Funny that's the same response I have for Crean
Looking for questions to ask a Bible study group.
- Thread starter ThreeToMakeTwo
- Start date
That's probably more likely as it was localized, but having travellers repeat those thoughts would only help verify their legitimacy. Also, the semi Hellenization of NW India by Alexander also probably played a part to develop those ideas there. So they may have a shared source in the ancient Greek philosophers. Of course they had their own local ideas that helped develop their religions but Hellenization had to have played a part. It wasn't until those Northern Kingdoms came into power that Buddhism came into being. Maybe a mixing of Hellenistic thought and Hinduism? All those ideas were traded back and forth.
There was a lot of information traded along those trade routes and trade between India and the West was extensive and started early in the civilized era. From the early Egyptian dynasties to the early Southern Indian Kingdoms by ship, and then from Middle Indian nations to Hellenic Asia, and from Northern India (and China), to the Romans through the silk trade and further through history.
India was, until the US came into power, and the Brits hijacked their sub continent to build their Empire, the wealthiest nation in the world for close to 3000 years and for the same reason the US is currently. Diversity in climate, resource and agriculture. During early history up to Britain conquering India, it's believed they held 1/3 of all the world's wealth.
I'm rambling ..... but ..... The only reason I mention that is that there's a direct link between wealth and the growth of philosophy. The wealthier the nation the greater chance of people doing nothing else but thinking. Example, the renaissance was first driven by riches and knowledge coming from the East and became a complete worldwide movement of knowledge from robbing the wealth of the New World and Africa, giving more people the benefit of time away from toil.
Thank you for this. I've recently been fighting the impulse to start believing the "Ancient Astronaut Theorists' " explanation of the origins of religion, and this helps a lot. (Just kidding just kidding.)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I'm leaning towards no.
Religion started in caves as an explanation for and easing the pains of death. It grew from there.
No really, yours was a good post.
On the other thing, I'll never forgive the history networks for publicizing the ancient astronaut idiots and their pseudoscience blathering.
Those are some really good thoughts. I think the idea that Buddhism may have roots in both Hellenic and Indian thought is well worth considering. And if those same ideas came back to the Near East during trade, you're right to think that their similarities would increase their power as confirming paradigms.
History and science on television is almost worthless today. You can still learn some things from Nova, and NatGeo does an okay job at times, but it's hit-and-miss.
I had given up on cable for a long time, shutting it off during the Mike Davis era and only picking it back up in Crean's fourth year. My favorite station previously was the history channel. when I came back I was shocked. What they did to it is shameful.
Serious question:
What kind of group is this? I need some context if you want genuine suggestions on what valuable and interesting topics might be.
Thanks.
fwiw - this is in part an extension of an ongoing argument I have with my GF. Her favorite historical figure is Alexander, whom she sees as a spreader of knowledge, a builder of cities and needed infrastructure, and the first builder of houses of knowledge. Her view is he was someone that was misunderstood, and was more beneficial to the world than most believe. And that the historical representation was from those who had suffered from his ideas. I see him as a paranoid, compensating, psychopath that was filled with dreams of God like glory. Most likely they are both correct, but one is more correct than the other and/or just a difference in POV.
This is where I get my view that most evil, in the political sense, isn't evil at all. Its' just a POV. True evil is the actions of insanity. And, I believe he was likely insane, or at the least a highly intelligent sociopath
It's always POV. Was the Dissolution of the Monasteries a theft by a despot determined to destroy the power of the Pope, or the first step in effecting a permanent transfer of power and wealth from the Church to the people? Both, obviously. Were Brutus and his cohorts genuinely fearful of the reemergence of a Roman monarchy, or were they simply protecting their aristocratic rights from a man who considered himself the champion of the common people? A mixture.
History is messy, always.
Any sumbitch that says "confirming paradigms" on the OTF oughta be beaten.
You have mentioned the Temple story a few times. Can you recommend a source to me? Something not too heavy. I'd like to learn something about it.
Jesus seals his fate by making the bankers at the Temple mad.
When you tell truth to or about the "special" class, you get in trouble.
He was a hippie. Anti government, anti bank, anti greed, free healthcare, fed the poor. So, he was on our side not yours. vbg This is one huge issue every Christian should have with the Americanized evangelical Republican version of Christianity, which has Christ rolling around with corporate supplied gold plated assault rifles on a dinosaur painted rebel red, separatist white, and confederate blue with the #3 on it's sides.
I have a question on Karma. What is it and is TMP wrong telling everyone they are using it in the wrong way
Karma-
.
karma
noun kar·ma \ˈkär-mə also ˈkər-\
: the force created by a person's actions that is believed in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine what that person's next life will be like
: the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person
karma
noun kar·ma \ˈkär-mə also ˈkər-\
: the force created by a person's actions that is believed in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine what that person's next life will be like
: the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person
Seems to me everyone is using "Karma" by definition correctly.
Can TMP admit he is wrong? I doubt it ... some hippie stoner definition is different.
FWIW ... I like TMP... Ilked him better as BIODTL ... but he's like Trump ... changing for the times.
Last edited:
I have one thing wrong. I screwed up the timeline. Buddhism or the beginnings of it started forming before Alexander went into Northern India. Around 450 to 500 BC. For some reason I was thinking 300 to 350 BC. Alexander didn't arrive until 320+ BC. So, Hellenic ideas probably couldn't have had as much of an effect, especially on the base foundations of the religion.
Yep ... your right. And I think sooner than later America will get that. Bernie is on a roll. Much like Obama in 2008. Hiliary is done. She is done. Nobody likes her. Feel the Bern.
Used properly, Karma focuses on a very subtle cause-and-effect. It's not simply, "Do bad things, and bad things will happen to you." Rather, it's more like, "Do things with bad intention, and they will tend to have bad results." It's hard to explain the difference, but I'd phrase it like this: Westerners tend to have this idea of Karma as a bank where you can deposit Good and withdraw it at a later date, but if you deposit Bad, eventually the banker is going to send it back to you. It's not as mechanical as that. A more Eastern way to imagine Karma would be simply to suggest that the best way to minimize suffering in the future is to think and behave properly. It's more of an abstract golden rule* than anything else.
I reserve the right to take any of this back if TMP, who probably understands Eastern thought quite a bit better than I do, tells me I f**ked it up**.
* Although, it's probably more accurate to compare it to the negative version of the GR, such as the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm none, do as ye will") than it is to compare it to the positive version found in Christianity ("Do unto others..."). In fact, the Wiccan Rede combined with the Threefold Law serves as a pretty good Western approximation of Karma, now that I think on it.
** For OS: that's supposed to be "forked."
Yeah, but Buddhism developed over the span of centuries, so I don't think it's crazy to suggest that Greek thought played a role. You do think Greek and Egyptian philosophy probably influenced Zoroastrianism, right? Cultural intercourse in that region has been going on for a long, long time.
That's the key trait that everyone misses. The next life. Which is after reincarnation. I am not freaking wrong, dork, I grew up as a Lutheran and Buddhist. My Mother is a Buddhist.
Also, there's no guarantees that you get "rewarded or punished", by our (western) values of reward and punishment. As good and bad is an ever changing POV and not a physical condition. Reward is learning and knowing. Punishment is continued ignorance. Suffering is needed for both.
Enlightenment is the goal. The ultimate reward is complete enlightenment. It's not good luck, or money, or fame, or getting laid, because you were nice to someone earlier in the day. that's what Americans think Karma is.
Americans use it in a Christian view of a magical arbitrator (like a God or leprechaun or Saata Claus) that punishes bad acts with bad things and rewards good actions with material things.. Who's to say what is good and bad? (see story below for a view of Eastern culture and thought that you sorely need). What is important is acting correctly regardless of which pov you choose.
Here's your cultural lesson. The reason you don't understand how wrong you are, is because you don't understand the culture of the religion or the people. Time for some enlightenment. btw - knowledge is the greatest gift one can give to another. So, learn something.
Oh, he's being an ass, no doubt. But he's right. It's really hard to explain. You probably need to sit down and take a couple of semester-long classes on Eastern philosophy and religion to really even be able to understand the difference. It's just a whole different way of thinking.
You're making yourself look foolish with your ignorance. Just sayin'. If you're gonna call someone an ass, you should know what the hell you're talking about and you obviously have no clue. You're applying Western cultural thoughts to Eastern philosophy and misunderstanding it so badly, it can only be called foolish. The foolish part isn't misunderstanding it, that's just ignorance. It's speaking from a position of complete ignorance that makes you a complete fool.
You are wasting your effort and your angst. Even smart people can't understand it unless they get at least some grounding in Eastern thought.
I owe Prof. Kevin Jaques from IUB (who was also a raging asshole) a lot. He was brilliant, and really knew how to teach us the basics on Eastern philosophy.
You are wasting your effort and your angst. Even smart people can't understand it unless they get at least some grounding in Eastern thought.
I owe Prof. Kevin Jaques from IUB (who was also a raging asshole) a lot. He was brilliant, and really knew how to teach us the basics on Eastern philosophy.
The best way to put it is that it's schooling from grades 0 to 12. Not that I believe in any of this but whatever..
You are born, all your actions and thoughts equal your Karma, basically a grade. if your grade is acceptable and you have come to certain fundamental and needed knowledges through correct action and thought, you graduate to the next grade, where you will gain more knowledge and so on, and so on. If your Karma is "bad", ie you did not learn, and committed incorrect thought and action, and you have not been enlightened enough, not have the needed grade, you repeat the grade.
Yea, that works .. there's no guarantees of happiness or end of suffering for good or bad grades, those are the thoughts of people who have been blackmailed by their God. Life is suffering.
Okay, well, I'm afraid I'm more of an ELCA guy. I think the Missouri Synod take on scripture is far too fundamentalist. So I'm not going to be able to give you advice on things that touch on, say, Biblical inerrancy, or the conflict of science and scripture. However, I could strongly recommend a series of discussions on the parables. These are lessons that transcend your particular brand of Lutheranism. They are quite universal. For example, ask you group to consider things like:
What does the parable of the Good Samaritan tell us about how to treat others?
What does the parable of the Prodigal Son tell us about the love of a parent (and God)?
Etc. The parables teach us lessons that transcend theology.
If your group is a little more open-minded and liberal, I could also make some suggestions on parts of the Bible to study from a more historical standpoint, which I think can lead to some really valuable insights, but requires you to take a more objective view of the text.
