Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: No forgiveness in Budhism rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm sure Uz guys heard this yarn....


http://divine.blogs.starnewsonline.com/11359/buddhist-bashin...


Thoughts?


Spoiler (click to reveal)
Apparently you can screw around with as many women you want as along as you're Christian and repent for your infidelities. Bad Karma and comming back as a rectal flea isn't cutting it.


Dang it spelled Buddhism wrong.angry
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think this is normal human bias. I think a defining human quality is the tendency to think that everyone else is just like oneself, and the ability to see otherwise is both rare and incredibly powerful.

I don't see this as Buddhist bashing, per se, so much as a Christian knowing that his faith got him through some really bad spots and seeing particular aspects of that faith (including forgiveness and redemption) as central to how he got through it. Rather than realizing that other people may get through things in their own way, Hume assumes that what wouldn't work for him won't work for Woods.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The scary part is his lack of knowledge about Buddhism and the arrogance of his statement(s). (yes he repeated it AGAIN)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hiter was a Christian I don't see a lot of conversation on that topic either. With out starting a long flame war.... The two topics aren't related at all. Your only valid point would be be that none of Tiger's "story" is worthy of any comment.

If only Dahlmer was a Wiccan he would have never abused animals and grew up to be a serial killer.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Best comment I heard on this tempest in a teapot is: why is everyone being invited to comment on Tiger Woods' sex life, but no one is allowed to comment on his spiritual life?


I think calling it a tempest in a teapot is the best comment I've heard on it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree they are both private. Other than that his faith has nothing to do with his inability to keep his dick is his pants. He could have made a comment about wearing breifs instead of boxers to keep his sprem cell count down and it would have been equaly valid.

As far as religion being off limits that is true. Why would it ever need to be part of any conversation outside of religion. It provides no useful context to the discussion at hand. If the offense was done in the name of Buddhism then he might have had a reason to "go there", otherwise he was preaching.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Holzman
United States
Seffner
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
As grey traces of dawn tinge the eastern sky, the three travellers, men of Willowdale, emerge from the forest's shadow. Fording the river, they turn south, journeying into the dark and forbidding lands of The Necromancer...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The clip is presented without any context so I do not know if Hume was asked to express an opinion or not (I would presume that he WAS asked what his opinion was).

I don't understand the controversy. Hume prefaced his remarks with "I think", clearly indicating that he is expressing an opinion based upon his own beliefs. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and beliefs. Anybody who thinks that journalists never insert their own opinion or beliefs into their reporting is deluding themselves. They are NOT confined to the OpEd page. At least Hume was open about it and did not try to couch it in clever phrasing or tilted videography.

I will confess my own ignorance about more than the basic tenets of Buddhism so I cannot comment on the veracity of Hume's assumptions about the beliefs of Mr. Woods. How do Buddhists (according to their own beliefs) receive "salvation"?

rcbevco wrote:
Hiter was a Christian I don't see a lot of conversation on that topic either.

Godwin's Law already?

There is a big difference between proclaiming oneself a Christian and actually being one. Hitler could have called himself a Martian and that would not have made it so.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
The two topics aren't related at all.


Except in the sense that both are (presumably) part of one's private life. But one is considered acceptable fodder for discussion, while the other must not be spoken of.


In a journalistic sense, Tiger's various affairs are externally quantifiable. His spiritual beliefs are not. Comment on the former is thus opinion on that which can be verified; comment on the latter is speculation, which journalists should, generally speaking, avoid doing.

Of course, there's all sorts of reasons why Hume was a jackass for saying what he said beyond that. His comment was closeminded (assuming that Buddhism cannot provide spiritual guidance to avoid wrongdoing), stupid (Christianity is going to keep Tiger from cheating? Yeah, because prominent Christians are never involved in sex scandals) and unprofessional (considering it's not his job to proselytize on-air).

But, whatever, it's Brit Hume. Expecting anything worthwhile out of him is kind of a waste of time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearcat89 wrote:
There is a big difference between proclaiming oneself a Christian and actually being one.


Ignoring the judicious use of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy for a second, there are numerous branches of Christianity where proclamation of faith is all that's required to qualify.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Jesus would probably disagree.


And the moment Jesus shows up and says "you, you and Larry are the real Christians," that will be meaningful.

Meanwhile, evangelical Protestantism explicitly disavows the concept of salvation through works, instead arguing for salvation through faith alone. Which, as many a Protestant has discovered, is a great deal, because nobody can definitively prove you don't believe.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Are you so sure of this generalization?


Heck, I'll go further and say Protestantism in general - beyond Restorationists, which aren't really the same thing - is as a rule characterized by the concept of salvation through faith alone, and that good works are meaningless except for being potential manifestations of faith.

You can say "well I know plenty of Christians who believe that faith can only be demonstrated through good works." And that's great (and one I can deeply respect). But that's not the rule advanced by the aforesaid churches; that's a little something extra that you and/or your friends/local congregation/whatever believe, and not endemic of the larger evangelical movement as a whole (to say nothing of Protestantism). If evangelical Christianity wanted to establish the concept of salvation through good works - or even salvation through faith in conjunction with good works - it's not hard for them to do so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearcat89 wrote:


rcbevco wrote:
Hiter was a Christian I don't see a lot of conversation on that topic either.

Godwin's Law already?

There is a big difference between proclaiming oneself a Christian and actually being one. Hitler could have called himself a Martian and that would not have made it so.



I only picked Hitler because it was easy and extreme...OK... Napoleon.

Still doesn't change the asshattedness of Hume one iota. People can overcome personal failings without God, I did. To presume that he needs the Christian God to get forgiveness is SFB moment, none of his business and an opinion that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
His comments were as relevant as if Rue Paul were to say that he needs to become gay so he will stop sleeping with women.

To those who want to defend Hume: If Hume had said "If he'd just give up being Christian and become a Satanist he would able to find inner peace and self forgiveness".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
I think you're stuck on either/or when it's really a both/and.


But that's just it: it really isn't. Creeds and declarations of methods of worship are written down for a reason: they codify what being a Christian (or similar other faith with a basis in liturgy) is.

Which is important, because this debate started as a result of the statement that there was a difference between professing Christianity and being Christian, and when it comes to Protestantism there just isn't; there's only your implicit value judgement that Christianity without works is essentially meaningless. That I happen to agree with that value judgement doesn't change the fact that a totally selfish prick who doesn't go out of his way to help even his sainted sickly mother, who also professes that he is a Christian, is by any reasonable standard also a Christian. (So long as he isn't Catholic, anyway.) Your value judgement - and mine - are just those, and meaningless for the purpose of defining what "Christian" is, as much so as the meaninglessness of the selfish prick's hypothetical value judgement that you're not a Christian because, I dunno, you play boardgames and boardgames are the tools of Satan.

So long as the selfish prick obeys the central tenet that defines him as a Christian to outside observers, he's a Christian. It's just that simple, and that's why Bearcat's statement was incorrect. If you want to think he's a bad Christian, that's your call, but ultimately it boils down to guessing at what one thinks God wants one to do, and nobody has a lock on that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:
To those who want to defend Hume: If Hume had said "If he'd just give up being Christian and become a Satanist he would able to find inner peace and self forgiveness".


Or, how about a less radical alternative: "Christianity's emphasis on salvation through faith encourages sin because of the potential of redemption. That's why Tiger should convert to Judaism."

Or "The problem with Christianity is that it emphasizes God's relationship with man, rather than man's obeyance to the laws of God. Tiger needs to become a Muslim, as Islam is a laws-based religion."

The only difference between these statements and Hume's original statement is this: if Hume had said either of those hypotheticals, he would have either been fired or forced to apologize on-air.
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Well then, what does the New Testament say is required for salvation?


Depends on how you read it. There's fodder in the New Testament and Old both for "salvation through faith" and "salvation through works." (As I'm sure you're aware.)

That's why proclaiming membership in a church is an important act: by endorsing that church with your membership and patronage, you're endorsing the tenets of their worship.

(By extension, I think my agnosticism similarly stands as a declaration of unwillingness to endorse any such tenets.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pronoblem baalberith
United States
Pleasantville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Is it just me or do my balls itch?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I say... who cares? Like I've said to people who bring this up in conversation... Even if I were a golfer or a fan of his I would not be interested. Unless he did something really kinky that has never been done before that I might like to try myself then it is simply some other person's sex life and that is not very interesting.

That's actually the first time I've ever heard Brit Hume speak. He obviously does not know what he is talking about (Buddhism) and he's selling that bull to millions of people that will probably believe it. Which I guess is nothing new for television. I don't really see it as bashing as many have said... I think he really cares about Tiger Wood's soul.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearcat89 wrote:
I don't understand the controversy. Hume prefaced his remarks with "I think", clearly indicating that he is expressing an opinion based upon his own beliefs. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and beliefs. Anybody who thinks that journalists never insert their own opinion or beliefs into their reporting is deluding themselves. They are NOT confined to the OpEd page. At least Hume was open about it and did not try to couch it in clever phrasing or tilted videography.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs. That doesn't mean that it's inappropriate to be disappointed in or to criticize the beliefs or the expression of beliefs by others.

To a lot of people it sounded like Hume was saying that his religion was better than Tiger Woods's religion. A lot of people consider that rude and arrogant, and also consider it a dubious sort of opinion for a professional journalist to use on his show. You may disagree with them, but "it's his opinion" doesn't make the comment immune from scrutiny, any more than it would have if he'd said that Tiger's problems stemmed from being black.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
It has nothing to do with Buddhism, it could have been any religion, or lack thereof. It's guilt by association. He wants everyone to know that the country's most famous cheater since Bill Clinton is a Buddhist.

Christianity - Buddhism 1-0. Period. It's his way of promoting Christianity. In my eyes, he is making Christianity a disfavor by associating himself with it, but that's just me.
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
Which is important, because this debate started as a result of the statement that there was a difference between professing Christianity and being Christian, and when it comes to Protestantism there just isn't; there's only your implicit value judgement that Christianity without works is essentially meaningless. That I happen to agree with that value judgement doesn't change the fact that a totally selfish prick who doesn't go out of his way to help even his sainted sickly mother, who also professes that he is a Christian, is by any reasonable standard also a Christian. (So long as he isn't Catholic, anyway.) Your value judgement - and mine - are just those, and meaningless for the purpose of defining what "Christian" is, as much so as the meaninglessness of the selfish prick's hypothetical value judgement that you're not a Christian because, I dunno, you play boardgames and boardgames are the tools of Satan.

So long as the selfish prick obeys the central tenet that defines him as a Christian to outside observers, he's a Christian.


I can't agree with this. It's one thing to point out that the qualification can't be externally validated and thus is of debatable meaningfulness, but it's quite another to state that the closest available proxy that is verifiable is, in fact, the qualification.

Protestant creed is not that one is saved by proclamation but that one is saved by grace through faith. This may mean that (assuming grace even exists) it's impossible to verify whether a given professing Christian is, in fact, a Christian but it most definitely does not mean that anyone who says they are a Christian automatically is.

To make a non-religious analogy, suppose that we define the term "Good Parent" to be one who values their children above all other people. (Never mind whether or not this is how you'd define it.) This is an internal judgement and so we can't always know whether a given person is a Good Parent. But if someone habitually neglects his kids or sells them for medical experiments then we can reasonably conclude that he is not.

For Christians, works and faith are intertwined. Most Christians believe that a person who is saved will manifest their salvation through works -- because that's what happens to you when you are filled with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

I'm the first to point out that this makes "Christian" a very fuzzy concept in terms of verification (and don't get me started on OSAS, that great reverse-determiner of whether someone was actually saved in the first place) but I think you're going too far in your criticism here.
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Holzman
United States
Seffner
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
As grey traces of dawn tinge the eastern sky, the three travellers, men of Willowdale, emerge from the forest's shadow. Fording the river, they turn south, journeying into the dark and forbidding lands of The Necromancer...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
Meanwhile, evangelical Protestantism explicitly disavows the concept of salvation through works, instead arguing for salvation through faith alone. Which, as many a Protestant has discovered, is a great deal, because nobody can definitively prove you don't believe.

Hmmm...James would disagree with this.

The Apostle James wrote:
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearcat89 wrote:
Hmmm...James would disagree with this.


As would Matthew, but Luke and John were more sympathetic to the idea of sola fide, and there's a lot of support for it in Romans and Galatians as well.

The New Testament simply isn't a definitive answer to this question one way or the other, which is part of why the Protestant Revolution was able to happen in the first place.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Yes, I am aware. That's why I brought it up. I always advocate going back to the original source documents.


Understandable, but given that the original source documents provide conflicting messages within the text - as so much of Christian dogma does - it's less than helpful in this case.

Quote:
Important in what sense? In the sense that all Christians should become church members, or important in the sense that it declares where you stand on particular doctrinal issues.


The latter. There's a big difference between, for example, becoming a member of your local Methodist church and becoming a member of Saddleback - or, for that matter, Westboro Baptist. Membership isn't necessary or necessarily desirable, but it most certainly is a statement of one's values.

Quote:
One doesn't have to be an agnostic to declare unwillingness to endorse particular doctrinal issues.


I wasn't trying to suggest that; I was merely providing a counterexample.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Riffing off of what Pronoblem said earlier...

Why do we care about this sort of crap?

Its because our culture view Celebrities as 'symbols'. And, apparently, we can't have a discussion about ideas unless we wrap it around some celebrity scandal.

Thus, Britney Spears becomes the motif to discuss 'Single Motherhood', Tiger Woods 'Fidelity', whatever. Talk about the concept in and of itself, people get bored. But tie in a celebrity- oooh! Now its somehow more 'real', it has a 'human' element.

There was an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, which argued that in the year 2020

Quote:
It’s the year 2020. The world has changed a bit, but not as much as you might expect. Bono is the secretary-general of the United Nations. President Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Terminator in chief (yes, we changed the Constitution for him). Barack Obama has just won an Oscar, an Emmy, a Grammy, and a Tony in the same year for his entertainment supersensation “Obama: the Musical Extravaganza,” which premièred in theaters nationwide and on MSNBC, Broadway, and iTunes simultaneously. Sarah Palin is a right-wing media mogul extraordinaire; her cable network, RogueTV, draws millions of adoring viewers nightly.

Mike Huckabee, recently reelected as governor of Arkansas, hosts a nightly political comedy variety hour from the governor’s mansion.

Jon Stewart is the speaker of the House, while Stephen Colbert is the secretary of Defense.

Superstar,” “policymaker,” and “pundit” are synonymous.

Sound far-fetched? It shouldn’t. Because as 2009 draws to a close, the once well-defined boundary between politics and the celebrity-media complex is already blurring beyond recognition.

Take a look around you. Celebrities want to be politicians. Politicians want to be celebrities. With every passing day, another movie star decides to become a self-appointed expert on a pressing policy issue; another politician turns into the newest media sensation.


"2020 preview: Oscar winner Barack Obama? Defense Secretary Stephen Colbert?" by Jared Hall, Christian Science Monitor, 12.31.09

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091231/cm_csm/271536;

We insist on fighting our political, religious, and ideological battles by 'proxy', really- and we want it as full of drama, glamour and excitement as possible. So we watch 'Celebrities' become 'Politicians', hoping that they will mix things up, while Politicians desperately try and latch onto the glamour of Celebrity life.

We want our day to day political reality to be as exciting as TV....

Or so it seems.

Darilian
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin
msg tools
badge
Avatar
Bearcat89 wrote:
I will confess my own ignorance about more than the basic tenets of Buddhism so I cannot comment on the veracity of Hume's assumptions about the beliefs of Mr. Woods. How do Buddhists (according to their own beliefs) receive "salvation"?


"Salvation" per se is not really a Buddhist concept. Most Buddhists (monastics and Westerners into the philosophical aspects) believe that you can become free of suffering/unease/dissatisfaction through a combination of ethical living, understanding the truth of reality, and training your mind.

The extent to which most laypeople in Buddhist countries believe this, I don't know. The extent to which Tiger Woods believes this, I don't know, but I'd say that if he does believe this, he doesn't take it seriously -- not misusing your sexuality is one of the basic precepts of the ethical path.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zé Mário
Portugal
Porto
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The comments on that page are remarkably creepy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.