With more than half the worlds population professing adherence to one or the other of the big two monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam, and given the "bad press" both have received over the centuries, and still do, is it reasonable to suggest an alternative.

The alternative I had in mind predates both Christianity and Islam, it has at least 500 million devotees world wide and is practised in most countries, that alternative is Buddhism. I recently had the privilege to again visit a Buddhist Temple. I found the people there interesting, extremely understanding, very friendly and most accommodating, something I have never greatly experienced in the world of the monotheistic religions. Unlike the big two religions which seek to impose dogma from an unseen being, Buddhism sees the path to fulfilment through self enlightenment, which is a major difference to most other beliefs.

Be what you like. Believe what you wish. Faith or lack of it is a personal thing. Nobody has to try a "better way". Buddhism is not 'better’ because you can't compare oranges and apples. Buddhism doesn't have a deity.

Buddhism believes on refraining from:

harming living things
taking what is not given
sexual misconduct
lying or gossip
taking intoxicating substances eg drugs or drink.

And that's about it. I think a certain Green person would have trouble with the last one.

Paul,

Like the peaceful Buddhists in Myanmar that have peacefully ethnically cleansed the Rohingya Muslims burning their villages and killing women and children?

Dear Paul,

Religion is a universal social institution. It takes
a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems, they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied
rituals, or solemn prayer. Many religions don't recognise
a supreme being, and a number don't believe in gods at all.
Several religions ignore questions about the origins of the
universe and life, leaving these problems to be dealt with
instead by nonreligious myth. Obviously, religion can't be
defined in terms of the Western religious tradition alone.

Religion is a personal matter - and what we choose to believe
(or not) is up to us. There are a large number of religions,
many of whose members are convinced that theirs is the one
true-faith and that all others are misguided, superstitious,
even wicked. When people mention religion - they usually
have their own in mind.

I'm glad that you've developed an interest in Buddhism.
May it bring you the inner peace that we all, in one way
or another are seeking.

Paul yes well we need to talk about such things some need to snear at you
Christianity needs a rethink Islam needs a rewrite
We all need to rethink why a God made us all but let thousands of others Gods exist in the mind of man
And why each God or the followers, find reason to hate followers of another God

When one really looks at it all very closely, it is rather amazing how similar religious indoctrination is to Left indoctrination.

Dear Belly,

Well said.

Can we name any religion that has not been guilty
of extremism? Fundamentalists and extremists
exist in them all. It's not the religions that
should be blamed. It's people's interpretations
that cause the harm.

Let's not forget the roughly 100 000 000 killed in the pursuit of marxism.

Shadow Minister,
The Left puts the 100 million down to a learning curve of mistakes, no guilt required !

Hi Paul,

The answer to your question is 'Secular Ethics'.

Why do you think 'ethics' is a non-religious replacement subject for religious education in schools?

- It's a extremely long video and I've only watched a little.
http://youtu.be/vZvTXFxPwb0

there is only One who can forgive sin and itn ain't Buddha.

Again that depends on your perception of who is
"The One," and what is a sin. All a matter of
what one believes - and interprets. Lots of
competing "truths" out there. Each one convinced
their's is the only one.

runner,
by the looks of things & goings-on nowadays, he's doing a lot of forgiving or should I say turning a blind eye to those who're causing so much misery .

Individual,

A lot of misery and suffering is being created in
His name.

Individual

'by the looks of things & goings-on nowadays, he's doing a lot of forgiving or should I say turning a blind eye to those who're causing so much misery '

If there is no day of judgement for all men you are right in your observation.

Foxy

'Again that depends on your perception of who is
"The One," and what is a sin. All a matter of
what one believes - and interprets. Lots of
competing "truths" out there. Each one convinced
their's is the only one.'

obviously not what Jesus taught. The truth does not depend on what one believes. Some people believe paedophile is ok. You are free to hold your irrational beliefs.

Hi runner,

"Some people believe pedophile is ok."

There's Pro's and Con's to everything.

I used to think that there were 'Pro's and Cons to everything except pedophilia'.
I thought there just can't be any Pro's to that, but I was wrong.

If you wish to compromise someone in power so you have complete control over them, there's no better way than to film them engaged in a sexual act with someone underage.
Then you OWN them for life.
I've little doubt that some secret organisations force adherants to be compromised in some way order to be a part of their group.
It's kind of like the way gangs might have an requirement of murdering someone as part of an initiation.

So, as ugly as it is, there are Pro's and Con's to everything.

Sometimes it's hard to see the ugly truths with only your own values;
- But that doesn't mean that others have the same values you do.

Oh and btw 'Crimes' and 'Sins' are two different things.

One is offenses against the law of the land;
While the other is offenses against God.

Armchair Critic

I don't disagree with anything you have said. The point I was making is that Jesus taught clearly that their are absolutes. The bible also teaches clearly that He is the only One who can forgive sin.

You might agree, disagree or be unsure about this. Jesus never left room for 'it depends on your perception. ' That is a clear misrepresentation of what He was about and what He accomplished. The bibke teaches clearly that Jesus is the Only One who can forgive sins. Not Buddha. not Mohammed or any of the millions of HIndu gods.

Paul1405
The main purpose of the monotheistic religions is to know and love God. Without monotheistic religion that's almost impossible. I say "almost" because direct personal contact with God does not depend on religion, but without religion discernment is more difficult. One of the few things worse than failing to recognise God is to mistake something else for God.

Buddhism seems to me to be the epitome of pointlessness. It starts with the philosophical opposite of Trotskyism (focussing on the bad things in this life, and ignoring the good) and then tries to escape reincarnation (a phenomenon for which there's no evidence at all) by seeking nirvana (also something there's no evidence for). Buddhism requires a lot of blind faith, but doesn't give you much that's worth having.

On the positive side, though, Buddhists do have a great insight not how the mind works, and in particular, how to be happy. So if you wish to be happy with failure, Buddhism may be for you!

But if you're after something more, try reading the Book of Ecclesiastes – for most of its length it's superficially similar to Buddhism, but it points to a genuinely better alternative in the end.

Not trying to be sarcastic but how can we be more than %50 sure that the whole show isn't just one big con ?

It is a matter of what one believes.

And these beliefs tend to be very resistant
to argument, no matter how blatant the evidence to
the contrary.

People are very resistant to their religious beliefs
being challenged. Believing that there's a kindly
but all powerful father figure in the sky who
watches and judges everything they do and his son who
died but came back to life two millennia ago and is going
to return any minute - some people would think is delusional.

Not if you've been raised in an environment where you've
been told by everyone that there's a kindly deity in the sky,
or that the world is 6,000 years old, or that there are
thousands of multi-armed gods controlling the world, or
whatever. Why wouldn't you believe it?

There's nothing that you experience on a day to day level
that contradicts this, so your mental model of the world
is fine with it. That's why delusions are only diagnosed
if they're not consistent with the person's "existing"
belief system and views.

A devout creationist talking to God while in church, that's
fine. However, saying the world is going to end in 30 minutes
because of a deity living in the sun, or believing they're
a world-leading business genius despite being a part-time
shoe shop employee, or believing in shadowy government
persecution and conspiracies, could be classed as being
delusional.

A devout evolutionist talking to 'mother earth', that's
fine. However, saying the world is going to end in 30 minutes
because of a global warming or believing by not mining coal things will change' ha ha

just shows that no matter how hard the god deniers try they end up with a set of dogmas no matter how irrational or unscientific

runner you old mate in your stand against global warming ext give evidence you fall for almost any story
Saw the threads above ignored them
because having another view has been greeted with insults and low blows by the authors
But in your lifetime doubt about global warming will end
God, whatever one you follow, would not be pleased with us

The Universe and Earth chemistry operates as a unity; except the mind and behaviour of man which operates in opposition to a moral compass.

God is a living eternal spirit revealed in character, attitudes, actions and wisdom. He is not a father up in the sky. He is a father revealed in the Universe, especially to man in the Earth. Heaven is not up in the sky, it is a spiritual place where the eternal character of God is present in all and over all.

Monotheism is a useful concept that helps to direct many of us towards God, but is God one? two? few? many? none? No words can describe God anyway - words and numbers can only inspire us to love and try to experience God directly, beyond all words.

So the monotheistic religions count God as 1 and Buddhism as 0, some Zoroastrians count 2 and some Christians and Hindus count 3, yet those who understand their respective theologies a little deeper use 1 regardless.

Whatever number you attribute to God, is merely for your inspiration and helping to set you on the path, for God is not actually an object thus cannot be counted. If you must use a number, then choose that number which will personally lead you the most to seek goodness and avoid evil.

---

As for the claim that only Jesus can forgive sins, this is true in a sense, but we must understand that both Jesus and Buddha (as well as other saints and sages) recognised their true identity with God and as such they were also aware that there is no difference between them, despite that for most of the rest of humankind they seemed like two different sages.

Buddhism from a quick search of it has it's foundations explained in this site. https://www.pbs.org/edens/thailand/buddhism.htm

Then for more information, the site leads to a resources page that has this site.
http://www.buddhanet.net

From the first site, the foundation of Buddhism is explained as a path to escape suffering. The beginning of that path is knowing something this site calls "the four truths." The first truth is that there is suffering. Both physical and mental. The second truth is that there is a cause to suffering, which it identifies as seeking happiness and pleasure which is a never ending hunger; and also from ignorance and not seeing the world as it really is, which leads to greed, envy, hatred, and anger. The third truth is that there is a path to end suffering (for you personally, not for the world) and they call this end of the path Nirvana. But the path itself is composed of something called the eightfold path, which holds three underlying themes. Good moral conduct, meditations and mental development, and finally wisdom and insight.

The last part of Buddhism goes in the direction of finding Naravana lasting more then one lifetime leading into the idea of reincarnation, as well as karma which is basically baggage from both good deeds and bad deeds.

(continued)

(Continued)

If this is a true representation of Buddhism's foundation then there is one problem with it. In the second truth regarding the cause of suffering, one part of it is suffering exists due to ignorance and not seeing the world as it really is (which holds merit, that's not the issue). The issue is that throughout all of this nowhere is there mention of God. The one problem monotheism is that there are different religions that say they are the truth to God and the others aren't. But the issue with Buddhism is that it doesn't even acknowledge that God exists (at lest until, it gets to karma and reincarnation and possibly coming back as one of many gods). Without that part there is a blindness that holds many people in not knowing, not recognizing, or just not accepting that God is real and part of the world we live in.

Outside of that problem, the tenets of Buddhism seem to go in a simular direction as the tenets of Christianity. Except instead of trying to be good as a path to Nirvana, the tenets of Christianity is to be good as a part of following God. The premiss of the two falls on the concepts of either dying once and then facing God's judgment and blessings, or dying and living multiple lives until reaching nirvana. If God exists, and there is only one lifetime to make it right, then the path to heaven and nirvana are impossible to reach because no one is that good. But if Christianity is right in it's premiss then God gave us a way. He sent Jesus so that we are rescued. Therefore being good not just about getting to heaven, because that burden is helped with. Instead being good is for two reasons, to love and follow God, as well as to love and support our fellow men and women.

(Continued)

(Continued)

On the other hand if the premiss of multiple lives exist, then that is a hard reality to exist. Then we live in this world by our own making and come back to it over and over again throughout all the different hardships and great abuses that happen continually in it. With this in mind, multiple lives is something we can't prove or disprove. But if a person searches for God and Finds Him then the answer of reincarnation or an eternal afterlife is better answered. Seek God therefore, because the same path to be good can be made by following Jesus's teachings as it is presented by following Buddhism, but it is also better because God's presence is real and worth searching for.

At the epicentre of Buddhism is ones own mind. Is finding ways to control the mind in a positive way a bad thing? Buddhism gives a pathway of learning which enables a person, any person not necessarily a Buddhist, practical ways to take control of the mind so that negative destructive thoughts and attitudes, which bring on equally destructive emotions, are replaced them with positives thoughts and emotions. Who does not want such destructive emotions as hate and anger, replaced with love and kindness.

I do not believe Buddhism is in competition with the Monotheistic Religions for the control of minds, but offers a better alternative for personal development of ones thoughts and emotions. I do not consider Buddhism a religion as such, I see it as a philosophy, which puts it in a different category to Christianity and Islam. Others differ on that point, but I say for those who want, they can have a foot in both camps, but its not absolutely necessary to do so. An atheists can be a Buddhist, but can't be a religious with a non belief in a supreme deity(s).

Buddhism is introverted and centres around self, their societies are happy to remain in their current status.

Christianity is extroverted and should centre around the Creator and his creation. This should lead to human responsibility to the welfare of persons in community and to the care of creatures and development of the planet. The use and development of industry in a modern society began with the reformation and understanding of Christ's teaching. Freedom and release from past personal failures and intellectual suppression.

Islam in its pure form does not understand freedom from guilt and intellectual suppression, so it is primitive and violent in its practise.

Why compare 'monotheistic' religions with a 'santheistic' (no god at all) religion. The biggest, and most ignorant,loudmouths of the anti-Christians are the ones who have the least idea what they are talking about.

//The use and development of industry in a modern society began with the reformation and understanding of Christ's teaching.//

Josephus no it did not, it began in the latter part of the 17th century with the dawning of the 'Age of Enlightenment', which among other thing challenged orthodox Christian doctrine of the time. Doctrine which was very much retarding social and economic development in Europe. The Protestant Reformation did break the vice like political and religious grip held by the Catholic Church over most of Europe. Martin Luther (1483-1546) the catalyst for the Reformation was long dead before any real economic or great social change took hold in Europe. The Industrial revolution in the mid 18th century 200 years after Martin Luther was the beginning of today's modernism. Exploration and the establishment of colonies, and later a republic in North America, also gave impetus to political and social change. Leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were instrumental in the new age of the American Enlightenment. Which still holds true today

The other person of interest in relation to the Reformation is John Calvin (1509-1564) the "Ayatollah" of his day. Calvinism was an attempt to return to a form of Christian fundamentalism, based solely on biblical doctrine. Certainly no room for freedom of thought from those people.

The early work of English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and later the work of a contemporary of Bacon's, John Locke (1632-1704) did more than any to bring about a change in conciseness. Not something brought on by fundamentalist christian clerics thumping the pulpit.

When it comes to the secular improvement of Europeans over the last 300 or 400 years there's not an ecclesiastical cleric in sight.

"Is There A Better Way"

Better for who?

But the issue is already resolved....the correct answer is Mormon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbr8IA1R5DE

Dear Paul,

I can't help wondering how many of the posters here
actually go to Church on a Sunday? Or when was the
last time that they were in Church, or donated to
their local parish? How many financially support
their Church? How many volunteer and help other
people in their community? How many actually
practice what their religion teaches them?

Personally, I find that volunteering at a nursing
home part time - has taught me so much. Each person
is different and requires empathy and sensitivity.
What do I get out of it? Just the thought that I
gave a lonely person a few hours of my time to see
their eyes light up. The need will be there as
long as we have people in aged care.

I say to everyone - give it a go. I've been asked
why I visit some people who can't speak - or are
very confused. Their smiles and eyes when they see me
speak volumes.

Actions speak louder than words. Quoting from Holy Books
is commendable - but visiting nursing homes - gets
better results.

but visiting nursing homes - gets
better results.
Foxy,
Agee, but giving a 2-5% cut of every salary would negate the need for Nursing homes as it would easily fund for one parent in every household to remain at home & care for grand parents & children. Of course exceptions require Govt run care.

Individual,

I'm not talking about working parents - most of whom
have no choice but to work as these days one salary
is not enough to raise a family on so cuts in salaries
would not work. Nursing homes are usually a last resort
for most people. However, those who are retired or don't
work and have less obligations could perhaps give up
some of their free time to visit Nursing Homes as time
allows. One day, the need may just be your own.

Dear Paul,

«An atheists can be a Buddhist, but can't be a religious with a non belief in a supreme deity(s).»

An atheist can be religious even without any belief in deities - it is how you live which counts, rather than the specific formulas that you hold in your mind.

---

Dear Runner,

«Jesus is the Only One who can forgive sins. Not Buddha. not Mohammed or any of the millions of HIndu gods.»

We could indeed argue whether or not Mohammed belongs in this list, but as I noted in my previous post, Jesus and Buddha are no different since they both recognised their true self as God.

You correctly spelled 'gods' with a small 'g'. While Hinduism uses many gods for representing God (though "millions" seems an exaggeration), it acknowledges the Truth and oneness of God (with a capital 'G').

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Your attempt to compare Buddhism with Christianity is commendable.

«The issue is that throughout all of this nowhere is there mention of God.»

Because introducing the concept of God within the particular culture and period in which Buddha worked, was deemed to be unhelpful and likely to send his students on an unwholesome tangent. Teachers ought to be mindful of their audience. This does not imply that Buddha himself did not know God.

«But the issue with Buddhism is that it doesn't even acknowledge that God exists (at lest until, it gets to karma and reincarnation and possibly coming back as one of many gods)»

Note that Buddha did not deny God either.

As for "many gods", this has little to do with God. Perhaps 'angels' would make a better translation.

«Without that part there is a blindness that holds many people in not knowing, not recognizing, or just not accepting that God is real and part of the world we live in.»

This can and sadly does happen with or without being intellectually informed about God. The purpose of religion is to actually know God and unite with Him, rather than to merely obtain information, correct as it may be. In some circumstances information helps, but in other it does not.

«the tenets of Christianity is to be good as a part of following God.»

Same with every other religion. If you follow good then your life will be comfortable and you will have the physical, emotional and mental space to pursue God, otherwise your life will be beset with troubles and you will have no time and energy for God.

«if the premiss of multiple lives exist, then that is a hard reality to exist.»

Hard indeed, but we do not get to choose the reality.

«At the epicentre of Buddhism is ones own mind.»

At the epicentre of Buddhism and every other religion, is God.
Our mind is an obstacle, so Buddhism focuses on its removal. Once the mind no longer obstructs, God will easily be revealed, regardless how you name Him (if at all).

Yuyutsu, I have had an interest in Buddhism for over 20 years. A friend with the odd name of Buddha first took me along as a guest in Sydney and I have had an interest, off and on, ever since. I have visited a centre here in Brisbane to "catch up" recently. I have found this particular centre of Tibetan Buddhism most rewarding. We attended one of their "get to know us" afternoons and have called in at other times, they have a very good library of books and other reading material. I am presently reading Lama Yeshe's work 'Ego, Attachment and Liberation' which covers a five day meditation course which opening ones mind to self help.

Religion is supposed to be about people being decent yet, with several billion people belonging to religions, the whole of humanity is in perpetual turmoil !
Either it is religion that screws their mind or they're not really taking much notice of their religion's teachings.
Either way, something's not working to plan.

'Religion is supposed to be about people being decent yet, with several billion people belonging to religions, the whole of humanity is in perpetual turmoil !'

can't argue against that but certainly the small amount of atheist have certainly left their putried mark on this planet. From Stalin to Mao to the murder if millions of unborn babies. Probably head by head the atheist has done much more harm. It certainly has not turned out many 'decent' people. Look at the current day godless feminist Marxist. What a nasty violent mob.

You don't have to be religious to be a good person.

The answer (once again) is 'Secular Ethics'.

Let me explain it for everyone:
You don't have to be religious to be a good person.

Lets say the bible says 'Do unto others...'.
Ask yourself 'What is the non-religious equivalent of that statement?'
- 'Treat others how you'd like to be treated' right?

Congratulations, you've just learned ethics without need for religion.

And with 'Ethics' You now have a baseline with which you can judge the quality and content OF A RELIGION.
- Religion holds NO AUTHORITY over Ethics 'in its own right' -

Lets put this into a context, and we'll see how 'decent' all you people really are, ok?

Lets go over to the Anti Vaxx Activists thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8658&page=0

Most of the people supported the vaccinations without any reservation.
But runner and I both voiced caution and legitimate concerns.

Do Unto Others / Treat Others The Way You'd Like To Be Treated.

How many of you people here would like to have uncontrollable fits and piss yourselves constantly?
To live as a retard in a semi-vegetative state?
Anyone dare to put their hand up and volunteer?
Is there NOT ANYONE?

- But you all supported the vaccinations without any reservation, DID YOU NOT? -
Why won't any of you Pro-Vaxxers volunteer?

Think of this family and pretend it's yours.
After already having their child's life ruined (as well as their own) and the guilt they have to live with, they can't even speak out without being vilified because of everyone else's blind support (and ignorance).

If you people were actually 'decent', you'd understand 'Treat others the way you'd like to be treated' and you'd put yourself in that familys shoes and voice caution and concern in regards to the vaccines - but most of you don't.

To Paul and Armchair Critic.

There's more to religion then just being good. Take any religion and you can see a philosophy and a way of life. A culture of being so to speak, along with a purpose usually put in there as well.

Regarding Buddhism as a better path then monotheism, I stand by my statements Paul. Talking about Buddhism as a better path almost equates it as a replacement path to the religions that believe in God (monotheism). It is to that point that I disagree. If a person wants to try to integrate some of the meditative principles of Buddhism into their lives without giving up their own religion or other philosophies then that's a little different. That sounds like a person taking up a yoga exercise routine without having to adopt Hinduism that the exercises came out from. If a person practices a Buddhist meditation without giving up their religion or their atheism, then they aren't really turning to a different path.

On the other hand there are the perspectives of whether such people are corrupting the path they are taking by either taking elements of a different religion (for those in a religion), or taking elements of any religion (for those who are atheist), those arguments are out there too. I've heard of people wanting to be pure in their own religion and not take on yoga exercises or Buddhist traditions; as well as heard of atheists who want to strip out of their lives any element or tradition that came from a religion just to make a point of not being part of it. That can be it's own argument and who knows, there might be something true to that stance. I don't know, and I'm not going to argue for or against that kind of philosophy.

My point is that Buddhism compared to Christianity might be similar in some aspects, but Christianity still looks to God. That makes it a better path.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding secular ethics. I agree that I've seen many people with good morals without being part of a religion. I've also seen people with a better stance on generosity and kindness then those who study ethics (regardless of it being religious or secular based). The point of being a good person usually comes down to applying what you believe instead of just stating it's part of your beliefs. Then to apply it generously instead of just to people you think deserve it. If a person can do this in their personal life, their working life, and their social life, without having to change rules depending on the situations, then that marks a strong sense of their ethics and following through with it.

Religion though is more then just ethics and rules. It is teachings, traditions, and a community to help strengthen people in their path of that religion (including the moral and ethical parts). That aspect helps in weaker parts of a person's life. So that they can find strength or hope in the harder times, or to stay true to their morals and ethics when they are tempted to do something against their ethical standards. For me I can't say that a secular ethical model is a better path, because I've seen in my life when I needed more then a sense of right and wrong. And in some of those times God was there answering or just responding to my prayers. He was the hope to look to and to strive for, as well as the teacher and guide to being a better person then I was before. Just as today, He is the teacher and guide to being a petter person then I am today.

To Armchair Critic.

Regarding vaccinations, I gave my thoughts in the thread that discussion is in. I was hesitant to place it because I've seen how the debate sometimes goes on a witch hunt, so it's not like my stance would make a difference. In fact watch, it might go down hill because another voice that isn't completely pro vaccination is also from someone who voices and defends their religious stance.

Hope not, but I've just seen this happen in other discussions.

To Yuyutsu. You said earlier:

<<Because introducing the concept of God within the particular culture and period in which Buddha worked, was deemed to be unhelpful and likely to send his students on an unwholesome tangent. Teachers ought to be mindful of their audience.>>

<<At the epicentre of Buddhism and every other religion, is God.
Our mind is an obstacle, so Buddhism focuses on its removal. Once the mind no longer obstructs, God will easily be revealed, regardless how you name Him (if at all).>>

I disagree with both points. Seeking God is good for everyone. There is no audience that isn't benefited by finding and knowing God. And finding God isn't a result of clearing the mind. Nor is finding God a means of escaping pain or suffering. Some who are put in horrible conditions are those who are persecuted for their beliefs in God, regardless if they hold a mindfulness attitude. Look into the history of martyrs to see my point more clearly. Or if you want, I can point to prophets in the old testament that were on a point of suffering that was not sidestepped because they knew God and preached His words.

IF we had no God, would we still hate one another? would we still have racism
No be honest, some hate the very people Christ told us are his chosen people, because some of them killed him
Why so many Gods
Could mankind live without a God, some could not, increasing numbers in the west are
A day will come, as it must, that a new God is invented, by the brilliant minds that invented every one that ever existed
Mans mind, he/she will be the one God, for all of humanity, and bring new rules to live by, in time as is the case now, we will forget we invented him/her and worship as one humanity

Paul America was founded by Christians seeking a new world. Benjamin Franklin was a man of faith http://www.increasinglearning.com/franklin-conversion.html Exploration and the establishment of colonies, and later a republic in North America, also gave impetus to political and social change.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher.

Thomas Paine Belief in Self. Though Paine was a self-proclaimed monotheist (believing in one God), he disdained virtually all organized religion, proclaiming that his only church was his own mind. They were instrumental in the new age of the American Enlightenment. Which still holds true today
The early work of English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Religious beliefs.

Bacon was a devout Anglican. He believed that philosophy and the natural world must be studied inductively, but argued that we can only study arguments for the existence of God. Later the work of a contemporary of Bacon's, John Locke (1632-1704) Religious beliefs. Some scholars have seen Locke's political convictions as being based from his religious beliefs.

Locke's religious trajectory began in Calvinist trinitarianism, but by the time of the Reflections (1695) Locke was advocating not just Socinian views on tolerance but also Socinian Christology. These men did more than any to bring about a change in conciseness.

Thanks Paul for identifying their influence from Christianity and their monotheistic faith as the basis of the Modern age.

Josephus,

"Paul America was founded by Christians seeking a new world."

I'm not sure you should go reading that stuff blindly.
Spiritualism | Attack on Christianity
http://youtu.be/aGNmUL4FnIM

You should watch the whole series.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23MythsVSFacts

AC, one man's modern historical opinion. Better read their real life story. All were brought up in Christianity and were looking for better understanding of the World. Monotheism was the foundation of their background.

Rosicrucian teachings are a combination of occultism and other religious beliefs and practices, including Hermeticism, Jewish mysticism, and Christian Gnosticism.

We recognise America as the home of many diverse and confused monotheistic religions. However they were not the total of modern development England, Germany etc, and today Israel who were influenced by monotheism. Aggressive atheism as nationalism has lead to the suppression of ideas and people.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Seeking God is good for everyone. There is no audience that isn't benefited by finding and knowing God.»

I wholeheartedly agree, but different audiences respond differently to information (also, the information itself is not information if told in a language and/or in terms that the listener does not understand). Wouldn't it be nice if all you needed to tell people is "There is God, seek Him!", but we know that it is not that easy, including not just atheists, but believers-in-principle too who say for example, "Yes, if", "Yes, but", "Yes, tomorrow".

Seeking God is difficult for the mind, it challenges its inertia and selfish desires, in fact it spells its death, it requires a complete personality overhaul, so the mind tries every trick to put it off. This trickster might even wrongly convince you that you are already seeking God, thus have no need to repent and change your ways.

To reach God, you need to be in control of your mind and hold its reins strongly and steadily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratha_Kalpana#Analogy

Now strange are the ways of the mind, so what you can say to someone in order for them to begin seeking God, is a science which can only be perfected through the Holy Spirit. A teacher, such as Jesus or Buddha, who is endowed with the Holy Spirit may possibly discern that their student would not respond to "There is God, seek Him!", but if told instead (just for example) "There is a cat on the roof", then they would be startled and immediately go running for God...

«And finding God isn't a result of clearing the mind.»

To find God, you need to have your mind out of the way.
Otherwise, even if grace falls on you, your mind will spoil it as it is expert in turning everything, even the sacred, into profane.

«Nor is finding God a means of escaping pain or suffering.»

Finding God would not end physical pain, but physical pain would no longer be experienced as suffering (though it might still look as suffering for others).

To Yuyutsu.

In reply to my statement that knowing God will not end our pain or suffering, you said this:

<<Finding God would not end physical pain, but physical pain would no longer be experienced as suffering (though it might still look as suffering for others).>>

I'm sure you say these things believing them yourself, instead of trying to fool anyone. And it is with that in mind I wish to correct you, so that if on smaller things you find the truth, the errors you used to believe won't be a foundation for even more errors believed based on the previous ones.

Therefore consider your words that those who know God do not experience suffering and consider these words in light of two prophets in the Old Testament. Look up Daniel 10, and 1 Kings 19. In Daniel 10 Daniel has a vision that he is in the Presence of an Angel of God and Daniel is terrified and weak from what he sees until the angel strengthens Daniel.

Also in 1 Kings 19 Elijah is fearful for his life and in his desperation tells God he has had enough. To take his life because he is no better then his ancestors. Elijah goes on and says the cause of his desperation. He thinks that he's the only one left that is standing up for God and against idolatry. God replies, and tells Elijah that he is not alone. Even give an exact number of Israelites that haven't bowed to the false god that was being worshiped widely by Israelites in that day.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Yet these two individuals, who knew God, show that they have moments of despair. Knowing God won't free us from the bad parts of life. Nor will faith in God keep us from sorrow, pain, and despair. He will help us through those moments and to save us from other moments like those. However this small truth about seeking God regardless of pain or sorrow, should be enough for you to understand. There are wrong philosophies in your beliefs. Therefore it is worth while to understand when they are in error, so that you don't say that these are the realities of the world we live in.

ABC online news this Sunday morning Catholic Priests sexually assaulted more Nuns in this country than offenses against children
SMH same day Pope [at long last] defrocks a Cardinal for historic sex offenses against other priests and children
The idea of God is a truly great one
But can we ignore it seems clear some in his/her service are purely evil

To Yuyutsu.

Regarding your thoughts that different audience respond differently to the information given, I can agree with that sentiment. But that should not be an excuse to not talk about God, as if that is actually helping someone.

I'll say it again. Any audience can benifit from hearing what is from God. If they believe and apply their new knowledge it is even more benifitual. But if no one says anything to teach you them then they won't have the chance to be better because of it. Just because someone fears how others will react is no reason to not try to bring smeone to God. In the instance of Budda. I don't think all Buddhists believe in God even though they follow Budda's teachings. This shows a lack in the teachings, it's not something that is explained by knowing your audience.

Josephus,

You might argue that it was through their Christian beliefs that these great minds were about to give positive expression to the good ideals of a secular world. I will agree Christianity can, and does, have a positive influence on thinking. There is also negatives to monotheistic religions, and they have a lot to answer for. I can't but help thinking if Christianity was to die today and face "God". He may not send it to "hell" but it might spend some time in "purgatory" repaying past sins, before entering into "heaven".

BTW, those men you speak of, also lived at a time when as far as they were concerned with Christianity, it was also wise to know what side your bread was buttered. And they were certainly wise men.

Hey Josephus,

AC, "one man's modern historical opinion."

Art Thompson is a historian that spent 40 years looking into it, he doesn't post obscure links to other peoples articles, he researches and then writes books.
You shouldn't simply discount things by others more knowledgeable than you that don't fit in with your worldview.

That just makes you either 'willfully ignorant' or 'a person with his head up his ass'

Maybe you should write your own version of history instead?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Subtracting a finite quantity from infinity does not leave a dent in the infinite. In fact, as we know from mathematics also, even subtracting infinity from infinity may leave us with infinity. Hindus are reminded of and inspired by this fact through the prayer: http://swamij.com/upanishad-isha-purna.htm

So the joy and bliss of being one with God, minus some physical pains, leaves nothing but the joy and bliss of being one with God.

In his final days, the near-modern sage, Ramakrishna, had throat cancer and could not eat. He was not bothered by it, but his disciples urged him time and again to pray for healing so he could eat and live, knowing that this was well within his power (just as it was well within Jesus' power to pray and have twelve legions of angels save him from the cross). So eventually he did pray and then God rebuked him saying: "What? You are eating enough through all these mouths. Isn't that so?" http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/gospel/introduction/last_days.htm
Once you realise that all mouths of all people are yours anyway, what's the big deal about not being able to eat through one particular mouth? what's the big deal if one particular throat is in pain?

Surely faith can do miracles and surely Elijah and Daniel were exemplars of faith. But faith is only the means to reach God, not yet the end, for once God is attained, faith is replaced with direct knowledge. I did not have the fortune to know Elijah and Daniel in person, I am convinced that they were quite close to God, but how close exactly I cannot tell. My personal only-guess from reading the bible is that they attained the penultimate state of savikalpa-samadhi, http://www.yogapedia.com/definition/8524/savikalpa-samadhi
That Elijah was [at the time] still not totally united with God, can be indicated from the fact that his spiritual power was not infinite but could still double [2 Kings 2:9-10].

Note also that Elijah's "suffering" and desperation was not for himself personally, but for genuine selfless concern for the well-being of society and others.

Armchair Critic, History is always interpreted from the point of views of those who observe. It might be different from the reality of those who live it. You might write a history of how you understand me from your opinion, but it would be vastly different to how I see myself.

History is written from a political point of view.

To Yuyutsu.

If you read the chapters I referenced then that should clear up everything you wrote about. Infinity minus infinity has nothing to do with what I'm talking about nor the reality of the world, but is based on your philosophy of everyone is god.

As for direct knowledge from God, what's more direct then talking to Him and being in the presence of Him. Again read the chapters I referenced. It shows their personal mental anguish. Not just a concern for others (which happens too, but not in those chapters). Yet, still there is one more example of a person who knows God and went through a difficult trial and was pained in that moment. Jesus before he was crusified prayed about the crusification that was coming. The prayer showed Jesus under that burden and the anguish he held for it. Then while on the cross, one of the things Jesus said was, "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?" There are many theological commentary on that statement but regardless it shows a great amount of pain and suffering that He went through.

This isn't a challenging thing to be corrected on. People go through suffering in their lives. Some more then others. Knowing God isn't an excape from going through hard times.

Regarding Buddhism as a means to get out of suffering through the right mindset and through meditation, those are good things. There's nothing wrong with that aspect. But it's still not a better path then one that has God in it.

Not that you've argued what is a better path then another path Yuyutsu, but the truth is what you have argued is neither for seeking which is better, nor confirming based on the reality of the world, or the real situtions in the world.

Dear Paul1405,

You wrote;

“With more than half the worlds population professing adherence to one or the other of the big two monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam”

Really only the latter really deserves the label monotheistic. The modern fundamentalist Christian certainly places the figure of Jesus over the father, something runner does without thinking,and in doing so can not be deemed monotheistic unless through severe contortion of both logic and commonsense..

The prophet of Islam left strict instructions in an attempt to prevent the same occurring within that faith and to a degree he succeeded.

SteeleRedux some Christians might believe there is three persons in a Godhead, but the Christian scriptures do not allow this idea. It is a Roman Catholic idea that spatial persons comprise a Godhead. However God is one spirit revealed in many ways, character, behaviours, attitudes, creativity and wisdom in the scene of the living. Christ Jesus Spirit, revealed God by his character, behaviour, actions creativity and wisdom. Similarly a person truly born again by the Spirit of God. There is only one Holy Spirit, most human spirits are estranged from God because of their selfish nature and need forgiveness and radical change.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Regarding adjusting to one's audience:

«Any audience can benifit from hearing what is from God. If they believe and apply their new knowledge it is even more benifitual.»

Are you saying that it is beneficial for someone to hear what is from God even if they do not understand? even if they disbelieve it? even if they fail to apply that knowledge? even if they react in defiance?

Please allow me to provide two extreme examples of bad and good ways to teach:

The bad example (I couldn't find the source as it was in a movie I saw many decades ago): The Spanish army was conquering South America and along the troops rode the archbishop. They encountered an Indian chief who knew not a word in Spanish, so the archbishop handed him a bible, the good news. The chief previously never saw a book in his life, so he held it, weighed it in his hand, knocked on it, turned it, rubbed his hand against it to feel its texture, then having found nothing familiar, he placed it next to his ear trying to listen to it, smelled it and finally tried to eat it. As it proved to be unpalatable, he spit and threw it to the ground. At that the archbishop ordered the troops: "kill this despicable heretic".

The good example: http://breslov.org/rebbe-nachmans-story-the-turkey-prince

«But if no one says anything to teach you them then they won't have the chance to be better because of it.»

Yes, but they can still become better by other means.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«Just because someone fears how others will react is no reason to not try to bring smeone to God.»

Buddha did not fear anything happening to him, but rather that untimely information about God might instead lead his audience away from God.

The Jewish disciples of Jesus were already familiar with the concept of God - many of Buddha's disciples were not.

«I don't think all Buddhists believe in God even though they follow Budda's teachings.»

In fact, so many Buddhists do not follow Buddha's teachings (see the Buddhist persecution of Rohingya in Burma), nor do certain Christians believe in God. They may tick the right box "God exists", "The Lord is my saviour", etc., but their cruel behaviour towards His children indicates that they couldn't possibly take God seriously.

The purpose of religion is to actually bring you to God, rather than to make you know the right answers. Reality is much more important than theory.

«Infinity minus infinity has nothing to do with what I'm talking about»

Infinity minus something finite, actually: being united with God minus physical pain, including from cancer in the case of Ramakrishna or from nails piercing hands and feet in the case of Jesus.

«what's more direct then talking to Him and being in the presence of Him.»

Recognising oneself to BE Him.

«Not that you've argued what is a better path then another path Yuyutsu»

I have not claimed, nor think, that either Christianity or Buddhism is better than the other. My view is that Christianity is a better path for some people while Buddhism is a better path for others.

«"My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?"»

Can God forsake Himself?

This quote actually comes from Psalms 22:1

Rather than lengthy explanations based on scripture that you do not accept, I refer you to a Christian source: http://www.alamoministries.com/content/english/Gospel_literature/Jesus_Never_Said.html

To Yuyutsu.

The idea that Jesus Did not say "why have you forsaken me?" is something I'll keep in my mind until there's a chance to correct it or confirm it. Language is not my strong suit, so this might just rest in the back of my mind as a possibility without being resolved if it is true or not. Either way thank you for the reference, and for understanding that I am better with a Christian perspective instead of a Hinduism perspective, (more on that in a sec).

Even without the point of Jesus on the cross though, there is still the example of Jesus's anguish before coming to the cross. In Mathew 26:36-46 Jesus is praying about the crucification that's coming. In that time Jesus asked if "this cup" could be taken away from him. But as He prayed, Jesus also said only if it was God's will instead of just Jesus's will. Mark 14:32-42 covers the same event, but verses 33-34 covers an extra detail. Jesus takes three of his disciples with Him and was deeply distressed. In that time Jesus said, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” then he said. “Stay here and keep watch."

With this in mind I understand your point on Buddha an Jesus being the same in relation to being close to God. I disagree with that point though. What I am addressing is that even being the son of God Jesus had moments of distress. If you want to believe that being God will remove sorrow and pain from you, then that can be your belief. There are many who take no notice of their pain because they focus on a greater focus. For example some are like a parent looking after the children they love, makes any pain they are going through bare-able or not noticeable; or by focusing on God and being ready for anything because of their love and joy in God. They both relate to people not noticing a distressing moment in their lives due to their focus on other things.

(Continued)

(Continued)

However even with that, there is a limitation to this. Being mindful and focused is one thing, but if Jesus (who I think is the closest person to God) was able to be pained and distressed, then finding God will not be an escape of pain or suffering for any of us either. That should not be the focus or the reason. What can we hope for is that regardless of pain, sorrow, distress or other issues in life, that through our faith and our relationship with God, we will be a a better path then we would be without God in it.

Going back to teaching. Again I thank you for giving the Christian perspective instead of a Hindu scripture. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there are reasons why I accept Christian scripture, but only consider other writings, even if they are considered scripture to another religion. One of the biggest reasons for this is in recognizing that not all religions come from God. In fact this is a major struggle in the Old Testament, the issue of rejecting Idols and foreign gods. God had strong words to give Israel through His prophets calling them adulterous in their idolatry. There were religions that had prostitute shrines, and religions that sacrificed their children. Both of these must be recognized by you as not coming from God, therefore the issue of what is from God and what isn't is a worth while consideration. Not all religions are from God, and not all paths lead to God.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The story you referenced of the prince who thought he was a turkey is an interesting take on teaching others. And to that I agree that there are better ways and worse ways to teach someone. But that isn't regarding to what you teach them only on how to teach them, and try to reach them. Any teacher with a struggling student can try to take on the student's struggles and reach them in a way that they understand the subject matter. But they still try to teach the student the subject matter.

A math teacher still will try to make math relatable and understandable to a struggling student they try to help. The same is true of a history teacher, or a science teacher, or even a teacher who tries to train someone in a trade or in the ability to play a musical instrument. The subject matter being difficult is not a reason to avoid the subject if that subject is still worth teaching. This is where you and I disagree. I see Buddha as a man who taught on a subject that wasn't related to God. It wasn't out of consideration for his audience not being able to understand the context, any more then a math teacher doesn't teach history to his class is because the teacher doesn't think they'll get it. They don't teach a subject because that's not the subject they are focused on.