Posted on 07/14/2023 7:34:20 AM PDT by SJackson
There is a book written by Richard Wurmbrand-Marx & Satan, in which he points out, that although Marx had Christian beliefs growing up, he turned against God later in life and worshipped satan.
Wurmbrand was imprisoned in Europe for 14 years due to his outspoken views on communism.
Wouldn’t surprise me. Marxism seems to have a foundation in envy, and for that matter, every other negative character trait. It turns every single one of the Ten Commandments on its head.
You sound miffed.
Why?
What’s your favorite Kool-Aid flavor?
Strawberry is nice.
All of Islam is not like the fundamentalist Wahhabi and Deobandist sects.
“American Jews tend to favor Democratic candidates, with 71% of Jewish voters choosing Democratic candidates on average and 26% choosing Republicans since 1968.”
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections
The term Judeo-Christian is complex and controverted. Americans only use that term so as to appear inclusive. But what about the severe liberalness of American Jews? Those are not good Christian American values.
Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Values? No.
Do Americans live out a Judeo-Christian code of values today? No.
We wouldn’t have overcome Nazism, Communism, and segregation without the “Judeo-Christian Tradition” and “Western Civilization.” Calling them “dog whistles” for fascism is an insult to our parents and grandparents. Yes, we’re going to have to live with people who aren’t Christian or Jewish, but it’s still true that those faiths are the basis of our civilization.
Good article. Bookmarked for future reference.
“ All of Islam is not like the fundamentalist Wahhabi and Deobandist sects.”
Sure, but that’s a bit of a non-sequitur to the point I was making that you really have bought in to the anti-West narrative of how Islam saved all knowledge etc…
How does voting trends of the last half century in the US make the following statement “full of crap?”
“The individualism so typical of the West is not a feature of Hinduism or Buddhism. In those beliefs, individualism is an illusion and the goal is to overcome that illusion and to lose the self as a droplet loses its individuality when it enters the ocean”
I was not referring to that specific response of mine, but since you ask, Buddhism and Hinduism don’t teach that a person becomes some spiritual borg collective after death. With Hinduism you have many branches of thought, but I know that at least in Buddhism “You” still exist as an individual, however what changes is your desires are extinguished, leaving you in an eternal state of bliss, though anything more than that is unknown, to the Buddhists Nirvana is a transcendental state which is a mystery until you reach it, just as in Christianity we have things like the Trinity which is a mystery
Read your post 8.
And I answered it in 32
So what do you think of writings such as this?
https://www.keiwa-c.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/kiyo23-4.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to consider how Buddhism diagnoses the sickness of American individualism. The key element for the therapy is the concept of “self.” The Buddhist perspective of self is fundamentally different from the Western perspective. It can speak to American concerns about their suffering. I start by describing the Buddhist view on self, so that I can lay solid foundations for the diagnosis.
Shakyamuni presents a view called the doctrine of the anatman (Sanskrit; Japanese: 無我 muga), which is translated as “no-self” or “no-soul.” According to Nhat Hanh (1995, p.133), this doctrine holds that a so-called “person” is really just five elements that come together for a limited period of time: body, sensations, perceptions, predispositions, and consciousness. These five elements are, in fact, impermanent and changing all the time. Not a single element remains the same for two consecutive moments. Each element is working together interdependently, and no individual element is identified with a self or a soul. This doctrine denies a permanent self and an immortal soul. It has no logic that privileges so-called soul over body, both of which are impermanent.
The Buddhist notion of sunyata (空 kū), usually translated as “emptiness” or “void,” helps to eradicate our attachment to the false view of the self. This notion was originally developed by Nagarjuna (竜樹 ryūju), a Buddhist monk of southern India who lived in the second century A.D.. He is known as the central person who shaped the doctrines of Mahayana school of Buddhism…
First off you had to search far and wide to just find that.
Secondly do you realize there are 3 major branches of Buddhism with many sub branches?
Also you need to understand buddhist terms. The buddhists do not believe in an “unchanging spirit or soul” yet your existence is still eternal, they basically believe that you slowly change over time. It is actually a confusing definition because it implies at first to our modern ears that we eventually no longer exist, yet we know that buddhism teaches our existence has been reincarnated many times.
Basically it’s a misunderstanding of “permanent self”, it would be like how you and me are now very different from our 3 year old self, yet that person is still us, but we have drastically changed
“ First off you had to search far and wide to just find that.”
False.
無我 or anatta, no self, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anatta is a Buddhist concept.
You are right that there are all sorts of variations of.Buddhism, much mixed together with Taoism, Chinese folk religion, Confucianism, then Japanese and Tibetan variations etc…
And then the 20th century popular Buddhism of the US that presents it as philosophy, very much filtered through western lenses. What Christmas Humphries, Alan Watts or Philip Kapleau is quite different from how East Asians practice on the ground in real life.
I cited a Japanese author and Japanese publication quite congruent with what this author said.
Your definition of the self as a series of reincarnations over a series of lifetimes, as a flower, or human or anything, is quite different than Judeo-Christian concept, don’t you agree?
“Just a Jew, or I presume an observant Jew. The “types” of Jews we refer to today is a relatively recent distinction historically, a couple centuries.”
When I was a kid, there was pinned on my bulletin board of memorabilia a plain little placard that explained: “Jesus was raised in a kosher home.”
Because of anti-Jewish posting like you ."Rattlesnake_Snook/setter."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.