AdamWho

St. Robert, first off I want to thank you for keeping this thread alive.
I do not address meditation, prayer, yoga, chanting or the likes in this thread.

Just about any human endeavor has the potential to increase the amount of suffering in the world.

No principles or practices of Buddhism are magic, they do not affirm nor deny the existence of a god, they are not statements of faith, or things which need "believed in".

They are simply an attempt to reduce suffering in the individual by making the individual responsible for their life, actions and desires.

St. Robert

Does the Buddhist not believe, have faith in, devote him or herself to following the 8 fold path to eliminate desire and reach nirvana?

How is Buddhism not faith-based?

Could it be that a person who doesn't believe in God would be attracted to Buddhism, because they could have some assemblance of spirituality without having to be accountable to the divine?

AdamWho

Buddhism is empirical not faith based, it is about the individual discovering “truth”. The acolyte is required to discover what "suffering", "desire" and the eight fold path mean; it isn't handed down from on high. It is NOT top-down (god to man) like western religions. There is no god in Buddhism and there is no doctrine to have "faith in".

Maybe you could say that a person "has faith" in the journey, but it seems that we are all "on a path" whether we have faith in it or not. Do I need faith to exist, I don't think so?

If you followed Buddhism to its logical conclusion you will have to eventually discard Buddhism and you will have to give up faith.
I don't think that Buddhists are trying to hide from "responsibility to the divine". In fact Buddhism seems to embrace personal responsibility.
I know that might seem difficult to understand: "how can you be responsible without a daddy-god looking over your shoulder, handing out gifts and punishments??"
In Buddhism; personal responsibility, self respect, and maturity means that you don't need daddy looking over your shoulder any more.
Maybe I got carried away in my rant?

St. Robert

The four noble truths of Buddhism are doctrine. Buddhism is filled with doctrine and rules of behavior. In fact, Buddha substituted doctrine and right behavior for god. In Buddhism, the principles, the teachings, and the rules are followed, praised, and celebrated in place of god.

Being raised in India, Siddhartha must have been sick of gods. Hindus worship over 300 million gods and goddesses. Who wouldn't be ready to do away with them all and design a new spiritual quest by elminating gods altogether?

I notice you like to keep referring to 'daddy'. What's that about? I'm trying to get you or anyone else to defend Buddhism and instead you mock my heavenly father? Why?

AdamWho

St. Robert:
Throughout this thread you have been constantly bringing up straw man arguments, I only defend Buddhism in response.

Throughout my posts have been arguing for a non-doctrinaire Buddhism, free of worship of ANYTHING. So your straw man about Buddhist doctrine = god falls on deaf ears and rollly eyes.
I think Freud pointed this out very eloquently:
I see Christianity as a whole this way and in this context my posts might make more sense. If some Buddhist, somewhere is clinging to Buddhism they are in the same peril of stunted growth, doomed to “spiritual” infancy. However, as I have stated many times before, I think that Buddhism places the responsibility back on the individual. No doctrine of Buddhism needs taken on faith EVER. Faith is irrelevant.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

St. Robert

Do you honestly believe that Christianity doesn't require personal responsibility?

Grizzly

In a sense, yes. All that is required is faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Since we are all disgusting in his sight, it really doesn't matter what we do (works) just what we believe (faith). God does all the work of saving us. We are not responsible for our salvation.

The Buddhist way says that we are responsible for our own salvation (nibbana). However we get there is up to us. We can use the eightfold path, but if it doesn't work for us, we need to try somehting else. Gotama insisted that all of his methods must be tested empirically by everyone. This is what I believe is meant by personal responsibility.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

St. Robert

Quote from Grizzly:

"In a sense, yes. All that is required is faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Since we are all disgusting in his sight, it really doesn't matter what we do (works) just what we believe (faith). God does all the work of saving us. We are not responsible for our salvation."

Some of what say here is true. Faith in Christ is the sole requirement for salvation. However, we do not disgust God. Sin disgusts God, not sinners. Jesus came so that sinners would be saved through his atoning sacrifice.

Man is not responsible to earn salvation, but he is responsible to receive salvation. Salvation is a gift, not a reward.

If you believe that you can earn salvation, then go for it. The majority of people share this same notion even many Christians. If Buddhism satifies the desires of your heart, great.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

AdamWho

St. Robert:
Yes I do and will even go further than that. I argue that anytime a person operates under faith rather than reason they are skirting responsibility, it doesn't matter if it is a Christian, Buddhist, political partisan, scientist, or philosopher.
The problem lies in finding a method of to understand the world that gives responsibility to the individual and allows them to grow. What ever method the individual uses it must have error correction mechanisms. Faith denies correction, taking the responsibility for personal discovery away from the believer and in doing so limits growth of the believer.

An interesting story highlights this: “The grand inquisitor’s tale” found inside the book, ”The brother Karamazov”, by Dostoyevsky.

Edited to add:
What do you think that the meaning of "Salvation" is? --Salvation from responsibility?

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

boneyard bill

Grizzly writes:

I would hasten to point out that this view is not common to all Christian denominations. It is primarily the view of Calvinist religious sects, and is popular among modern-day fundamentalists. It is, of course, contradicted in the Scripture many times. Historically, Christianity has not held this position. I don't think Christianity and Buddhism are really very far apart on ethical questions although modern fundamentalism may be an exception in this area.