The Passion rotten so far

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
That is b*ll****. Mainstream Asian Buddhists, be they Theravada or whatever, are theists. It's only the crazy Western hippy Buddhist fringe that says otherwise.

It's not bull****, AH. Have you read the tenets of Buddhism? It takes absolutely NO theistic stand whatsoever. That leaves Buddhists to decide for themselves, and some choose to be theists, some nontheists. Have you ever actually bothered to read their beliefs?

http://wri.leaderu.com/wri-table2/buddhism.html

"There is no absolute God in Buddhism, although many have interpreted Buddhism as a search for God. The Buddha did not deny the existence of God outright but said that the question of His existence "tends not to edification." That is, those seeking enlightenment need to concentrate on their own spiritual paths themselves rather than relying on an outside support"

The Buddha did not claim divinity or even a divine source for his teachings. He saw himself as only an example to fellow monks and compared his teachings to a raft that should be left behind once the other side of the river has been reached.

Many Buddhists believe the existence of suffering and evil in the world is evidence against belief in God.

Although belief in an ultimate God is opposed by nearly all Buddhists, the Mahayana school developed notions of the Buddha as still existing for the sake of men and propounded the existence of many semi-divine beings, who came to be represented in art and have been revered in ways very similar to worship of Hindu gods."

[Drake Tungsten]

It's not bull****, AH. Have you read the tenets of Buddhism? It takes absolutely NO theistic stand whatsoever. That leaves Buddhists to decide for themselves, and some choose to be theists, some nontheists. Have you ever actually bothered to read their beliefs?

What are you talking about? Mahayana Buddhism has a vast pantheon, which you're own article mentions. It's certainly not atheistic.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


It's not bull****, AH. Have you read the tenets of Buddhism?

You mean aside from living in a Buddhist country for a few years, being married to a former Buddhist and having many conversations with monks and Abbots and other revered teachers?

Your idea of Buddhism is the Western wacko version. You have no idea what Buddhism is. Just because the dharma is silent on the nature of God doesn't mean Buddhism is Godless. Buddhists simply believe God cannot be defined and put into words. They leave the subject alone. It's a fair enough position. Everything is God and nothing God. You need to reach enlightenment before you can even approach the subject.

So please spare us your cappucino version of Buddhism.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm with AH; if you're going to lecture people on Buddhism, it helps to actually know a thing or two about Buddhism.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Just because the dharma is silent on the nature of God doesn't mean Buddhism is Godless.

That's precisely what I'm saying! It's silent on God, so almost any theistic approach can be accomodated by Buddhism! So you have atheist Buddhists, "agnostic" Buddhists, monotheistic Buddhists, polytheistic Buddhists...

Because Buddhism itself isn't a theistic philosophy, it's a personal one! Yes, there are strands that are theistic, but the original teachings of Buddha are, as you say, silent on God.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Ned


Backwards.

Pilate washed his hands of Jesus's guilt.

So. If Hitler had washed his hands, the holocaust would not have been his responsibility?

Absurd, and in all likelihood, convenient historical revisionism.

Boris-
I disagree. There may be some semantic argument- Jesus was not named Jesus, etc. Show me the serious scholarly argument that takes the position that no such person existed in history. I

[MrFun]

How much longer can people get all hyped up over this non-issue??


This is not the first movie ever created that depicted Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, there are strands that are theistic

Including the strand that incorporates the vast majority of Buddhists on Earth...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Boris-
I disagree. There may be some semantic argument- Jesus was not named Jesus, etc. Show me the serious scholarly argument that takes the position that no such person existed in history. I

You can start with any number of the books written on the subject:

W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)

If there's no serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jesus existed, why are many Christian theologians going to great pains to try and prove it? It would be nonsensical of them to address a controversy that wasn't there, wouldn't it?

[Barinthus]

*Sigh* People will read what they want to read out of anything...

Passion tickets bear 'mark of the beast'

ROME, Georgia (AP) --Tickets at one movie theater screening Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" are being deemed decidedly unholy.

The number 666, which many Christians recognize as the "mark of the beast," is appearing on movie tickets for Gibson's film at a Georgia theater, drawing complaints from some moviegoers.

The machine that prints tickets assigned the number 666 as a prefix on all the tickets for the film, said Gary Smith, owner of the Movies at Berry Square in northwest Georgia. The 666 begins a series of numbers that are listed below the name of the movie, the date, time and price.

"It's from our computer and it's absolutely a coincidence," Smith said. "It has nothing to do with the film company or any vendor. It's completely in our computer."

In the Bible, the book of Revelation says 666 is the "number of the beast," usually interpreted as Satan or the Antichrist.

Several patrons have made comments about the numbers, and one person who was uncomfortable having 666 on her ticket asked for a pass to be substituted for a ticket.

"A lot of people have asked what the numbers mean, some said it seemed odd, some said it was inappropriate," said theater employee Erica Diaz.

The movie, which opened Wednesday, is a bloody depiction of Christ's final hours and crucifixion.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/....ap/index.html

[Gibsie]

I can't be bothered to read the last 100 or so posts, so can someone just tell me if Ben is still saying that Christians are obligated to love atheists, whilst simultaneously attacking and generalising against atheists, saying that most of us belittle Christians? Where's the love maaan?

[MrBaggins]

Yep... I seem to recall some Religionists (sic) mumbling something about offering the other cheek... but I guess its a case of do as I say, not as I do, huh?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You can start with any number of the books written on the subject:

W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)

If there's no serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jesus existed, why are many Christian theologians going to great pains to try and prove it? It would be nonsensical of them to address a controversy that wasn't there, wouldn't it?

Just because religious people want to defend their belief, does not mean they are grasping ropes of sand.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I can't be bothered to read the last 100 or so posts, so can someone just tell me if Ben is still saying that Christians are obligated to love atheists, whilst simultaneously attacking and generalising against atheists, saying that most of us belittle Christians? Where's the love maaan?

The love is an 'idea of love'- presumably one he doesn't feel obligated to put into practice, at least with regards atheists and queers. I can't include lesbians, because he seems to have a blind spot about them, and real life women in general.

He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about atheists rejecting Christians- some of my closest friends are Christians (or purport to be) and I haven't done any rejecting of them.

He doesn't understand- there is no great Atheist Rejection Front, it's not like we go around in gangs tripping up nuns or breaking windows in cathedrals, or giving scathing remarks to bishops about jejune mitre patterns. And, more to the point- atheism isn't a religion or an evangelical operation. You can be a utilitarian atheist, a humanist atheist, a Communist atheist, whatever flavour you want.

Perhaps he's so used to the way religions work, he can't think outside the religionista box....

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You can start with any number of the books written on the subject:

W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)

If there's no serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jesus existed, why are many Christian theologians going to great pains to try and prove it? It would be nonsensical of them to address a controversy that wasn't there, wouldn't it?

That Wells is an amateur in the field of New Testament Biblical Criticism is overwhelmingly demonstrated by:

(1) His lack of academic credentials in the field.

(2) His lack of standing in the professional organizations which govern the standards and norms for practical scholarship in the field [specifically, I am speaking about the American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, and similar European academic credentialing organizations].

(3) His lack of publications in the recognized academic periodical literature of the field [specifically: the Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Interpretation, Novum Testamentum, Semeia, Biblical Theology Bulletin, Harvard Theological Review, American Academy of Religion Journal, Biblical Archeological Review, Biblical Review].

(4) His lack of publications from any of the recognized (frequently University-sponsored) Academic publishing houses.

(5) His lack of standing on the New Testament Biblical Critical faculty of any Institute of Higher Education.

(6) The severe and almost total lack of recognition among credible and well-noted scholars in the field.

(7) The lack of bibliographic citation of his works in the scholarly literature of the field.

If only one, two, or even three of the above applied, one might be able to make a good case for Wells being a "scholar" in the field. However, ALL of the above apply to him to one degree or another. Occasional references to his work ... including Forwards and dust-cover advertising blurbs (both of which are always worked over by the publisher to put the book in a good light) ... by minor, lightweight scholars in the field are noted; but they don't offset the silence which is so deafening among scholars of note in the field.

-source: Gregory Neal

The next most recent book you reference is over 30 years old.

I think you will find that any SERIOUS scholarly work does not question whether Jesus existed. Just whether or not he was divine.