Welcome to Gaia! ::

hmm.. to be honest the only question I would pose to you is this.. what exactly is it about the Judeo-Christian world view that you see it to be the most accurate? is it because maybe that's how you were brought up? what other's have you studied?

I shall have more to say, I think, after that question is answered. but in short, I dont think any world view that is dictated by a omnipotent being of some kind, is the most accurate.

to me, it's not that it has no credit.. it's just far less plausible to me than the idea of either a non-conscious entity, or random happenstance. it is my thought, that people come up with and believe in man-like deities because it is the only perspective from what we know. we are creators. it's what we do. so in our perspective (for the most part) it makes the most sense to many that this world was created by some other conscious being. because we know the feelings of love, hate, sorrow, jealousy etc.. we assume this entity we've conceived of has those feelings too.

if one looks within the confines of ones already decided spiritual beliefs (ie: bible, koran, the torah, even nature itself) for validation of those beliefs, one is bound to find them. in the case of the bible, it is riddled with history. that I do not deny. but it is also riddled with myth, which cannot be denied either. many believers in the bible would say it's not, but people tend to take their own myths very seriously. the Greek gods and their stories were not mere myths to the greeks that worshiped them. so to me, the bible is more of an historical fiction. doesnt matter that people say it's gods book. it was written by men. it also doesnt matter that people say it was inspired by god. that is heresay and can in no way be proven. the same goes with all other religious texts. even in Wicca, they use what they see in nature to validate the idea of a goddess and a god.

Buddhism is the one religion that has no god (yes, the Buddha is not and was not a god). it is based on self-discovery. the Three Jewels of Buddhism are the Buddha (teacher), the Dharma (his teachings), and the Sangha (community). those are it's foundations. Buddhism is about the nature and cessation of suffering. it teaches that suffering is caused by our clinging of our desires and aversions.. of clinging to the idea of how things should be, as opposed to acceptance of how things are.

Buddhism is a very versatile philosophy and practice, in that it can easily fit into any other spiritual belief. that is why many cultures (mostly Asian) have incorporated it into beliefs that already existed there before the coming of buddhist teachings. there are many who view the image of the Buddha with respect and reverence, but it/he is not a god in any sense of the word. it is said that the Buddha himself did not want to create a new religion. he just wanted to show the way to a happier way of life.

so in this sense, Buddhism makes the most sense to me, but I'm not a buddhist. the reason being is I have found at least one aspect of it that does seem contradictory. on one hand, it is said that when the Buddha made his discovery while meditating under the bodhi tree, he remembered over 300 of his past lifetimes. on the other hand, he preached the idea of no-self. that all is impermanent. I simply cant wrap my head around this. perhaps it's my understanding that is wrong, I dont know. it could be.. because I once thought the idea of non-attachment meant no longer caring about anything... but I was wrong in that. non-attachment simply means being able to 'let go'.

you seem to have clung to my usage of the word 'happenstance' but that's not all I said. that's not even 1/10th of what I said. in fact, the other word I used in the same sentence was "non-conscious entity". I merely said that to me these 2 options, for the logical reasons I pointed out, seems more plausible.

I also said a lot about the problem of using the myths of ones religion to prove one's religion. which is why I couldnt view any religious world view dictated by a personal deity and revealed thru written scripture.

it's called 'karma'. for one thing, just because someone is buddhist does not make them a saint. the 8 fold path of buddhism and the precepts that go along with it are terribly hard to live up to *all* the time.

the idea of living a happier life is not about reincarnation anyway. it's not about living a happier *next* life. the Buddha taught so that people would have the opportunity to live happier in *this* life by realizing what causes suffering and how it can be stopped. but again, this isnt easy by any means. it means de-programming all of your previous ideas.. emptying the cup of all you *think* you know and re-examining yourself... your mind.. and then re-programming it accordingly.

you're still thinking from a christian perspective. perhaps that's not your fault but if you're going to understand the ideas I'm setting forth, you need to be able to think another way.

the major religion of the region of Nepal in the times of the Buddha was Brahminism, aprox 2500 years ago. I dont know much about it, but I think it is related to Hinduism. even so, Buddhism isnt an off shoot by any means. it's its own philosophy and practice. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion.. it has many gods. as I previously stated, Buddhism does not. the Buddha (who's name was Siddhattha Gautama) did not want to create a religion. he didnt want blind followers accepting what he said to them on faith. he wanted them to look at their own experiences and decide for themselves if his philosophies were true or not.

I really wouldnt know what to say about the subject were I to start a thread. I'm not even Buddhist smile but if anyone is interested in what I do know and has questions, you included (we seem to be the only ones posting here anyway), feel free to PM me about it.

I have a question.

My Grandmother died last week. She was a member of the Society of Pius X, which is an offshoot of Catholicism that rejected the changes that occured during the Vatican II Council. Her funeral service was a traditional Latin mass. After a lengthy ceremony conducted entirely in Latin, the Priest delivered his sermon (in English thank goodness).

The basic gist of his sermon was that my Grandmother was a good woman who truly believed in her faith, led others into the faith, and went above and beyond in service to her church, but that she would probably not get into Heaven unless her friends and family prayed for her, dedicated masses to her, and did good works in her name. In other words, my Grandmother spent her whole life being the kind of person the church told her would get into Heaven, but now she won't because I don't go to church.

My question for you--and for anyone else who has any input--is, how does that make any logical sense whatsoever?

Okay, here's another question.

You say that accepting Christ as the Lord and Savior leads to acceptance into Heaven. The pseudo-Catholic church my Grandmother believed in says that it is not enough to accept Christ yourself, you also have to have friends and family pray for you after you are dead.

How can one Judeo-Christian worldview, using one universal text, come up with two such different answers to the same question and still seem accurate to you?