The Dalai Lama; One of the most evil men on Earth?

[rlg94086]

I can’t answer that, because in our theology, the question can only be answered for Jews.

We believe there is one correct religion, but only for US. For Gentiles, we believe as long as they follow basic laws of morality, they go to Heaven.

So in our worldview and theology, there cannot BE one true religion that applies to everyone.

The question you asked me presupposes an acceptance of the Muslim and Christian view, which is that there is only one true religion for all people.

The problem with what you say Hashem, is that it is not logical. As a Jew you believe there is only one God who created all of us, do you not? If that is true, then certainly the Hindu belief in multiple gods would not be true.

If Jesus is the Messiah, then as a Jew you would have to follow Him, would you not? If he is not the Messiah, then Christianity would not be a true religion.

I can see where Tibetan Buddhism wouldn’t be a problem. Their idea of god seems vague, and they focus on being a good person which is completely in line with following Noahide (sp?) laws. But, I don’t think you could say that there are multiple “true religions” that contradict each other regarding the existence of God(s).

 

[AgnosTheist]

But, I don’t think you could say that there are multiple “true religions” that contradict each other regarding the existence of God(s).

Where did she say that there are multipe true religions?

 

[rlg94086]

Where did she say that there are multipe true religions?

HashemEchad:

We believe there is one correct religion, but only for US. For Gentiles, we believe as long as they follow basic laws of morality, they go to Heaven.

So in our worldview and theology, **there cannot BE one true religion that applies to everyone.
**
The question you asked me presupposes an acceptance of the Muslim and Christian view, which is that there is only one true religion for all.

I take the converse of her statements that if there cannot be one true religion for everyone, then there must be multiple true religions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I take the converse of her statements that if there cannot be one true religion for everyone, then there must be multiple true religions.

I dont think that was what she meant. Anyway lets wait for miss Hashem to clarify this.

 

[notself]

Religion is a path to the truth. Some religions offer a fairly straight path and others offer a path with lots of curves and hills. The goal of truth is there in all religion and spirituality.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

BACK ON TOPIC, PLEASE.

I found another quote today in Time.

“The most inspiring thing he ever told me was to ignore all organized faiths and keep to the road of higher consciousness. "Without relying on religion, we look to common sense, common experience and the findings of science for understanding,”

 

[AgnosTheist]

BACK ON TOPIC, PLEASE.

I found another quote today in Time.

"The most inspiring thing he ever told me was to ignore all organized faiths and keep to the road of higher consciousness. “Without relying on religion, we look to common sense, common experience and the findings of science for understanding,”

it is true that the less religion, the more progressive & more tolerant people have become.

 

[kesa82]

Budhism has always baffled me. I honestly cant figure it out. I have met several western world Buddhists.
I ask them , " Do you believe in a God or Gods?

They reply, "blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah, blah, etc. "

And at the end of his or her explaination I’m NOT SURE what the answer was.

The same process repeats itself with every question I ask.

Am I that stupid?

Does anyone else have the same problem???

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

it is true that the less religion, the more progressive & more tolerant people have become.

No. That’s not true, at least, the evidence points to it not being true. Religion made the greatest people of the 20th century what they were. Gandhi was a Hindu ascetic, Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist preacher, Mother Theresa was a Catholic nun, John Paul II was a Catholic priest, and, if there is any doubt, the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist monk. I truly believe that his yearning for peace and love stems from his Buddhism. What have the atheists given us? Stalin, Hitler and Mao. As I always like to say, Gandhi, a theist, left one incinerated corpse. Hitler, an atheist, left 11 million.

 

[AgnosTheist]

No. That’s not true, at least, the evidence points to it not being true. Religion made the greatest people of the 20th century what they were. Gandhi was a Hindu ascetic, Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist preacher, Mother Theresa was a Catholic nun, John Paul II was a Catholic priest, and, if there is any doubt, the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist monk. I truly believe that his yearning for peace and love stems from his Buddhism. What have the atheists given us? Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

Martin Luther King & Gandhi, are the only real scores you got. The only two purely religious people in your list who truly made a lasting difference. Just two, against hundreds of visionary scientists, philosophers, politicians & economists that came up since the beginning of the decline of religion…beginning with the rennaissance.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Martin Luther King & Gandhi, are the only real scores you got. The only two purely religious people in your list who truly made a lasting difference. Just two, against hundreds of scientists & philosophers that came up since the beginning of the decline of religion…beginning with the rennaissance.

So I suppose helping the poor or aiding the death of communism doesn’t count? Gandhi and MLK were, I would say, “purely” religious. As for the scientists and philosophers, not even Albert Einstein has anything on anyone I’ve listed.

 

[Aaron409]

The title of this thread is definately an eye catching one.

I think the Dalai Lama is rather a pop celebrity. He preaches general, nice things that the Hollywood pop cult crowd likes, without really making moral demands on people. He has some good ideas, but it’s all pretty sugar coated so as not to offend anyone.

So in escence he’s your basic liberal american.

 

[AgnosTheist]

So I suppose helping the poor or aiding the death of communism doesn’t count?

No. Because it doesnt really count as “progress”.

As for the scientists and philosophers, not even Albert Einstein has anything on anyone I’ve listed.

what do you mean?

 

[Aaron409]

No. That’s not true, at least, the evidence points to it not being true. Religion made the greatest people of the 20th century what they were. Gandhi was a Hindu ascetic, Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist preacher, Mother Theresa was a Catholic nun, John Paul II was a Catholic priest, and, if there is any doubt, the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist monk. I truly believe that his yearning for peace and love stems from his Buddhism. What have the atheists given us? Stalin, Hitler and Mao. As I always like to say, Gandhi, a theist, left one incinerated corpse. Hitler, an atheist, left 11 million.

Gandi is however leading many of followers down a path of destruction against the church. Pulling people in because it seems kinda cool. He’s an atheist plan and simple, I believe God reveals himself to everyone at one point or another in their lives and it is up to him or her to accept him or not.

 

[tomarin]

it is true that the less religion, the more progressive & more tolerant people have become.

science by itself isn’t intrinsically “progressive” if what you mean by that is liberating. science has given us scientific racism, eugenics, nuclear weapons, the possibility of experimenting on stem cells culled from unborn humans, and many other dark gifts.

the tragedy of our age is that our scientific expertise has far outpaced our moral abilities, which is why religious belief in an external moral authority is needed. you have it exactly backwards.

“science” cannot engage in moral reasoning by itself. it is a tool – only knowledge, not wisdom.

 

[tomarin]

No. Because it doesnt really count as “progress”.

may god save us from your progress. it probably will resemble a cambodian killing field.

 

[AgnosTheist]

science by itself isn’t intrinsically “progressive” if what you mean by that is liberating. science has given us scientific racism, eugenics, nuclear weapons, the possibility of experimenting on stem cells culled from unborn humans, and many other dark gifts.

i know. thats why i mentioned both progress and tolerance.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

No. Because it doesnt really count as “progress”.

Really? Alright, if it’s not progress, than it’s just doing massive amounts of good for humanity.

what do you mean?

I mean all the people I’ve listed have changed the face of humanity for the better. What did E=MC2 give us? Did it make us more moral? Did it benefit the daily life of human beings, did it inspire them? Did Albert Einstein free a nation? Did he gain rights for his people? Did he go out of his way to help the poor, or do anything that could be considered great outside the aloof sciences? Did any of the philosophers or scientists contribute as much to humanity as the great religions have? Not to my knowledge.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Really? Alright, if it’s not progress, than it’s just doing massive amounts of good for humanity.

i wonder how their (theresa, paul II, dalai lama) works classify as “massive”. sure they helped a lot of people. but its not massive. i doubt its even 1% of the global population.

I mean all the people I’ve listed have changed the face of humanity for the better.

those 3 people did not. like how did africans, arabs & filipinos benefitted from Teresa?

What did E=MC2 give us? Did it make us more moral? Did it benefit the daily life of human beings, did it inspire them? Did Albert Einstein free a nation?

The U.S. constitution did. Remember, science is just one facet of the progress I mentioned. Its the secular environment that came up with human rights, anti-slavery, racial equality, gender equality, etc. NOT RELIGION. Religion ruled for hundreds of years and had its chance. And what you got is the inquisition & jihad…

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

i wonder how their (theresa, paul II, dalai lama) works classify as “massive”. sure they helped a lot of people. but its not massive. i doubt its even 1% of the global population.

**Gandhi (helped) free 350 million people from British rule. Back in the day, that was one fifth of the world’s population.

John Paul II helped bring down Communism. I’m sure more than 1 % of the earth’s population lived under communist regimes.

Mother Teresa heavily benefitted the poor in India. Even if it wasn’t a large contribution, it had a massive impact on the world. She won the Nobel peace prize, after all.**

those 3 people did not. like how did africans, arabs & filipinos benefitted from Teresa?

I answered about what Teresa did, so I pose a question to you, how did E=MC2 help the Indian peasant?

The U.S. constitution did. Remember, science is just one facet of the progress I mentioned. Its the secular environment that came up with human rights, anti-slavery, racial equality, gender equality, etc. NOT RELIGION. Religion ruled for hundreds of years and had its chance. And what you got is the inquisition & jihad…

Oh please. Was there on atheist among those who drafted the Constitution? Deists, yes, but no atheists. Religion prompted the good that has been done, not secualrism. By your logic, atheism is even more detrimental to humanity than religion, as atheist regimes have killed over 50 million people in the last century alone.