Religion and Ethics?

[Feeding Crows]

I don't know how the bible belt people will feel about that.

But it will be fun to see. I do agree that the North was on the side of GOoD. Call that god if you want.

 

[Meriweather]

So the civil war was another religious war, then?

I never thought about that...

What did Church gain from the war? What did the State gain from the war? From the Northern view, it was about he preservation of the Union. From the Southern view, it was about the rights of individual States. The root cause was the issue of the enslavement of mankind--and both sides used the Bible to support their position. Even so, no war until some States left the Union...once again a war for power and territory--a government, not a religious issue.

When it comes to war, much of the time separating the religious/moral part from the State part is much like separating the foot from the ankle. It also appears that it takes the issues of power-territory-wealth to start soldiers marching.

 

[Meriweather]

Apparently, according to Lincoln, the north is on the side of god, and the south is.... i dunno... hell?

Personally, I think he may have had his doubts...so much bloodshed. However, his sworn duty was to protect the Union. So he did. Did you know we had a very weak President prior to Lincoln. Had the nation chosen a stronger man for that term, war might have been avoided. That nation has been in trouble more than once over selecting weak leaders. So both the North and South selected that hell.

 

[Meriweather]

But it will be fun to see. I do agree that the North was on the side of GOoD. Call that god if you want.

No. Do an in depth study on US slavery in the 1800s. In the South, one out of five people owned slaves--twenty percent of the South's population. Eighty percent did not. The big businesses of that day were the slave owners and pushed slavery. As usual, they were the rich, they were the ones with government influence. They were the ones who concluded the slaughter of millions was worth the wealth.

Wars are the game of the rich and powerful. The rest of us are the pawns. My own belief is that God sides with the pawns--those on both sides. He sees the individuals caught up in the events of their time, and those events generally come about via the greed of the rich and powerful.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So the civil war was another religious war, then?

I never thought about that...

Religion and Faith – the Forgotten Factor of the Civil War Winter 2019 In 1861, the world’s most devout country went to war. Soldiers and civilians alike “read the same Bible, prayed to the same God and invoked His aide against the other.” In the antebellum era, organized faith and religion were easily the most important social and cultural values at work in America. Membership in churches grew from 1 in 15 to 1 in 7 Americans. The Second Great Awakening had led to the most prolific period of church growth in world history after the 1st century. Even the non-religious Abraham Lincoln said to an aide, “take all of [the Bible] upon reason that you can, and the balance upon faith, and you will live and die a happier and better man.” Though not a “war of religion,” America’s Civil War truly was a religious war. Yet today, the role that religion and faith played for the average soldier is unknown to most Civil War aficionados. The life and battles of Civil War soldiers are re-enacted precisely, written about thoroughly, discussed passionately, argued endlessly – yet faith is generally ignored. But religion and faith indeed enflamed, instigated and even help caused our deadliest American conflict.

 

[Blues Man]

tell me where this was.
.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I think that would probably depend on which branch of buddhism you were following.

Yes, I agree with you here.
[/QUOTE]

In no branch does enlightenment come from the Buddha.

Enlightenment is attained individually by each person. All the Buddha ever taught was how he reached enlightenment and what worked for him.

 

[alexa]

tell me where this was.
.

Maybe I think that would probably depend on which branch of buddhism you were following.

Yes, I agree with you here.
[/QUOTE]

In no branch does enlightenment come from the Buddha. [/quote]

I did not say it did. You are now mixing up things I said as well as the formation of this forum

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe I think that would probably depend on which branch of buddhism you were following.

Yes, I agree with you here.

In no branch does enlightenment come from the Buddha. [/quote]

I did not say it did. You are now mixing up things I said.
[/QUOTE]
Well you chopped up the quote so badly it's hard to follow

Maybe don't try to separate the quotes into pieces until you figure out how to do it

 

[alexa]

In no branch does enlightenment come from the Buddha.

I did not say it did. You are now mixing up things I said.
[/QUOTE]
Well you chopped up the quote so badly it's hard to follow

Maybe don't try to separate the quotes into pieces until you figure out how to do it
[/QUOTE]
It was yourself who did that as you will find if you look at your own post. tsk tsk

 

[Blues Man]

I did not say it did. You are now mixing up things I said.

Like I said you chopped up the quote so badly i can't follow what you are referring to

 

[alexa]

Blues Man

I had a look at what you were replying to. I admit I should have highlighted the part I was replying to. here is

His teaching are for this world not the supernatural.

Now you could argue that he himself was not interested in this. I said, maybe and that it depended on what school you were looking at. Maybe because it depends on whether you are talking about what the buddha is reported as actually saying or how Buddhism is taught and practiced. I am assuming you studied, if you did, with the Theravada school. I think you will find Tantric a little different and possibly also Mahayana.

 

[alexa]

Like I said you chopped up the quote so badly i can't follow what you are referring to

No. You did that which made it impossible for me to reply as I would have liked and as you are complaining I did. You can see that in post 286. Now start being honest and stop being so childish.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man

I had a look at what you were replying to. I admit I should have highlighted the part I was replying to. here is

His teaching are for this world not the supernatural.

Now you could argue that he himself was not interested in this. I said, maybe and that it depended on what school you were looking at. Maybe because it depends on whether you are talking about what the buddha is reported as actually saying or how Buddhism is taught and practiced. I am assuming you studied, if you did, with the Theravada school. I think you will find Tantric a little different and possibly also Mahayana.

IMO the only Buddhism is pre-sectarian.

Once sects started splitting off the message of the Buddha was reinterpreted and changed

 

[Blues Man]

No. You did that which made it impossible for me to reply as I would have liked and as you are complaining I did. You can see that in post 286. Now start being honest and stop being so childish.

Go back to post 257 and that's where you chopped up my post

 

[alexa]

IMO the only Buddhism is pre-sectarian.

Once sects started splitting off the message of the Buddha was reinterpreted and changed

Well then what you are only talking about is 'what the buddha said' and as he said it over 2,500 years ago it does seem likely some will have been changed. You ought to have made it clear that the only thing you are interested in is 'what the buddha said'. Did you ever practise Buddhism? Did you ever belong to a Sanga?

 

[alexa]

Go back to post 257 and that's where you chopped up my post

Are you talking of 'chopping your post' when you answer one part at a time and then go onto the next part which tends to reduce confusion over what someone is referring to? That is pretty normal in forums. Where I may have made a mistake would be in adding extra quote signals. I have only recently returned to this forum and it works different to other forums I have been on. I apologise if it was me. I had no idea that would destroy the layout.

 

[Blues Man]

Well then what you are only talking about is 'what the buddha said' and as he said it over 2,500 years ago it does seem likely some will have been changed. You ought to have made it clear that the only thing you are interested in is 'what the buddha said'. Did you ever practise Buddhism? Did you ever belong to a Sanga?

I have practiced and I have done my own reading as well as studying with a couple different individuals. I do not subscribe to any one sect. And I'm not one for joining any large groups.

I have my own path which is not solely Buddhist. I take from many different philosophies and apply parts of them all.

Taoism, Stoicism, Buddhism are the largest contributors to my personal philosophy.

 

[Blues Man]

Are you talking of 'chopping your post' when you answer one part at a time and then go onto the next part which tends to reduce confusion over what someone is referring to? That is pretty normal in forums. Where I may have made a mistake would be in adding extra quote signals. I have only recently returned to this forum and it works different to other forums I have been on. I apologise if it was me. I had no idea that would destroy the layout.

Yeah there's a trick to it.

you have to close the quotes with the correct number of bracketed text and slash marks

 

[alexa]

I have practiced and I have done my own reading as well as studying with a couple different individuals. I do not subscribe to any one sect. And I'm not one for joining any large groups.

I have my own path which is not solely Buddhist. I take from many different philosophies and apply parts of them all.

Taoism, Stoicism, Buddhism are the largest contributors to my personal philosophy.

I did live in a Buddhist community for a couple of years and practised for a lot longer but all of that was a very long time ago and life got in the way. There is one thing that I believe the Buddha got one hundred percent correct and that is no self. If I compare this to something like Rogerian counselling it is possibly easier to see. Here the talk is of a false self which is ego. This is the self we have created due to our experiences in life, in the main the one we present to the world. As well as this they speak of our true Self which we find by getting in touch with our inner feeling self and sorting out all the stuff that interferes with this. It is also what Buddhism calls 'no self'. There is no question in my experience that who we are is this Self or no self and we destroy our own ability and harm the world because we confuse who we are with ego. One could argue easily as I believe the Buddha did or at least I think he did, that the whole point of life is to work through this. I think you might like that Stephen Batchelor's book I mentioned and others of his. In Buddhism without beliefs he talks about how what the Buddha said has been made into a religion and in that has been changed and moved out of context - a Buddhist believes this and so does that rather than it being an active discovery and goes through basic things like the 4 noble truths, eightfold path etc with meditations. He cuts out all the rest of schools etc. If you haven't already found him. I think you might like him. When life is becoming hard I always look for that book to get grounded.

 

[Feeding Crows]

Ok, so new rules from what i understand. No cursing! Wow.... I have no idea how you will get a post in, Meriweather...

I'm going to test the rule now... FREAK!!!! FRAK!!! SHING!!! GORRAM!!

OK, I'm still here... It's ok to curse... My leg is a little numb, but I'm still here.