catholic Mass, you have the choice whether or not to believe what the Priest is saying, and you must decide what you think about it. That's participation. No different than the Catholic sitting next to you.

And when they pass around the plate, you must decide whether or not to financially contribute to the Church, or not. Either decision includes active participation.

Standing outside, watching a Mass from the window, none of these issues are present, or relevant. Therefore, you are merely an observer.

Sitting in the Mass, you are a participant. There can be no other way to define it.

Nihilistic Heathen
08-31-2013, 09:53 PM
If you are involved in an activity that causes you to make decisions within that activity, you are a participant.

If you go to a Catholic Mass, you have the choice whether or not to believe what the Priest is saying, and you must decide what you think about it. That's participation. No different than the Catholic sitting next to you.

And when they pass around the plate, you must decide whether or not to financially contribute to the Church, or not. Either decision includes active participation.

Standing outside, watching a Mass from the window, none of these issues are present, or relevant. Therefore, you are merely an observer.

Sitting in the Mass, you are a participant. There can be no other way to define it.

I've been to a Catholic church once, it was my best friends son's baptism and my friends parents were very active in their church. They wanted me to go and I went out of respect for them. I may have actively participated in the event by observing and following their customs, but I wasn't an active participant of Christianity because I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in god or any of their tenets. (http://www.bible-knowledge.com/basic-tenants-of-christian-faith/)

RWGR
09-02-2013, 10:11 AM
Exactly!

The Voice
09-02-2013, 10:25 AM
Sockie attended the red and white game last Saturday.

He was named MVP for his jubilant celebration as he participated in each goal red scored.

ROFLMAO

You are too easy sockie.

RWGR
09-02-2013, 10:29 AM
Sitting in the Mass, you are a participant. There can be no other way to define it.

That is a stunning ignorance of Catholic theology.

You see Sockie moving the goalposts again, all because he flapped his lips before engaging his brain. Now, he is caught in yet another conundrum because of it.

Wonderful entertainment, but amazing that he makes the same mistake over and over and over.

dancingqueen
09-02-2013, 04:14 PM
Unless it proved a point advantageous to religion.

Thanks for admitting this :)

I...I.... I never said that, you did.... I do not believe that to be the case.

dancingqueen
09-02-2013, 04:18 PM
I've been to a Catholic church once, it was my best friends son's baptism and my friends parents were very active in their church. They wanted me to go and I went out of respect for them. I may have actively participated in the event by observing and following their customs, but I wasn't an active participant of Christianity because I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in god or any of their tenets. (http://www.bible-knowledge.com/basic-tenants-of-christian-faith/)

This is an example of Observing, but this is not the same thing The left sock seems to be suggesting...
Seems a lot of people like to project their feelings of "knowing everything" onto others, You go to Church with no intention of listening or acknowledging anything anyone says because you feel you know it all, in your case (As I understand) as an atheist, you, therefore, are projecting this idea of just going through the motions onto the left sock, suggesting that because you do this, that he, to must be doing the same thing.

dancingqueen
09-02-2013, 04:19 PM
Exactly!

Wow, talk about closing your mind before considering all the facts... No wonder you don't like science.... unless it's advantageous to your religion that is.
Funny that.

I wonder if this is a result of your religion not letting you think outside the box (from other people's perspective) or if you are letting your dislike of left sock clouding your ability to critically think on this issue.
I lean to the latter.

RWGR
09-02-2013, 05:52 PM
No wonder you don't like science

Who said I don't like science? The voices in your head? Those don't count :)

unless it's advantageous to your religion that is

But ...but ...I thought science could never be advantageous to religion?? I thought science was the enemy of religion, and would once and for all save mankind from the horrors of organized religion??

I wonder if this is a result of your religion not letting you think outside the box (from other people's perspective) or if you are letting your dislike of left sock clouding your ability to critically think on this issue.

My religion is the founder of modern science. I realize your profs won't let you admit that, or even know it, but it's true. Look at the Church / Science connection sometime ...when you're less emotional and angry. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised...you'll realize your profs were morons...but you'll be surprised.

I lean to the latter.

Which, more often than not, means the truth must then be the former :)

Nihilistic Heathen
09-02-2013, 05:55 PM
This is an example of Observing, but this is not the same thing The left sock seems to be suggesting...
Seems a lot of people like to project their feelings of "knowing everything" onto others, You go to Church with no intention of listening or acknowledging anything anyone says because you feel you know it all, in your case (As I understand) as an atheist, you, therefore, are projecting this idea of just going through the motions onto the left sock, suggesting that because you do this, that he, to must be doing the same thing.

Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. I didn't stand there with my fingers in my ears going "LALALALALA". I did listen and acknowledge what was being said, that is a part of observing. You can't observe or participate something by ignoring or not acknowledging it. In order to truly be an active participant in Christianity, requires you accept their tenets as the truth. That means you can't be an active participant in Buddhism and Christianity at the same time. You can attend a sermon and participate as a non Christian, but essentially what you are doing is observing.

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 12:51 AM
unless it's advantageous to your religion that is

But ...but ...I thought science could never be advantageous to religion?? I thought science was the enemy of religion, and would once and for all save mankind from the horrors of organized religion??


And this is where you appear to err. I have never stated that, nor is that my belief.

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 12:52 AM
You can't observe or participate something by ignoring or not acknowledging it.

Yes you can.

Nihilistic Heathen
09-03-2013, 03:32 AM
WOW!!!

I'm not sure what to say at this point.... ummm.... I can't even begin to comprehend how you could even come up with that. In fact, that is the most imbecilic comment I have ever read on here.

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 04:15 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/observe?s=t

Ignoring and not acknowledging something does not necessarily mean you cannot see something happening...
Words have meanings, I'm sorry if they do not mean the same thing as you would like them to.
Regardless, you are moving the goal posts and this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you would like to start a thread on "what observation is" then be my guest.

Nihilistic Heathen
09-03-2013, 06:44 AM
I said... You can't observe or participate in something by ignoring or not acknowledging it.

you said... Yes you can.

I mocked you.

Now you're saying... Ignoring and not acknowledging something does not necessarily mean you cannot see something happening...

Which is not anywhere near the point I was making. So, who's moving the goalposts here? It's definitely not me.

Oh, and by the way, the link to the definition of observe you provided, it has ignore as the antonym. Just in case you don't know what an antonym is here's a link to the definition... antonym (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antonym)

Words have meanings, I'm sorry if they do not mean the same thing as you would like them to.

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 01:38 PM
Which is not anywhere near the point I was making. So, who's moving the goalposts here? It's definitely not me.

So you wanna make your point, or do you just like the sound the keys make when your fingers tap them?

Nihilistic Heathen
09-03-2013, 05:54 PM
So you wanna make your point, or do you just like the sound the keys make when your fingers tap them?

In order to truly be an active participant in Christianity, requires you accept their tenets as the truth. That means you can't be an active participant in Buddhism and Christianity at the same time. You can attend a sermon and participate as a non Christian, but essentially what you are doing is observing.

That is the gist of my original point.

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 06:12 PM
In order to truly be an active participant in Christianity...
There is a difference between participation and active participation, you are moving the goal posts right here.

You can attend a sermon and participate as a non Christian, but essentially what you are doing is observing.
so participating as a non Christian means you are not participating? How does that work?
Participating -> as in to take part in something.

Nihilistic Heathen
09-03-2013, 07:53 PM
There is a difference between participation and active participation, you are moving the goal posts right here.


No I'm not Sock laid down the foundations for them.


I'll give you some clues - I'm a member of a religion that:
- Encourages study and participation in all major world religions.


Here, he appears to be claiming that he is a participant in all world religions. It was pointed out that what he was doing is participating at their services as a Buddhist in order to observe their religion. Not a participant in their religion, but a spectator.

Further on he said this...



...We are there to admire the the sense of community, compassion, and spirituality of the Catholic belief. We are there to understand, to incorporate the facets of Catholic belief that run parallel to our own, to find the common humanity between Catholics and ourselves. It is not a competition, but rather, a building of bridges that lead to tolerance and understanding.


That is observing their religion. In fact he goes on to say this...


...This is what the Dalai Lama was saying, when he talked about 'getting to know other traditions' - it means active participation in other religious activities. You can't understand the Catholic tradition, if you have never attended a Mass, now can you?


Even he is making the distinction between participating in their religion and participating at their events as an observer.


so participating as a non Christian means you are not participating? How does that work?
Participating -> as in to take part in something.

There's a different level of involvement.

Sock, being an active participant in the Buddhist religion, is allowed to participate at other religions events as an observer. Through his observations he is able to gain an understanding of their religion. When he attends a catholic mass he is attending as a Buddhist, he's not participating in their religion. He's observing, he acknowledged that himself.

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 08:04 PM
Well I will not try to decipher what The Left Sock is or is not saying, the fact of the matter is that observing CAN be part of participation.

The Voice
09-03-2013, 09:10 PM
Well I will not try to decipher what The Left Sock is or is not saying, the fact of the matter is that observing CAN be part of participation.

Go back and read the whole thread dude.

Stop at the part where I tell Sockie to get out his dictionary.

Take the advice.

Get back to me when you have the definitions memorized.

Nihilistic Heathen
09-04-2013, 04:00 PM
Well I will not try to decipher what The Left Sock is or is not saying, the fact of the matter is that observing CAN be part of participation.

Nobody is arguing whether observing is a part of participation, you have to make some kind of observation in order to participate. That is a fact that doesn't need to be stated. Unless of course you think observe and ignore are synonymous.

RWGR
09-04-2013, 06:17 PM
Well I will not try to decipher what The Left Sock is or is not saying, the fact of the matter is that observing CAN be part of participation.

No, it cannot.

Participation, in this sense, means giving your heart and mind to ceremony at hand. Observation is nothing like that.

The Left Sock
09-04-2013, 07:21 PM
From Nihilistic Heathen:

"You can't observe or participate something by ignoring or not acknowledging it. In order to truly be an active participant in Christianity, requires you accept their tenets as the truth."

From RWGR:

"Participation, in this sense, means giving your heart and mind to ceremony at hand."

These are both false premises. There are people who are born into Catholic families, raised Catholic, claim they are Catholic, yet outside of Church, they rarely say or do anything of a religious nature. You would never be able to identify their religion, unless you actually caught them in Church. Are you really trying to suggest that a Buddhist cannot attend a Catholic Mass and have a deeper religious experience than those who just go through the motions all their lives? To me, that's a sad and narrow view of religion. You are comfortable calling those people participants, but not the Buddhist? Very interesting.

An analogy:

A bunch of people receive flyers, notifying them that they have won a prize worth $300. They attend a meeting in a fancy ballroom in a downtown hotel. There are refreshments, guest speakers, lots of hype and pageantry. It's actually a sales pitch for a time-share program, with high-pressure sales tactics. Once all the people in attendance survive the pitch, they are told that their prize is $300 worth of coupons, on their next trip to Disneyland. Out of the 150 people who attend, 8 actually buy time-shares.

Now I ask you, did 150 people participate in this meeting, or did 8?

If you take up an invitation to attend a meeting, if you go to that meeting, listen to what people have to say, and make a decision on what you believe, based on the contents of that meeting, are you a participant, or an observer?

If you are subjected to a sales pitch, asked to invest in a particular project, and warned that failure to participate could have grave consequences for you and your family, are you a participant, or an observer?

If 150 people show up to a Catholic Mass, and only 8 of them are moved by religious devotion to become better people, based on what the Priest tells them, how many people participated in the Mass?

In conclusion, you don't have to 'buy the time-share', in order to be considered a participant in anything. Simply being asked to consider it, qualifies you as a participant.

RWGR
09-04-2013, 07:32 PM
There are people who are born into Catholic families, raised Catholic, claim they are Catholic, yet outside of Church, they rarely say or do anything of a religious nature.

Correct, and as such, they are not participants in the true sense of the word; they are mere observers, such as when they dutifully attend Mass each Easter and Christmas, but that's it.

Are you really trying to suggest that a Buddhist cannot attend a Catholic Mass and have a deeper religious experience than those who just go through the motions all their lives? To me, that's a sad and narrow view of religion. You are comfortable calling those people participants, but not the Buddhist? Very interesting.

Strawman, my friend. I never said what you accused me of. It is quite possible for a Buddhist to attend a Catholic Mass and feel an interior change, a spiritual regeneration that transcends mere observation. But that was never the issue, it's where you're trying to turn the issue.

This all began with you claiming Buddhism calls on its adherents to participate in other religions. You have failed to back that up. In a world as huge as the Internet, you could not find one source that supported your claim. If it were in fact a dictate of Buddhism it would be very easy to source as such.

No dice. You simply made it up.

Nihilistic Heathen
09-04-2013, 07:38 PM
I would say 150 people attended the meeting made observations and made decisions based on their observations. Yes they all participated as observers. The catch, the eight who bought into the shares became participants in the time share.

The Left Sock
09-04-2013, 08:18 PM
"This all began with you claiming Buddhism calls on its adherents to participate in other religions. You have failed to back that up. In a world as huge as the Internet, you could not find one source that supported your claim. If it were in fact a dictate of Buddhism it would be very easy to source as such.

No dice. You simply made it up."

Sigh.... well, I suppose you could just take my word for it - or, you can order the book yourself!

"Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama profoundly shows how a sincere believer can, with integrity, be a pluralist in relation to other religions without compromising commitment to the essence of the doctrinal teachings of their own faith."

http://www.amazon.com/Toward-True-Kinship-Faiths-Religions/dp/B00AK2RQVO

Nihilistic Heathen
09-04-2013, 09:21 PM
I'll give you some clues - I'm a member of a religion that:

- Does not claim to be the 'one true religion'.
- Encourages study and participation in all major world religions.
- Can be practiced without a book, a church, or a priest.

"For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory. I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, Mohammedanism is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend." Dalai Lama

The Left Sock
09-04-2013, 10:33 PM
Can you go to the Y without being a member? Can you participate? Yes.

By the same token, you can participate in other religions, without being a member. I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.

What's the matter, never been to a Jewish wedding?

RWGR
09-05-2013, 04:54 PM
Sigh.... well, I suppose you could just take my word for it - or, you can order the book yourself!

"Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama profoundly shows how a sincere believer can, with integrity, be a pluralist in relation to other religions without compromising commitment to the essence of the doctrinal teachings of their own faith."

http://www.amazon.com/Toward-True-Kinship-Faiths-Religions/dp/B00AK2RQVO

LOL...white flag accepted! :)

RWGR
09-05-2013, 04:55 PM
Can you go to the Y without being a member? Can you participate? Yes.

By the same token, you can participate in other religions, without being a member.

Excellent analogy, because the YMCA and religion are practically the same thing.





Just out of curiosity...have you ever thought of writing for Cracked.com?

The Left Sock
09-05-2013, 06:33 PM
"Excellent analogy, because the YMCA and religion are practically the same thing."

Well yes, after all it is the Young Men's Christian Association.

Glad to see we're finally get on the same wavelength!

RWGR
09-05-2013, 06:36 PM
shooting baskets at the YMCA gym is the same as partaking of The Eucharist at a Catholic Mass.

Again, your air-tight analogy continues to impress! :)