download "my god's dick is bigger than your god's dick" by george carlin. it's simultaneously witty and crude.. very entertaining & conveys a good message, i think.
the best way to regard the god/higher power question is to render it null by realizing that whether there is a deity or not [logic says definitely not while the nonrational leaves doors open for "anything"], it doesnt matter. the buddha [who was only deified by the peasant chinese/korean/jap people who transformed the sage into what they desired.. a 'god' of sorts] said that whether there is a creator or not, it is irrelevant to the human experience.
----- When the Buddha start to wander around India shortly after his enlightenment, he encountered several men who recognized him to be a very extraordinary being.
They asked him, "Are you a god?"
"No," he replied.
"Are you a reincarnation of god?"
"No," he replied.
"Are you a wizard, then?"
"No."
"Well, are you a man?"
"No."
"So what are you?" they asked, very perplexed.
"I am awake." ---------
i used to be hardcore atheist, but i consider myself to be agnostic. could there be something? sure, why not.. i have no proof that there is and no proof that there isnt. do i care? not really.
but at the most basic level, god is just another word for "i dont know."
i recall that conversation from a article i read a few years ago; but the concept god is generally different in christianity & buddism. in christianity, god is divine and holy and powerful & only one. he is the one up there, somewhere, and because of him, heaven & hell exist. [very general knowledge; never been a christian] on the other hand, god in buddism is when a human being reaches enlightment. thus, anyone can become a god, or least has the potential. there were several buddhas, contrast to christians' one god.
god has just become something more general and casual. people say "o my god," you can't just ban that word because it contains the word "god." the word god just adds a sense of sacredness, which the people would like the constition to be. that idiot who sued the court needs a serious reality check.
Re: holy penisjunglismwomanJuly 2 2002, 14:37:45 UTC
oh i agree. reality check, indeed.
god is definitely one of those "loose" words in the english language, but yeah, you can consider a buddha a "god" if the 'creator/almighty/omnipotent/omniscient' glib is eliminated from the public's general definition.
itz just that oftentimes, people misuse a word so often that presumption supercedes any actual meaning of the term. such as, in the shintoist sect of buddhism, the followers "pray" to buddha like others would to a christian god. "buddha, give me children, give me food, etc." this is based on blind faith towards a figure that was unjustly deified. however, in mahayana/ theraveda buddhism, the "gods" or buddhas who have reached nirvana are just held in the highest regard and respected for their superior accomplishments.
Re: holy penisshatterwallJuly 7 2002, 18:10:11 UTC
it disturbs me to see that some of the most devout believers are also the most ignorant ones who believe that their only religious responsibilities are to pray & believe completely, without trying to find out more about what exactly they're committing themselves to.
what you said above -- i think a similar application goes for the bible. people neglect to remember that the bible is basically a collection of stories that were passed down orally before recorded. and even in the printed versions, there are discrepancies between translations and different editions. when you think about it -- the bible is NOT a reliable source and reference point. whenever people say "well, the bible says," on automatic - which seems to be a fuckin awful lot (and the more religious/orthodox one gets, the more you read the bible word-for-word), i just totally dismiss them, cus really, is that the best you can do? "the bible says" and "god says" -- that's the last word? do you not have a brain of your own?
the best way to regard the god/higher power question is to render it null by realizing that whether there is a deity or not [logic says definitely not while the nonrational leaves doors open for "anything"], it doesnt matter. the buddha [who was only deified by the peasant chinese/korean/jap people who transformed the sage into what they desired.. a 'god' of sorts] said that whether there is a creator or not, it is irrelevant to the human experience.
-----
When the Buddha start to wander around India shortly after his enlightenment, he encountered several men who recognized him to be a very extraordinary being.
They asked him, "Are you a god?"
"No," he replied.
"Are you a reincarnation of god?"
"No," he replied.
"Are you a wizard, then?"
"No."
"Well, are you a man?"
"No."
"So what are you?" they asked, very perplexed.
"I am awake."
---------
i used to be hardcore atheist, but i consider myself to be agnostic. could there be something? sure, why not.. i have no proof that there is and no proof that there isnt. do i care? not really.
but at the most basic level, god is just another word for "i dont know."
Reply
but the concept god is generally different in christianity & buddism.
in christianity, god is divine and holy and powerful & only one.
he is the one up there, somewhere, and because of him, heaven & hell exist. [very general knowledge; never been a christian]
on the other hand, god in buddism is when a human being reaches enlightment. thus, anyone can become a god, or least has the potential. there were several buddhas, contrast to christians' one god.
god has just become something more general and casual. people say "o my god," you can't just ban that word because it contains the word "god." the word god just adds a sense of sacredness, which the people would like the constition to be. that idiot who sued the court needs a serious reality check.
Reply
god is definitely one of those "loose" words in the english language, but yeah, you can consider a buddha a "god" if the 'creator/almighty/omnipotent/omniscient' glib is eliminated from the public's general definition.
itz just that oftentimes, people misuse a word so often that presumption supercedes any actual meaning of the term. such as, in the shintoist sect of buddhism, the followers "pray" to buddha like others would to a christian god. "buddha, give me children, give me food, etc." this is based on blind faith towards a figure that was unjustly deified. however, in mahayana/ theraveda buddhism, the "gods" or buddhas who have reached nirvana are just held in the highest regard and respected for their superior accomplishments.
it's really interesting to think about.
Reply
what you said above -- i think a similar application goes for the bible. people neglect to remember that the bible is basically a collection of stories that were passed down orally before recorded. and even in the printed versions, there are discrepancies between translations and different editions. when you think about it -- the bible is NOT a reliable source and reference point. whenever people say "well, the bible says," on automatic - which seems to be a fuckin awful lot (and the more religious/orthodox one gets, the more you read the bible word-for-word), i just totally dismiss them, cus really, is that the best you can do? "the bible says" and "god says" -- that's the last word? do you not have a brain of your own?
Reply
Leave a comment