Robin Artisson ([info]owl_clan) wrote in [info]buddhists,
@ 2008-05-17 13:20:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The Vatican Goes Cosmic! Again!


Yeah, so apparently we can't put limits on God's creative freedom. That being said, don't they limit God's creative freedom to create more than one sexual orientation? Sounds to me like they're not on board for homosexuality, or the possibility that God could see beyond genitalia enough to be okay with women in the priesthood, or with the now proven complete psychological and medical health of masturbation, (to just name three subjects) but they are on board for those "extraterrestrial brothers". Typical.

This is the same church that teaches us that infants are born sinful and deserving of hell and death- but apparently, aliens out in the cosmos somewhere might never have sinned and remained in "full friendship with God". Just us humans would have to be the red-headed step children of the universe. Nah, there's no human self-loathing here! My advice to you all: STAY BUDDHIST.


* * *

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican's chief astronomer says there is no conflict between believing in God and in the possibility of "extraterrestrial brothers" perhaps more evolved than humans.

"In my opinion this possibility (of life on other planets) exists," said Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, a 45-year-old Jesuit priest who is head of the Vatican Observatory and a scientific adviser to Pope Benedict.

"How can we exclude that life has developed elsewhere," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in an interview in its Tuesday-Wednesday edition, explaining that the large number of galaxies with their own planets made this possible.

Asked if he was referring to beings similar to humans or even more evolved than humans, he said: "Certainly, in a universe this big you can't exclude this hypothesis".

In the interview headlined "The extraterrestrial is my brother," he said he saw no conflict between belief in such beings and faith in God.

"Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures on earth, there can be other beings, even intelligent, created by God. This is not in contrast with our faith because we can't put limits on God's creative freedom," he said.

"Why can't we speak of a 'brother extraterrestrial'? It would still be part of creation," he said.

Funes, who runs the observatory which is based south of Rome and in Arizona, held out the possibility that the human race might actually be the "lost sheep" of the universe.

"There could be (other beings) who remained in full friendship with their creator," he said.


THE "BIG BANG"?

Christians have sometimes been at odds with scientists over whether the Bible should be read literally and issues such as creationism versus evolution have been hotly debated for decades.

The Inquisition condemned astronomer Galileo in the 17th century for insisting that the earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic Church did not rehabilitate him until 1992.

Funes said dialogue between faith and science could be improved if scientists learned more about the Bible and the Church kept more up to date with scientific progress.

Funes, an Argentine, said he believed as an astronomer that the most likely explanation for the start of the universe was "the big bang", the theory that it sprang into existence from dense matter billions of years ago.

But he said this was not in conflict with faith in God as a creator. "God is the creator. There is a sense to creation. We are not children of an accident ...," he said.

"As an astronomer, I continue to believe that God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the product of something casual but children of a good father who has a project of love in mind for us," he said.




(Post a new comment)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-17 06:45 pm UTC (link)
Christianity makes many people happy. Alot of Christians are better Buddhist than we are. It's extremely important for a number of reasons that we don't criticize other religions. Not to mention it is irrational, because we perceive that religion as an inherently existing phenomenon.
Additionally, I don't think that particular priest said anything crazy or out of line.

"when an individual is convinced that Buddhist teachings are better adapted to his or her disposition, that they are more effective, it is quite right that this religion be chosen. However, human nature being what it is, after their conversion and in order to justify it, such a person may have a tendency to want to criticize his or her original religion. This must be avoided at all costs. Even if the previous religion does not seem as effective as he or she would have liked (and this is the reason for the change), this is not sufficient reason to claim that the old religion is ineffective for the human spirit. That religion continues to bring immense good to millions of people. For this reason, as Buddhists, we must respect the rights of others, for other religions help millions of people. In particular, we are in the process of trying to create and maintain a perfect harmony among all religions. In these circumstances it is absolutely essential to be aware of the need to respect other religions." - HH the Dalai Lama
(http://www.purifymind.com/DalaiLama.html)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-17 06:50 pm UTC (link)

Kiss my ass. Christianity sucks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-17 07:15 pm UTC (link)
Well, post it under an atheists group next time maybe. Posting it here is extremely un-Buddhist, it makes us look bad, and it drives people away from dharma.
And your second error would be to perceive me as some "goody-goody," because I used to be Christian, and atheist, and I listen to stuff like Marilyn Manson. And since you obviously have no interest in hearing a reasoned approach to why insulting other religions is bad then I'll spare myself the explanation. Take care.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-17 07:33 pm UTC (link)

First off, I listen to Marilyn Manson.

The Rest:

Christians aren't "better Buddhists" than some Buddhists. If they are Christian, they aren't Buddhist at all. What you mean to say was "They act like better people than Buddhists sometimes". But your elitist little flaming shit came out- you think that a "buddhist" equates with a "good person". But you're wrong.

I'm not Buddhist, and I don't care what you think.

I don't need to post it in an atheist group. I posted it here. Deal with it.

It isn't Un-Buddhist; it's my opinion. You don't determine what is or isn't Buddhist.

It doesn't make anyone look bad; that's your narrow and paranoid opinion.

It doesn't drive people away from Dharma; that's your bullcockery coming out again.

Kiss my ass. Christianity sucks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-17 07:46 pm UTC (link)
lol. It means that Christians practice Buddhist values more than some Buddhists do, which means compassion, understanding, humility, and so forth. Very simple.

This view doesn't represent Buddhism. When you post it here people mistake this post for a Buddhist post. Christians watch this community too. You aren't even a Buddhist, nevermind any type of authority on the subject, so why would you choose to misrepresent us? That is my only complaint. It's very simple, no need to take it personally or to attack me.

As for the personal insults, they are all baseless and frankly stupid. My intention is very clear, that I don't want you to smear Buddhism with your own personal grievances/opinions. It has nothing to do with "elitist flaming shit" or "bullcockery." And to say that I'm "holding onto Christianity" is ridiculous, I said that I was a Christian and then an atheist to illustrate how I went through a HUGE anti-Christian phase, and so that I wasn't much different from you. The assumptions you are making about me are way out there, and clearly relate to some false perception that I'm an "enemy" here and therefore that I need to be insulted.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-17 08:28 pm UTC (link)

I was never a christian or an atheist. You're making a lot of assumptions about me, too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-17 10:04 pm UTC (link)
Fair enough.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Deleted post)

[info]tinagsd2
2008-05-18 02:52 am UTC (link)
Oh, and I forgot...

Hee....hee, hee, hee....

Who'll laugh last?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-18 04:11 am UTC (link)

Me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]anomniverse
2008-05-18 11:49 am UTC (link)
How exactly does it drive people away from the Dharma? If someone is looking here who feels offended by this, I think they ought to investigate the nature of their taking offense to this. (what the fuck is up with my english)

Just my two cents. Ok- Charles, out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-18 05:25 pm UTC (link)
Because when a Buddhist says "Christianity sucks," then it makes Christians less open to the teachings in Buddhism.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-18 05:34 pm UTC (link)

It's funny that you think Christians are "open" to teachings in Buddhism to begin with. Christians who believe the fundamental Christian teaching that it (christianity) is ontologically superior to all other faiths, and necessary for others to convert to, already only study other religions so that they can find ways to approach others to influence them towards changing. Christians that are truly "open" to another religion already think, on some level, that their Christianity sucks or has lacks, so saying that to them probably won't change that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]gear_eagle
2008-05-17 07:22 pm UTC (link)
It's extremely important for a number of reasons that we don't criticize other religions.

If a system of thought causes harm, it should be criticized. I think you may be holding the concept of religion as a sacred cow.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-17 07:33 pm UTC (link)

He absolutely is.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-17 07:33 pm UTC (link)

And he's not just holding sacred cows. He's holding on to his old Christianity.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-17 07:51 pm UTC (link)
"If a system of thought causes harm, it should be criticized. "

I agree. Therefore we can criticize homophobia, or similar systems of thought which harm others.

Christianity does not inherently harm others. Christianity means one follows Christ, and Christ didn't say anything about homosexuality. Many Christians stand up for things like gay rights. Therefore to bash an entire religion is based on false perception. Not only that, but it does nothing, it doesn't accomplish what one intends to accomplish with it. So not only is it a wrong view, but the means of acting on the view are fruitless. That is why it is stupid, and it makes us look stupid as Buddhists.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-17 08:02 pm UTC (link)
And just to add: not only is it fruitless to bash other religions, but the result is actually negative. It makes the situation worse. It's negative 1) for the outside world because it pisses people off (which makes them not listen to us, which closes them off from any change we could convince them of), and it's negative 2) for us because it reinforces our false perception and our negative emotions such as anger, which we specifically try to get rid of.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]gear_eagle
2008-05-18 12:38 am UTC (link)
Christianity does not inherently harm others.

The problem with criticizing religion is that there's always a faction of believers who strip away all the negative and embrace only the handful of verses which promote a humanistic ideal. I don't have a problem with the Do-it-yourself approaches to spirituality. However, when I express my disagreement with Christianity I'm doing it within the context of its history and the theology as a whole, not the liberal outliers who embrace only a few aspects of the religion.

The belief system of Christianity does harm others. Even if you hold up the sacrifice of Christ as the greatest example of compassion, you're advocating a bloodlusting demiurge who lays blame on his own creation and who can only be appeased through violence and death. If you believe in Christ as salvation, you're advocating assimilation and faith as superior to kindness and good works. Every belief has implications beyond itself. The Abrahamic religions are especially sneaky with packaging self-hated and hatred of existence under the brand name of Love and Compassion.

I will clarify that I am not a Buddhist™, so my opinions are not officially endorsed. I don't really care for Owl_Clan's outright insults, either, but I know he's a rabble rouser that can deliver substance when he wants to ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-18 07:11 am UTC (link)
Well, I'm not going to defend Christianity, but I'll defend the practice of not criticizing other religions. If you're not a Buddhist then maybe this doesn't apply to you as much, but I find the results of refraining from such criticism are extremely positive either way. I can open up to Christian friends, who are very intelligent, and we can gain mutually. It's simple respect; respecting why things are a certain way, respecting other people's views (even if you disagree), and this respect results in mental growth by opening one's mind. Obviously I'm a Buddhist and converted from Christianity for legit reasons, so yes, I could whip out a ton of criticisms of Christianity in my mind, but it's pointless and stupid. I think my original comments were more aimed at fellow Buddhist practitioners, with which I was trying to share some very valuable advice which some of my teachers taught me and which helped me greatly. Anyway, thank you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-18 07:39 am UTC (link)

I think that in the end, you have to consider the long-term impact of belief. It's fine and dandy to talk about the "value" in other belief systems, but you aren't being very Buddhist if you aren't willing to see that theistic religions are based on fundamental delusions about the way the world works and the way that human beings exist. No matter how "nice" they seem, or what "good" things they claim to accomplish, or how "smart" the inhabitants of these religions are, the long-term affect is more attachment, more rebirth, and more suffering. In the Dharmic view, that is not acceptable. Giving aid and comfort to these people by creating a false vision of tolerance that justifies their attachments in the name of "tolerance" or "peace" is simply putting off your duty as a person who knows the truth about the way the universe works to help others to be free of delusions and attachments.

The question becomes simpler: do you lack the belief in your own philosophy? Lack the bravery? Lack the motivation? What's your lack? Can't face the karmic legacy of your past, which is still neatly embodied by your former religious confederates, who reflect your guilt at conversion back at you, and remind you of your discomfort at wondering if your old "God" is really real and really pissed at you? Questioning is good.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-19 05:06 pm UTC (link)
Yes, questioning is good. Reason and critical analysis are essential. But having a fault-finding mind is not synonymous with critical thinking, they are separate. Some of the criticisms of Christianity on here I think are just a direct result of fault-finding, and not seeing the big picture. It's not that I choose to only see the positive qualities of Christianity and block out the bad, but that I try to see a bigger picture of it; to say that it "sucks" is inherently illogical. A belief system cannot intrinsically suck because it is empty of existence. Therefore it "sucks" based on whether the results are negative or positive. And then even to say that "the results are negative," when I believe they definitely aren't, is illogical and irrelevant, because Christianity exists for very specific reasons, because certain people need Christianity -- which is why most of the world is Christian.

You think that all people can become Buddhists, witches, druids, atheists, or whatever? Of course not. Some of these require so much analysis, practice, contemplation, or uncontrollable previous conditions that most people are predisposed to not doing these. It's the same with Christianity, most Christians show up at church once in a while and don't practice at all. This specific problem isn't with Christianity, it's that people just don't care to practice anything which will improve their minds. They are born as "Christian," accept it, don't question it, and do nothing but follow it. It's not Jesus's fault. The problem is that people are negligent and are drawn towards habitual desires, fears, and so forth, THAT is samsara, and sometimes no matter what they believe in or what you subject them to it is the same. If the METHOD of Christianity doesn't accomplish its goal, if it doesn't generate compassion skillfully, then either it works or it doesn't, what does "sucks" have to do with any of it? It's like having a lawn mower, either it cuts the grass well or it doesn't.


We can either accept or reject Christianity at a perceptual level; a level which is separate from reality or from whether we agree with its principles or not. Similarly, the sun is bright and emits UV rays which give people cancer, but it's a part of life (which has positive qualities) which I choose to accept. We can look at the sunlight and say "fuck it's hot," or say "this is really nice," it doesn't matter, it's all perception. The fact that we do not accept things such as Christianity in the same manner as the sun means that it is a problem with perception, because we feel it threatens us in some way because of the way we conceptualize it. AFTER accepting it at a cognitive level, if there are problems with specific issues such as sexism, gay rights, intolerance, or whatever I will act against those. Christianity has the qualities of any phenomena of being impermanent (it has clearly changed throughout history), unsatisfactory, and non-self, and so therefore it is inherently illogical to direct all one's attacks against "Christianity" instead of being more specific.

For me to criticize a religion that created high beings such as Martin Luther King Jr. (the civil rights movement was driven almost entire by Christians) or Mother Theresa, is despicable, especially since I am no where near their level.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-19 07:11 pm UTC (link)


Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa had enormous faults- he was a womanizer and she was totally unconcerned with the suffering of the poor and more concerned with converting them to Catholicism.

Even if these people were saintly- which they weren't- it doesn't mean that the religion they belonged to is worthwhile, or worth saving, nor does it mean that the religion is sacrosanct or beyond criticism.

Your attachment to your former religion has made you type out this massive diatribe here, which amounts to you defending it, again, and claiming that others who dare criticize it are "fault finding" and "not seeing the big picture". But Buddha saw the big picture, and he said that monotheists that thought that there was some big "God" in charge of all things were wrong- full stop. He said that no such thing existed.

Now, I'm concerned with Truth. I don't know about you, but no religious tradition is so old or venerable that it can be allowed to teach non-truths and evade my scorn or my criticism, and I don't care if pumps out people who get whitewashed by the media and by bleeding-hearts into so-called "saints".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-19 07:31 pm UTC (link)
Mather Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement. Are you trying to say that the fact that he hit on a few women changed the benefits we get from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution today, or that the nonviolent methods he used didn't matter? Absolutely ridiculous man. Use common sense.

And for your information I hated Christianity for 23 years. I wrote about against it, I insulted it -- everything. To say that I'm attached to it is completely ridiculous. You're attached to the concept that it sucks, extremely clearly. The fact of the matter is I've generated the insight through Buddhism to appreciate Christianity in a certain light. The only way you can make sense of my appreciating Christianity is to simplify my view in such a way that I'm either an idiot or that I'm wrong. And the way you use Buddhist principles to support your arguments shows a great lack of understanding. Obviously Buddha didn't create a monotheistic religion for a reason. My whole "diatribe" that I wrote was to use DIRECT, irrefutable Buddhist logic to prove it irrational to hate Christianity. Obviously that didn't count, because you "know it all."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-19 07:52 pm UTC (link)


Mather Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement. Are you trying to say that the fact that he hit on a few women changed the benefits we get from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution today, or that the nonviolent methods he used didn't matter? Absolutely ridiculous man. Use common sense.


Your ridiculous and idiosyncratic ideas- your opinions- about what "common sense" is means nothing AT ALL to me. The man was a jackass. I don't care what he did- and beyond that, he was not alone the "civil rights movement"- many brave people fought and died and made changes to cause the Civil Rights movement and its benefits. A man who beats women is a failure of a man, and the fact that you could minimize this about a wife-beater shows your savage disrespect for women. It shows your lack of quality.


You're attached to the concept that it sucks, extremely clearly.


You can't be "attached" to the truth.


Obviously Buddha didn't create a monotheistic religion for a reason.


You're right- because there is no "one God" in charge of everything, and he knew it. That's why he didn't.

I don't hate Christianity. I know it for what it is.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nakedmen
2008-05-19 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Well, that's my cue to end the argument. It's obviously a waste of time debating with anyone who considers Martin Luther King Jr. a "jackass". Thanks, hope to talk about Buddhism in the future.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-19 10:32 pm UTC (link)

Oh noes! Someone has a different opinion from me, so we can't debate! Oh nooooeeessss!!!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]samtabsav
2008-05-18 03:32 am UTC (link)
This is entirely true, but to criticize a religion is very different from vilifying a religion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]calamityjamie
2008-05-17 08:07 pm UTC (link)
The Dalai Lama has been very strong on the fact that your specific religion has nothing to do with how good a person you are (and even if he hadn't, my life experience has taught me that). When I think of Catholicism, I don't think of dogma, I think of Mother Theresa. We could probably find a similar example in every faith and among athiests and agnostics.

Buddhism guides me, but it's not a religion in the western sense - and I'm glad, because, personally, that's not for me. But some of the kindest, most generous people I know are religous Catholics, Protestants and Jews. I don't have to agree with the authority figures in those religions to admire how individuals have interpreted their faith.

(Reply to this)


[info]dwaleberry
2008-05-17 09:38 pm UTC (link)
Totally unrelated: I've been working on a Powerpoint presentation as an introduction to Asatru for a colleague who knows nothing about it. So far, I've covered the basics on creation myth, cosmology (nine worlds), most of the gods, three slides about the Norns and Wyrd, blots,sumbels and seasonal rites as well as the Nine Noble Virtues. Anything else I could/should mention?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]owl_clan
2008-05-17 10:08 pm UTC (link)

I think this link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/paganism/subdivisions/heathenry_1.shtml

States everything of importance for outsiders who just want to know what it's about. If you cover the stuff at this link, you've probably covered it as well as it can be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dwaleberry
2008-05-17 10:44 pm UTC (link)
Awesome. Thanks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]entropicflux
2008-05-18 12:08 am UTC (link)
huh. i wonder if the catholic church would be cool with marriages between races, should we ever come in contact with other life forms out there in space? i wonder if they'll be okay with aliens joining the clergy? i wonder if the catholic church will institute a new crusade, or inquisition to scourge the universe of extraterrestrial faiths?

i think the strongest evidence of intelligent life in the universe is that it hasn't been stupid enough to contact us. hopefully we rot on this rock until the sun burns out.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…