LOL! Because that's what was around and it was light enough not to make my stomach hurt after not eating all day. :)

AlphaFrog, would you like to respond? I think we've answered your points, any refutation or additional information we need to look at?

I've decided it's worthless, because anything I say, sources or not, will be taken out of context or twisted into something I didn't say. Plus, faith is a subjective matter. You can argue forever and not get anywhere, and I don't have time for that.

I'm not here to argue against, mock or disparage your beliefs. I know you won't believe that, but seriously I'd rather discuss this like an adult. I feel like you're copping out here, rather than addressing the actual evidence I've presented, but I can understand the 'message board mentality' and not wanting to fight uphill against that.

However, as someone who is not a practicing Christian (and instead has instituted a Buddhist-based ethos), I do feel like I should have a chance to 'defend' (as it were) the hundreds of millions who practice Buddhism and disagree completely with your characterization of it as something less than a religion - it would be somewhat odd that the fourth-largest religion in the world is, in fact, not a religion at all. Your inference that Buddhism and Christianity can work together, which stems from this belief, is not nearly as 'troublesome' (I'm not here to tell people what to believe), but at the same time there are fairly distinctive differences that I can't see reconciling. Help me if you'd like - or continue to abase others' faiths, then hide behind the aegis of "no one respects my viewpoint" or "I dont' have time." Personally, I KNOW how much my time is worth, and I'm willing to put in the time - and I'm willing to listen, if you can provide points above and beyond an opinion article or 'theology people' you've spoken with.

But by telling someone that their religion isn't a religion (when it's one of the top five largest religions on earth), as you did with Buddhism, can't you see why that would get people upset? Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean you should abandon the argument.

This is exactly the problem - I never said that Buddhism is less then a religion. I said it wasn't a religion, but I didn't say it was less then one. It's like me saying that the Chess Club isn't a fraternity. That doesn't imply that the Chess Club isn't any more or less important then a fraternity, it just isn't one. According to the Western (including the US, where we live) definition of "religion" Buddhism does not fit, because it lacks a deity or creator. It's a seperate (not greater or less) thing. And before someone says it, I realize that Buddhism is an Eastern world thing, and that's why it doesn't fit the Western defintion, but that's exactly my point. I would like to know the exact translation for "religion" in Chinese, because I'm sure the word has different implications and definitions then it does in English.

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.

1.
- - a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
- - b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
----

I think Buddhism fits all of these (dictionary) definitions. Also, you should know, then, that "Creator" should be able to have "higher order or authority" substituted in for a successful defintion - and Buddhism fits that definition as well. Just because there is no single embodiment or 'named' creator, does not mean that the higher authority or power is not a part of the religion.

I realize COMPLETELY that you're relying on the so-called 'Western' definition from a Theology class standpoint - that is NOT the only definition, nor does 'Western' imply that 'all those in the west hold it' - it's merely the NOMENCLATURE, used to create two dichotomous definitions ('Eastern' v. 'Western') that are NOT the be-all/end-all of definition of religion. You know this, but choose the definition that best suits your argument, while ignoring the rest (the Fallacy of False Dilemma).

I invite you to use the 'inclusive' definition, instead, or even the 'Substantive' definition - I think by implying 'Western' is anything more than a phrase and not a comprehensive definition, you're mangling terminology.

I consider myself to be a Unitarian Universalist, although I don't belong to any particular congregation at the moment. Since that can encompass a broad range of beliefs (hence the appeal and the point - I want my religious system to encourage people to question and explore rather than dictating answers), I'll be more specific ... I am a scientific pantheist; God, for me, is the forces of nature, the universe itself. That's what I find awe-inspiring and that's where I find God.

:D :clap: :clap: (cause i can't find a emoticon that does the clapping).

As Valkyrie said, you can NOT be a Buddhist Christian or a Buddhist Muslim. From what i learned in my world religions class--Buddhism really doesn't have a "god." Although (again from my understanding) Pure Land Buddhists believe that grace and salvation come from the Amida Buddha. But other than that Christianity and Buddhism differ too much. The basis of Christianity is the belief in God...while in Buddhism there isn't a god. That right there would stop you from being a Buddhist Christian----HOWEVER---you can embrace Buddhism ideals like the yogas, (imo) the 8 fold path...etc.


But just an aside to mulattogyrl: I was just wondering....I learned in my W. Religions class that "back in the day" if a mother was Jewish then the children would be jewish....so how does that work? Do people still follow that? I know that you said you were raised Muslim, but do you also identify as Jewish as well? Just curious---trying to open my eyes and widen my horizons (lmfao that sounds kinda corny, but I am! lol)

Personally, I consider myself (at the moment) to be spiritual and not religious because I got rather turned-off to religion. While I was in high school, my family went to a small, Southern Baptist church. Before that, we'd never been to church regularly. (My family moved a lot when I was a kid, and my folks used that as an excuse to not attend a church regularly...as a result, I wasn't exposed to it much as a child.) At least at the particular church we went to, it sounded like they were trying to scare the congregation into believing. What really upset me, though, was their steady belief that everyone who didn't believe just like they did (other Christians included) was going to Hell. Perhaps it never occured to them the billions of people that this would condemn, but it occured to me and struck me as nonsense.

So basically, the general...I can't think of a good word for it, but something along the lines of 'ignorance'...turned me off to organized religion for a while. I've never doubted the existence of God, I'm just hazy on the details for the time being.

In Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, that's still the case. You are considered Jewish if either (a) your mother is Jewish or (b) you converted. In Reform Judaism, you are considered Jewish if either parent is Jewish and you were raised in the Jewish faith... or, of course, if you converted.

Ahhhhhh ok. Thanks for clearing it up :D I had a really bad world religions teacher and so all the religions we learned were totally screwed up.